[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42099-42111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17894]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 110207103-1113-01]
RIN 0648-BA80
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook
Salmon Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery; Economic
Data Collection
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement the Chinook Salmon Economic Data
Report Program to evaluate the effectiveness of Chinook salmon bycatch
management measures for the Bering Sea pollock fishery that were
implemented under Amendment 91 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP). The data collected for this program would be submitted by
members of the American Fisheries Act inshore, catcher/processor, and
mothership sectors, as well as representatives for the six western
Alaska Community Development Quota organizations that presently receive
allocations of Bering Sea pollock. The proposed rule is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.
DATES: Written comments must be received no later than August 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-
BA80, by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Fax: (907) 586-7557.
Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
All comments received are a part of the public record. Comments
will generally be posted without change. All Personal Identifying
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA), Categorical Exclusion, and
the four Paperwork Reduction Act Analyses (including Chinook salmon
Economic Data Report forms) prepared for this action may be obtained
from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site
at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, and by e-
mail to mailto: [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-
7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hartman or Patsy A. Bearden at
907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) in the
exclusive economic zone under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50
CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear
at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
This proposed rule would implement the Chinook Salmon Economic Data
Report (EDR) program for the Chinook salmon bycatch management measures
implemented under Amendment 91 to the FMP. The Chinook Salmon EDR
program applies to owners and operators of catcher vessels, catcher/
processors, motherships, and the six Western Alaska Community
Development Quota (CDQ) Program groups qualified to participate in the
pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) fishery in the Bering Sea subarea of
the BSAI. The proposed rule also applies to the representatives of
participants in the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
Background
AFA Sectors, Cooperatives, and CDQ Groups
NMFS manages the Bering Sea pollock fishery under the American
Fisheries Act (AFA) (16 U.S.C. 1851 note). The AFA ``rationalized'' the
Bering Sea pollock fishery in part by authorizing the formation and
management of fishery cooperatives in the three pollock sectors
(catcher/processor, mothership, and inshore). A portion of the Bering
Sea pollock fishery is managed by a separate CDQ program. The inshore
sector's pollock is subdivided among seven inshore cooperatives. The
purpose of these AFA cooperatives is to further subdivide each sector's
or inshore cooperative's pollock allocation among participants in the
sector or cooperative through private contractual agreements. The
cooperatives manage these allocations to ensure that individual vessels
and companies do not harvest more than their agreed upon share of
pollock. The cooperatives also facilitate transfers of pollock among
the cooperative members, enforce contract provisions, and are allowed
to participate in an intercooperative agreement to reduce salmon
bycatch. A more detailed description of AFA cooperatives and
intercooperative agreements may be found in the RIR/IRFA for this
proposed action (see ADDRESSES).
The total allowable catch (TAC) for Bering Sea pollock and
allocations to each of the AFA sectors and CDQ groups participating in
the Bering Sea pollock fishery are specified annually (see 75 FR 11749,
March 12, 2010 for 2010/2011 specifications). After the CDQ Program
allocation and allowance for incidental catch of pollock in other
fisheries is subtracted, NMFS allocates the remaining TAC to vessels
harvesting pollock for processing by inshore processors, vessels
harvesting pollock for processing by catcher/processors, and vessels
harvesting pollock for processing by motherships. Some
[[Page 42100]]
catcher vessels do not join an inshore cooperative. These CVs
participate in the inshore open-access fishery and so do not receive an
allocation of pollock. Each year, catcher vessels eligible to deliver
pollock to the seven AFA inshore processors may form inshore
cooperatives associated with a particular inshore processor. The AFA
catcher/processor sector consists of AFA-eligible vessels in the
Pollock Conservation Cooperative (PCC) and High Seas Catcher's
Cooperative (HSCC). The HSCC consists of owners of the catcher vessels
eligible to deliver pollock to the catcher/processors. NMFS issues an
annual allocation of pollock to the entire catcher/processor sector,
based on the aggregate of each vessel's pollock catch history.
The AFA mothership sector consists of three motherships and the
AFA-eligible catcher vessels that deliver pollock to these motherships.
The catcher vessels have formed a cooperative called the Mothership
Fleet Cooperative (MFC). The MFC sub-allocates the mothership sector
pollock allocation among the catcher vessels authorized to harvest this
pollock. NMFS does not manage the sub-allocations of pollock among
members of the PCC, HSCC, or MFC. The cooperatives control the harvest
by their member vessels so that the pollock allocation to the sector is
not exceeded. However, NMFS monitors pollock harvest by all members of
the catcher/processor sector and mothership sector. NMFS retains the
authority to close directed fishing by sector if vessels in that sector
continue to fish once the sector's seasonal allocation of pollock has
been harvested.
Chinook Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery
The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish that are harvested
in a commercial fishery but neither sold nor kept for personal use.
Chinook salmon is categorized as bycatch under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the BSAI FMP, and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part 679. Bycatch of
any species, including discard or other mortality caused by fishing, is
a concern of the Council and NMFS. National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act specifically requires the Council to select conservation
and management measures and that NMFS implement those measures to
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. Due
to the deployment methods used in large-scale trawl operations, Chinook
salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery is assumed to have 100
percent mortality.
Fishing vessels harvest pollock using pelagic (mid-water) trawl
gear, which consists of large nets towed through the water by the
vessel. At times, Chinook salmon and pollock occur in the same
locations in the Bering Sea. Consequently, Chinook salmon are
accidently caught in the nets as fishermen catch pollock; this
incidental catch is called bycatch.
The Bering Sea pollock fishery catches up to 95 percent of the
Chinook salmon taken incidentally as bycatch in the BSAI groundfish
fisheries. From 1992 through 2001, the average Chinook salmon bycatch
in the Bering Sea pollock fishery was 32,482 fish. Bycatch increased
substantially from 2002 through 2007, with an average of 74,067 Chinook
salmon per year caught during this period. A historic high of
approximately 122,000 Chinook salmon were taken in the Bering Sea
pollock fishery in 2007. However, Chinook salmon bycatch has declined
in recent years to 21,500 fish in 2008, 12,424 fish in 2009, and 12,195
fish in 2010.
Chinook salmon bycatch varies seasonally and by sector. In most
years, the majority of Chinook salmon bycatch occurs during the A
season of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The variation in bycatch
rates among sectors and seasons (A and B season) is due, in part, to
the different fishing practices, location of Chinook salmon, and
location of fishing effort for each sector to fully harvest their
pollock allocations in the A and B seasons.
As documented in the RIR/IRFA for this action (See ADDRESSES), AFA
pollock vessel operators and members of AFA sectors and cooperatives
are often unable to detect the location of Chinook salmon prior to
intercepting them while fishing for pollock. Some of the challenges to
minimizing Chinook salmon bycatch include:
Individual Chinook salmon are difficult to detect in the
water column with current sonar technology, prior to or during a haul
and retrieval of pollock trawl gear;
Chinook salmon migrate throughout many areas frequented by
pollock trawlers;
On the pollock fishing grounds, Chinook salmon bycatch
rates change for multiple reasons, including variation in the Chinook
salmon population strength and spatial and temporal migration through
the Bering Sea; and
Most actions taken to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch are
likely to be costly to participants in this fishery and difficult for
individual vessel operators to assess if voluntary efforts to avoid
Chinook salmon bycatch will result in a future benefit to themselves or
others.
Amendment 91 to the BSAI FMP
In January 2011, NMFS implemented Amendment 91 to the BSAI FMP to
manage Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
Amendment 91 combines limits on the amount of Chinook salmon that may
be caught incidentally with an Incentive Plan Agreement (IPA) and a
performance standard. This combination of measures is designed to
minimize bycatch to the extent practicable in all years and prevent
bycatch from reaching the limit in most years.
Under Amendment 91, NMFS allocates transferable Chinook salmon
prohibited species catch (PSC) to an entity representing the catcher/
processor sector, mothership sector, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ
groups participating in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The entity
representative administers any transfer of Chinook salmon PSC with the
representative of any other group that received transferable Chinook
salmon PSC. These transfers could occur between any qualifying sector,
inshore cooperative, or CDQ group, and must be approved by NMFS.
Chinook salmon PSC allocations may be further sub-allocated to members
of the sector or cooperative and may be exchanged among the members of
that sector or cooperative. NMFS does not monitor or account for these
sub-allocations and transfers of Chinook salmon PSC within a qualifying
sector or cooperative.
The requirements for receiving transferable Chinook salmon PSC, as
well as the amount of Chinook salmon PSC vary among sectors, inshore
cooperatives, or CDQ groups. If all members of the catcher/processor or
mothership sector form a single ``sector-level entity'' and join an IPA
that is approved by NMFS and meet other qualifications in Amendment 91,
that sector will receive an allocation of Chinook salmon PSC that is
based on that sector's proportional amount of 60,000 Chinook salmon.
The proposed rule for Amendment 91 provides a detailed explanation of
these requirements (75 FR 14016, March 23, 2010).
NMFS authorizes inshore cooperatives and the CDQ groups as entities
eligible to receive annual allocations on behalf of others. The
representative that receives Chinook salmon PSC for the inshore
cooperatives would be the same person named on the cooperative's annual
application for pollock allocations. An inshore cooperative or a CDQ
group must notify NMFS in writing if its representative for purposes of
Chinook salmon PSC
[[Page 42101]]
allocations is a different person. The CDQ groups are authorized under
section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to receive fishery
allocations from NMFS. The representative for a CDQ group would be its
chief executive officer.
PSC allocations are based on either a 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC
limit if some or all of the pollock industry participates in an
industry-developed IPA, or a lower limit of 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC
if industry does not form any IPAs.
Amendment 91 requires that each sector meet the terms of a
``performance standard,'' including a requirement to not exceed that
sector's portion of a lower limit for Chinook salmon PSC of 47,591
Chinook salmon in all but two of any seven consecutive years. The
Chinook salmon performance standard in Amendment 91 is intended to
encourage pollock vessels to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, even in
years when Chinook salmon bycatch is low.
A key component of Amendment 91 is the ability for fishery
participants to form IPAs and work together to avoid Chinook salmon
bycatch. An IPA is a private contract among vessel owners or CDQ groups
that establishes incentives for participants to avoid bycatch at all
levels of Chinook salmon abundance. The parties to an IPA must be
owners of AFA-eligible catcher vessels, catcher/processors, or
motherships, or the representatives of CDQ groups, and meet other
participation requirements.
Each IPA must have an IPA representative that is responsible for
submitting the IPA to NMFS for approval and submitting the IPA Annual
Report to the Council. The IPA representative must manage the bycatch
of participating vessels to keep total bycatch below the performance
standard for the sector in which the vessel participates.
Participation in an IPA is voluntary. Any vessel or CDQ group that
chooses not to participate in an IPA would be subject to a restrictive
opt-out cap or backstop that provides a maximum of 28,496 Chinook
salmon PSC. Any vessel or CDQ group that fishes under the backstop cap
would not be evaluated in an IPA Annual Report or included in annual
calculations of a sector's performance standard. These caps are
described in greater detail in the RIR/IRFA for this proposed action
(see ADDRESSES).
For the 2011 pollock fishery, three IPAs have been formed to
represent catcher/processors, catcher vessels delivering to inshore
processors, and catcher vessels delivering to motherships. A variety of
incentives is applied in each IPA and summarized in the RIR/IRFA for
this proposed action (see ADDRESSES). An IPA plan is required for each
IPA to describe the structure of the incentives or penalties for
reducing Chinook salmon PSC at the level of a sector, cooperative, or
individual vessel. Participants are required to demonstrate through an
IPA Annual Report that the vessel owners that are signatories to the
IPA are accomplishing the Council's intent that each vessel does its
best to avoid Chinook salmon at all times while fishing for pollock and
that collectively, bycatch is minimized in each year.
After implementing Amendment 91 and its performance standard,
allocation of transferable Chinook salmon PSC allocations, and the
formation of incentives developed in each IPA, the Council anticipates
the likelihood of the following responses from participants in the
pollock fishery:
Substantial changes in sector or cooperative plans and
agreements for distribution and use of Chinook salmon PSC;
Creation of a market for trading Chinook salmon PSC
between sectors and cooperatives and among their members and the joint
trading of sub-allocations of Chinook salmon PSC and pollock by
vessels;
Changes in the location and timing of fishing effort for
pollock and the bycatch of Chinook salmon;
Increase in cost of harvesting pollock; and
Reduction of the annual bycatch of Chinook salmon.
Current Data for Evaluating Amendment 91
IPA and IPA Annual Report
The IPA and IPA Annual Report were described and implemented in the
final rule for Amendment 91 (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010). These two
required documents, along with other existing data (e.g., catch
accounting and observer data) provide useful information for evaluating
some aspects of the effectiveness of Amendment 91.
The representative of each approved IPA is required to submit a
written IPA Annual Report to the Council for each year following the
year in which the IPA is first effective. Each IPA Annual Report is
intended to provide a qualitative evaluation and some quantitative
information on the effectiveness of the IPAs. Each IPA Annual Report
must describe--
The incentive measures in effect in the previous year;
How the incentive measures affected individual vessels;
Whether incentive measures were effective in achieving
Chinook salmon savings beyond levels that would have been achieved in
the absence of the incentive measures;
Any amendments to the terms of the IPA that were approved
by NMFS since the last annual report; and
The reasons that any amendments to the IPA plan were made.
The RIR for this action anticipates that the IPA and IPA Annual
Reports implemented may provide limited qualitative and quantitative
industry data on the effects of the Amendment 91 management measures
including--
Summaries of temporal and spatial shifts in effort
undertaken by the fleets;
Comparisons of Chinook salmon bycatch rates achieved by
vessels participating in an IPA versus any vessels not participating in
an IPA;
An overview of the use of new gear technologies;
Assessment of the effect of area closures for directed
pollock fishing or other restrictions required by an IPA; and
Descriptions of research undertaken to reduce Chinook
salmon bycatch.
AFA Annual Cooperative Report
At the beginning of each year, all AFA cooperatives must submit an
AFA Cooperative Report to the Council by April 1 of the following year,
detailing the activities of the cooperative for the previous year (50
CFR 679.61(f)). Each AFA Cooperative Report must include the
cooperative's allocated catch of pollock and sideboard species, actions
taken by the cooperative for vessels that exceeded their allowed catch
and bycatch in pollock and all sideboard fisheries, any sub-allocations
of pollock and sideboard species made by the cooperative to individual
vessels, total weight of pollock landed outside the State of Alaska on
a vessel-by-vessel basis, and the number of salmon taken by species and
season, including Chinook salmon.
AFA Cooperative Reports may contain some information for evaluating
Amendment 91. Specifically, the Council's purpose and need statement
identifies the need to evaluate how Amendment 91 affects ``where, when,
and how pollock fishing and salmon bycatch occur.'' The AFA Cooperative
Reports could provide helpful data for that element of the assessment.
For example, AFA Cooperative Reports could provide some explanation for
why fishing effort at the beginning of a pollock season or at some
other point in a season may have been lower, higher, or similar to a
previous season (and if
[[Page 42102]]
Amendment 91 caused any of the changes).
Limitations to IPA, IPA Annual Report, and AFA Cooperative Annual
Report for Evaluating Amendment 91
While IPAs, IPA Annual Reports, and AFA Cooperative Annual Reports
may contain information on the response of AFA sectors to Amendment 91,
the data are limited for evaluating the effectiveness of the incentives
and performance standards in Amendment 91. Some of the limitations are
as follows.
IPAs, IPA Annual Report, or AFA Cooperative Annual Report
data are not required to be reported in a specific or systematic
format, so the format may vary by each group submitting a report. As a
result, it is likely that data will not be sufficiently uniform and
consistent to provide reliable comparisons between two or more AFA
sectors, AFA cooperatives, or IPAs.
Except for the sector-level entity allocation and transfer
data provided by Amendment 91, the IPA Annual Report and AFA
Cooperative Annual Reports are not required to include tracking of sub-
allocations or transfers of Chinook salmon PSC that may occur among
participants in each sector. Additional information on transfers of
Chinook salmon PSC and pollock between members of a sector or
cooperative would assist in the evaluation of Amendment 91.
Prices of pollock and Chinook salmon PSC allocations and
transactions could be helpful in evaluating Amendment 91. The market
value of PSC allocations reflects its expected value to the pollock
fishery. However, neither IPA Annual Reports nor AFA Cooperative Annual
Reports presently require that each transaction between a person buying
and selling Chinook salmon PSC be recorded with a corresponding price.
Amendment 91 does not require reporting information in the
IPA Annual Report or AFA Cooperative Annual Reports to track how costs
may vary by vessel under the new program. It would be helpful to have
data on certain operating costs, such as how the amount of fuel and
cost of fuel used by AFA vessels operating in the Bering Sea pollock
fishery would change under the various IPAs.
Catch Accounting and Observer Data
The two primary sources of information used to account for pollock
harvests and salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery are
onboard and shoreside observer information and industry-reported data
on catch and processed product amounts. Both sources are electronically
recorded and submitted to NMFS.
Catch accounting and observer data provide analysts with
information on the amount, date and location of pollock catch and
Chinook salmon bycatch. This information would assist with verification
of qualitative information, submitted by industry in the IPA Annual
Reports on how Amendment 91 has altered pollock catch and Chinook
salmon bycatch.
In 2005, NMFS implemented an interagency electronic reporting
system with its data entry component, eLandings, for the catch
accounting system to reduce reporting redundancy and consolidate
fishery landings reported to three different agencies. All vessels in
the Bering Sea pollock fishery are required to report all groundfish
landings, discard, and production through a web-based interface known
as eLandings. There is also a stand-alone application (SeaLandings)
available for the vessels fishing and processing catch at sea (the at-
sea fleet). The at-sea fleet submits eLandings files via e-mail. The
eLandings software provides managers with real-time access to
individual vessel information, including individual pollock vessel
catch and bycatch and unused amounts of allocated pollock and Chinook
salmon PSC. Each industry report submitted via eLandings undergoes
error checking by NMFS. Data are then stored in a database and are made
available to management staff at NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. There are two basic eLandings report types used for catch
estimation: Production reports and landing reports.
In addition to electronic catch reporting for the AFA pollock
fishery, the trawl gear catcher vessel daily fishing log (DFL) is a
required paper log used to record trawl groundfish discard and
disposition data by haul and location. A trawl catcher vessel
delivering groundfish to a shoreside processor, stationary floating
processor, or mothership, is required to submit a DFL to the shoreside
processor, stationary floating processor, or mothership. Any discard
and disposition information submitted by a trawl catcher vessel in the
DFL to a shoreside processor, stationary floating processor or
mothership, must also be reported by the shoreside processor,
stationary floating processor or mothership in eLandings.
Observer data are also used in the catch accounting system; and a
multi-stage sampling design is used to sample the species composition
of the catch, length distribution of select species, and other catch
components. Observer data collected on vessels in the Bering Sea
pollock fishery are transmitted electronically to a NMFS database. This
database contains all data collected by observers at processing plants
and onboard vessels, including fishing locations, groundfish and non-
target catch, catch composition, length frequencies, age structures,
and salmon PSC (including Chinook salmon PSC). Observer data are merged
with industry reports nightly and are available to fishery managers the
following day.
For catcher/processors and catcher vessels delivering pollock to
motherships, observer data combined with each vessel's eLandings
landing report may be used to analyze a variety of effects, including--
Comparisons of Chinook salmon bycatch rates of vessels
fishing in different areas during the same period of time or similar
areas at different periods of time;
Comparisons of percentages of the TAC harvested at times
of relatively high or low Chinook salmon encounter rates; and
Trends in rates and variation of Chinook salmon bycatch by
vessel type and location week or season, and across cooperatives,
sectors, or the entire AFA fleet.
Limitations to the Use of Catch Accounting and Observer Data for
Evaluating Amendment 91
While tracking periodic trends in Chinook salmon bycatch may offer
insights to the effectiveness of Amendment 91, catch and observer data
would need to be augmented by other supporting data to evaluate whether
Amendment 91 incentives have caused a given change in Chinook salmon
bycatch. For example, a decrease in bycatch rates may be the result of
either a decrease in Chinook salmon abundance on the fishing grounds or
may be caused by a change in fishing behavior where the fleet is
intentionally avoiding Chinook salmon bycatch because of a regulatory
or industry incentive to avoid bycatch. Catch accounting and observer
data do not provide quantitative or qualitative information to identify
effects of Amendment 91 incentives.
For catcher vessels delivering shoreside to a stationary floating
processor or mothership, all groundfish catch and Chinook salmon PSC is
accounted for at the time of landing. Because catcher vessels
delivering shoreside or to a stationary floating processor may trawl in
several locations before delivering to a processor, it is not possible
to verify the amount of
[[Page 42103]]
Chinook salmon bycatch in each haul. Attempts to apportion Chinook
salmon bycatch to a specific trawl catcher vessel haul using vessel
monitoring system (VMS) or other data are subject to error. This data
limitation may complicate efforts to attribute a change in Chinook
salmon bycatch by a trawl catcher vessel to a specific incentive
designed to reduce Chinook salmon bycatch. For example, the effect of
an IPA penalty for a catcher vessel that exceeded a predetermined
Chinook salmon bycatch rate in a specific statistical area may be
difficult to assess if the catcher vessel is deploying trawl gear on
consecutive hauls inside and outside that statistical area and during
the same fishing trip. Because catcher vessels delivering to
motherships are required to deliver catch from a single unsorted haul
to a mothership, some accounting of Chinook salmon bycatch by haul and
location of catch may be possible, thus improving the prospects for
tracking the effects of some Chinook salmon bycatch incentives.
Determining the amount of Chinook salmon bycatch in each catcher/
processor haul is more straightforward than is to determine for each
catcher vessel haul. Each catcher/processor is currently required to
provide a continuous census accounting of Chinook salmon bycatch at
sea. For example, each haul must be observed, and all salmon are
removed and counted at the flow scale. The haul start and end times and
location of each haul are recorded by the observer and the validated
with VMS. The combination of this location data and haul-by-haul catch
accounting allows for Chinook salmon bycatch to be accurately recorded.
Even for catcher/processors, however, catch accounting and observer
data alone will not explain which bycatch incentives for each sector or
cooperative may have affected the amount of bycatch by time and
location. For example, catch accounting data, by itself, would not
verify if an operator of a catcher/processor or catcher vessel
transited to new fishing grounds to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch.
Various factors such as weather, time, area encounters with Chinook
salmon, or market prices for pollock could easily have influenced the
movements and fishing effort by a vessel, and its rate of Chinook
salmon bycatch.
New Data Collection for Evaluating Amendment 91
Introduction
In December 2009, the Council recommended revisions of two existing
recordkeeping and reporting collections and requirements for three new
data surveys/reports to improve the quality and quantity of data to
assess the effectiveness of Amendment 91. NMFS proposes to collect
information on vessel movements on the fishing grounds and information
on pollock allocations, sub-allocations, and transfers between members
in an AFA cooperative through revisions to the existing IPA Annual
Report and AFA Cooperative Annual Report requirements. These new data
requirements are described below in the section entitled: Revisions to
Existing Collections for Chinook Salmon EDR Program. The three new EDR
surveys/reports recommended by the Council are collectively referred to
as the Chinook Salmon EDR, and are described below in the section
titled: New Collection of Economic Data.
The new proposed Reports/Surveys are--
Chinook Salmon PSC Allocation Compensated Transfer Report
(CTR);
Vessel Fuel Survey; and
Vessel Master Survey.
NMFS will use the revised and new data to conduct analyses that
include descriptive analysis and quantitative and qualitative
comparisons of the annual and seasonal, changes in the pollock fleet
under Amendment 91. Examples of some of the potential analyses with
these data are described in the RIR/IRFA for this action (See
ADDRESSES).
Proposed Revisions to Existing Collections for Chinook Salmon EDR
Program
To implement the Chinook salmon EDR program, NMFS would revise
existing recordkeeping and recording requirements to add data on
movement of vessels in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to avoid Chinook
salmon bycatch and data on transfers of Chinook salmon PSC and pollock
to the IPA Annual Report.
The following documents would be amended for purposes of
supplementing information for the Chinook salmon EDR:
IPA Annual Report;
AFA Cooperative Report;
Catcher Vessel Trawl Gear Groundfish Daily Fishing Logbook
(DFL);
Catcher/processor Trawl Gear Electronic Logbook (ELB); and
eLandings landing report.
Revisions to the IPA Annual Report
The IPA Annual Report would be revised to include requirements to
submit information on the sub-allocation of Chinook salmon PSC and
pollock to each participating vessel at the start of each fishing
season, and the number of Chinook salmon PSC and amount of pollock
caught at the end of a season. These revisions would also require
submission of information on transfers of Chinook salmon PSC regardless
of whether the transfers were ``compensated'' transfers.
While NMFS currently approves and tracks initial allocation and
transfers of Chinook salmon PSC among the catcher/processor sector,
mothership sector, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ groups under Amendment
91, this proposed action would require each IPA representative to
report additional sub-allocations or transfers of Chinook salmon PSC
within a sector-level entity or cooperative. NMFS would require a
record of these sub-allocations and transfers of pollock between
members of a sector or an inshore cooperative in the IPA Annual Report.
NMFS anticipates that the parties to an IPA or the IPA representative
will be informed of the number and amounts of Chinook salmon PSC
transferred among parties to each IPA. Though NMFS will maintain a
record of all initial allocations and transfers from entities
authorized to receive Chinook salmon PSC, NMFS anticipates that the
representative for an IPA may report some of those same allocation and
transfer amounts in the IPA Annual Report to facilitate the accounting
of sub-allocations to vessels and transfers between the members of an
IPA.
Proposed Revisions to AFA Cooperative Report
NMFS would relocate the requirement for submitting some pollock
catch data from the AFA Cooperative Annual Report to the IPA Annual
Report, to provide a single location for Chinook salmon and pollock
data on initial allocation, sub-allocations, NMFS-approved Chinook
salmon PSC transfers, internal cooperative or sector-level entity
Chinook salmon PSC transfers, and catch by season and year for each
catcher vessel, catcher/processor, or mothership participating in an
IPA. Pollock would be removed from the requirement at Sec.
679.61(f)(2)(ii) to submit in the AFA Cooperative Annual Report the
cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of pollock, sideboard
species, and PSC on an area-by-area and vessel-by-vessel basis.
However, if members of an AFA cooperative elected to move all the
allocations and sub-allocations, and transferred, retained and
discarded catch of pollock and Chinook salmon PSC listed at Sec.
679.21(f)(13)(ii)(E) and (f)(13)(ii)(F) to the AFA Cooperative
[[Page 42104]]
Annual Report, they would no longer need to report that data in the IPA
Annual Report. If the members of an AFA inshore cooperative, mothership
sector level entity, or catcher/processor sector level entity are not
the same as the parties to an IPA for each AFA inshore cooperative,
mothership sector-level entity, or catcher/processor sector level
entity, then NMFS anticipates that all the data at Sec.
679.21(f)(13)(ii)(E) would be included in the AFA Cooperative Annual
Report under Sec. 679.61(f)(2)(vii).
Proposed Revisions to eLandings, Daily Fishing Log, and ELB for
Reporting Change in Location on Fishing Grounds
Revisions are proposed to various existing catch and production
reports to require additional data describing the reasons that AFA
vessels change locations in the CDQ and non-CDQ pollock fishery to
avoid Chinook salmon bycatch. The proposed revisions would be:
Whenever the operator of an AFA catcher vessel chooses to
move the vessel primarily to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, the operator
would indicate each change in location for any haul by checking a
vessel movement box in the trawl gear DFL.
Whenever the operator of an AFA catcher/processor chooses
to move the vessel primarily to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, the
operator would indicate each change in location for any haul by
checking a vessel movement box in the catcher/processor trawl gear ELB.
Whenever the operator of an AFA mothership receives
notification that an AFA catcher vessel delivering pollock moved the
vessel to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, the operator would indicate
each change in location for any haul by checking a vessel movement box
in the eLandings landing report.
Proposed New Economic Data Collections
Each of the three proposed surveys/reports--the Chinook Salmon CTR,
the Vessel Fuel Survey, and Vessel Master Survey--would be available in
a fillable electronic format on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site.
Persons responsible for submitting each of the three EDR data survey/
reports differ based on the requirements listed in each form, but would
include vessel owners, vessel leaseholders, or vessel masters of AFA
vessels. Submitters would also include representatives for or
participants in an AFA catcher/processor or mothership sector, inshore
cooperative, the inshore open access fishery, CDQ groups, or parties to
an IPA. Each of the forms would be submitted annually to NMFS or the
NMFS-designated data collection agent by June 1, based on fishing
conducted in the previous fishing year. For example, data from fishing
in the 2012 Bering Sea pollock season would be submitted to the NMFS-
designated data collection agent in the fillable Chinook salmon EDR
forms by June 1, 2013.
Chinook Salmon PSC Allocation Compensated Transfer Report (CTR)
All persons who conducted a Chinook salmon PSC transfer that was
paid for with an exchange of money (called a compensated transfer)
would be required to submit an annual CTR detailing the quantity and
amount paid for each compensated transfer. The persons conducting these
transfers of Chinook salmon PSC would be an owner or leaseholder of an
AFA-permitted vessel, or a representative for an AFA cooperative,
sector-level entity, or CDQ group.
Each transfer would be identified as either an independent transfer
of Chinook salmon PSC for monetary compensation or a transfer with a
portion of the transfer that includes monetary compensation and a
portion of the transfer that did not include monetary compensation.
Each transfer would be identified as to type as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction type Transaction description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Between 2 entities which are
affiliated as defined by AFA.
2................................. Between 2 entities in the same
cooperative but not affiliated as
defined by AFA.
3................................. Between 2 entities in the same
sector but not affiliated as
defined by AFA or in the same
cooperative.
4................................. Between 2 entities not part of the
same sector or cooperative, or
affiliated as defined by AFA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CTR would require each transfer of Chinook salmon PSC to
include the transferor and transferee names, along with the NMFS
identifier (NMFS person ID), date of the transfer, the amount
transferred, and the price of the monetary compensated transfer. A
Chinook salmon PSC transfer that did not involve monetary compensation,
but had some form of compensation, would be indicated on the form, but
without an estimate of transfer prices.
The purpose of the proposed CTR would be to account for Chinook
salmon PSC transfers and the amount of money exchanged for transfers
between AFA vessel owners and other entities transferring Chinook
salmon PSC. NMFS would examine data reported for each transaction and
compare the amount of Chinook salmon PSC transferred in each
transaction, number of transactions by vessel type (sector and AFA
cooperative), and time intervals of the transfers in a season or year.
Also, this data would allow for tabulation of the average and variation
in price paid for transactions by vessel operation type, sector, and
AFA cooperative.
Vessel Fuel Survey
After each calendar year, each owner of an AFA-permitted vessel
catching CDQ or non-CDQ pollock in the Bering Sea would submit to NMFS
the Vessel Fuel Survey to report annual fuel use and cost in the Bering
Sea pollock fishery. The owner would include identifying information on
the certification page of the report, including a NMFS person ID. The
Vessel Fuel Survey, which would be submitted by June 1 of the following
year, would include average annual hourly fuel burned while fishing and
transiting and annual fuel purchases in cost per gallon. Each of these
values would be combined with other NMFS data (such as VMS and observer
data reports) to estimate the costs of moving vessels to avoid Chinook
salmon bycatch (including the fuel use during trawling, transit between
trawls, and lost fishing time).
Vessel Master Survey
The proposed new Vessel Master Survey would be a qualitative
assessment survey that would pose a series of questions to elicit
vessel operator input on factors that impacted the vessel's performance
during the year. The Vessel Master Survey would be conducted at the end
of each fishing year. The owner of each AFA-permitted vessel would be
responsible for submitting the Vessel Master Survey to NMFS on behalf
of any person who is an operator, vessel master, or skipper of an AFA-
permitted vessel. The owner of the AFA-permitted vessel would be
required to verify that each person listed
[[Page 42105]]
on the Certification page for this form is a master of the AFA-
permitted vessel.
The intent of the Vessel Master Survey would be to identify the
purpose for decision-making during the pollock season with respect to
fishing location choices, Chinook salmon bycatch incentives, and
availability or costs of accessing Chinook salmon PSC allocations. The
survey would be designed to obtain operator responses to conditions on
the fishing grounds to gain information regarding the effect of IPAs
and Chinook salmon bycatch measures on decision-making. The nine
questions in the Vessel Master Survey would collect operator
assessments of the past year's fishing performance regarding the causes
for bycatch avoidance, factors impacting Chinook salmon bycatch rates,
and the influence of the IPAs and AFA cooperatives on fishing and
Chinook salmon bycatch avoidance behaviors.
Audit Procedure for Chinook Salmon EDR
NMFS would develop measures to verify data accuracy of the Chinook
salmon EDR program. These measures would help NMFS to verify data
submitted in the CTR, the Vessel Master Survey, and the Vessel Fuel
Survey. The principal means to verify data and resolve questions would
be through validation of data submitted in these three surveys against
supporting records. NMFS staff would contact the EDR submitter and
request confirmation of data submissions. The person submitting the EDR
would need to respond within 20 days of the NMFS information request.
Responses after 20 days would be considered untimely and may result in
a violation and enforcement action.
For verification of the CTR form, NMFS could request any person who
conducted a monetary compensated transfer of Chinook salmon PSC at
Sec. 679.65(b)(1) and (b)(2) to submit additional data to facilitate
verification by NMFS and respond to additional questions. This could
occur in instances where a random audit occurs or an audit is otherwise
justified for the CTR. To carry out these audits, NMFS may retain under
contract a designated data collection auditor (DDCA) who would be a
professional auditor/accounting specialist, and who would review the
data submitted in the EDR. The DDCA also could request financial
documents substantiating the data submitted in the EDR. The DDCA would
be subject to strict confidentiality requirements.
Uses of Data Collected Under This Proposed Rule
New data required from industry to complete the IPA Annual Report,
Trawl Catcher Vessel DFL and ELB, and forms for the CTR, Vessel Fuel
Survey, and Vessel Master Survey would increase the amount and type of
data that NMFS and the Council use to analyze the effects of Amendment
91. This analysis of effects with new EDR data is intended to focus on
the behavioral impacts of Amendment 91 to participants in the Bering
Sea pollock fishery and potential changes in Chinook salmon bycatch.
Specifically, applying these multiple data sources along with other
NMFS data could provide insight into one or more of the following
elements:
The effects and impacts of the Amendment 91 IPAs, the PSC
limits, and the performance standard;
The effectiveness of the IPA incentives in times of high
and low levels of Chinook salmon bycatch;
The effectiveness of the performance standard to reduce
Chinook salmon bycatch; and
How Amendment 91 affects where, when, and how pollock
fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur.
Additional information collected by this proposed action in the IPA
Annual Report would provide quantitative and qualitative data on
Chinook salmon and pollock sub-allocations and transfers. If the
quantitative transfer and allocation data are submitted in a uniform
and comparable manner for each IPA, analysis in conjunction with IPA
Annual Report data could include descriptive statistics on the pollock
and Chinook salmon bycatch, allocations, and transfers between
participants in each of the above groups. This information could be
displayed by season or annually, and if useful, data could be pooled
over multiple years.
The additional Chinook salmon PSC transfer data in IPA reports may
provide information about changes in fishing practices or the
effectiveness of IPAs to reduce bycatch. For example, if IPA Report
data provide a record of many pollock transfers to vessels with low
Chinook salmon bycatch rates, this record of transfers may suggest that
vessels with poor bycatch performance have an incentive to reduce their
participation in the fishery in years of high bycatch. In addition,
observations of the number of transfers to vessels that are approaching
their individual share of the Chinook salmon PSC cap could help verify
if PSC transferability contributes to a higher yield of pollock.
Finally, if a portion of the vessels that are party to an IPA are
prohibited by the agreement from fishing in valuable pollock areas of
the Bering Sea, Chinook salmon PSC may be transferred to or away from
vessels that continue to have access to those fishing areas. Some of
these behavioral responses may be correlated with a particular
incentive in a manner that could aid in the assessment of the
effectiveness of Amendment 91.
NMFS would not require that new data in each IPA Annual Report be
submitted in a structured format. For example, the proposed allocation
and transfer data would be provided by each vessel, but could be
displayed in a table or narrative format, or in a manner that is
difficult to compare quantities of an allocation or transfer between
parties in more than one IPA. Therefore, for each IPA Annual Report,
IPA performance information may not be uniformly comparable, which
could create consistency issues when comparing information between IPAs
and could limit any statistical analysis with IPA Annual Report data.
Thus, there may be analytical limits to the potential usefulness of
this data for statistical analysis.
NMFS would use the proposed Bering Sea vessel movement information
(denoting when a Bering Sea pollock vessel moved to avoid Chinook
salmon bycatch prior to a haul) to compare Chinook salmon bycatch
avoidance by vessel, and by vessel characteristics. Chinook salmon
bycatch rates by vessel could be merged with the movement data by
vessel to assess how bycatch rates change for each vessel prior to and
following a change in fishing location. Vessel movement data combined
with other management data, such as NMFS seasonal opening and closing
dates or IPA-directed openings and closings of selected pollock fishing
areas may assist in differentiating a vessel's voluntary movements to
leave a groundfish statistical area to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch or
movements that are required by IPA agreements. That information could
contribute to evaluating how Amendment 91 affects where, when, and how
pollock fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur. The industry-reported
vessel movement data may be helpful for evaluating assumptions in
statistical models that combine catch by location, VMS, and other data
to explain the reasons or tradeoffs for a specific set of moves and
fishing choices. That information could also assist with assessing
conclusions drawn by industry in the IPA Annual Reports.
Differences in the willingness of individual vessels to move from
areas with high Chinook salmon bycatch and to search for areas with
lower bycatch
[[Page 42106]]
rates may reflect differences in the incentives created by an IPA.
Alternatively, upon examination, these data and other information
provided by cooperatives may reflect the amount of central coordination
of fishing by area and time a cooperative applies to each member of the
cooperative. While movement data are subjective, the data is intended
to provide a better understanding of each vessel operator's perception
of factors that impacted fishing decisions and are likely to provide
information for NMFS and the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of
IPAs and Amendment 91.
With new data from the CTRs and proposed revisions to the IPA
Annual Reports, it would be possible to enumerate the number of
potential trades of Chinook salmon by date and season as well as by
vessel owner, leaseholder, or another party that did or did not
participate in compensated Chinook salmon PSC transfers. The timing and
patterns of the transfer data in comparison with the specific IPAs in
effect by date, sector, and AFA cooperative, will potentially help to
assess the value of Chinook salmon PSC in each year and how the IPAs
may have impacted the value of PSC. Thus, if a large number of accurate
monetary transfers are observed, NMFS may develop some insights on the
two elements of the effects of certain incentives included in the IPAs,
and the performance standard. Potential sources of bias in monetary
transfers are explained below.
The proposed CTR data may help to verify some of the industry-
reported information in the contracts and agreements for allocating
Chinook salmon PSC within and among AFA sectors and cooperatives
included in IPA Annual Reports and AFA Cooperative Reports. This will
assist in understanding the overall effects and impacts of Amendment
91, by permitting transactions reported in other industry-reported
sources to be compared to and reconciled with the transactions reported
in the CTR.
If a sufficient number of Chinook salmon PSC transfers are reported
in the CTR and if they are considered to be representative of actual
transfer practices, this data should assist in determining the
distribution of Chinook salmon PSC allocations and transfers in-season
and over multiple years. When combined with additional data on entity
affiliations the CTR could assist in determining if prices exchanged
represent independent and arms-length transactions or if the prices are
merely accounting measures within affiliated entities.
Where quantitative EDR program data is collected at the level of an
individual vessel, merging data by vessel from multiple data sources
may assist in estimating the costs associated with bycatch incentives.
For example, data on the intra-sector or intra-cooperative allocations
of PSC may be combined with data on Chinook salmon PSC and pollock
transfers, to show the distribution and amounts of pollock and Chinook
salmon PSC exchanged among vessels in a season. Travel costs of those
vessels (see analysis of fuel data below) to avoid Chinook salmon
bycatch, along with the prices reported for PSC transactions may be
compared with the specific incentives in place for each vessel to gauge
some of the costs of specific incentives.
Because a completed CTR is not expected to include all sources of
compensation for Chinook salmon PSC transfers (prices are restricted to
monetary compensated transfers) that is likely to limit the application
of this data for analysis. For example, it is possible that operators
of vessels or the representatives submitting the CTR will not use
unpaired or independent monetary transactions to exchange Chinook
salmon PSC. If the CTR respondents find it to be more efficient to
bundle all or nearly all Chinook salmon transactions with pollock or
other items of value, they may submit very few transactions or prices
of Chinook salmon PSC. Also, if each independent Chinook salmon PSC
transfer consists of both a monetary transfer component and a non-
monetary transfer component, these observations may be less useful.
Further, persons reporting data on Chinook salmon PSC transactions
could intentionally bundle monetary and non-monetary transfers to
obscure an observation of a compensated transfer. The possibility
exists that these reporting constraints and potential reasons for
biasing data submitted in the CTR would result in a sufficiently low
number of reported transactions to significantly reduce the value of
these data for examining Chinook salmon PSC prices. Non-monetary
compensation is not included in the CTR or elsewhere in the EDR
program, as the cost of collecting this data with sufficient accuracy
and detail to allow for estimating an equivalent monetary value would
be cost prohibitive [see CLASSIFICATION for more information].
Analyses of data from the Vessel Fuel Survey may range from basic
comparisons of estimated fuel costs of fishing and transiting by vessel
operation type or other vessel characteristic, to quantitative or
statistical estimates of the fuel costs for Chinook salmon bycatch
avoidance from specific salmon bycatch incentives. The data would allow
for estimates of fuel used by a vessel when moving to areas with higher
or lower areas of bycatch. NMFS has no other data on fuel consumption
or average fuel price on a vessel-by-vessel basis for this fishery to
address this question. Especially during periods of high Chinook salmon
bycatch, these data may be used to estimate transit costs when vessels
move to avoid areas where high Chinook salmon bycatch has been
reported. The estimation could be accomplished by merging data from the
Vessel Fuel Survey with other available data, including observer
reports, VMS data, catch accounting, movement data, and IPA and AFA
Cooperative Annual Reports to assess changes in fuel consumption when
vessels move from areas of high or low Chinook salmon bycatch. Thus,
these data would be useful for understanding the variation in fuel
usage for some activities, which can aid in assessing fuel costs more
generally in the fishery.
Variation in vessel fuel costs among vessels could affect the
response of certain vessels to incentives or disincentives for avoiding
Chinook salmon. For example, if it is less expensive for vessels with
lower travel costs to travel farther to reach clean fishing grounds,
those vessels may be more likely to engage in increased transiting
activity between fishing locations. NMFS may examine vessel response to
Chinook salmon encounter rates to determine whether these operational
differences are affected by variations in fuel-based travel costs
between vessels, which in turn may have implications for the
effectiveness of some incentives developed in an IPA. NMFS could use
these findings to assess the effects of Chinook salmon bycatch
incentives and other questions listed in the purpose and need for this
action, such as how Amendment 91 affects where, when, and how pollock
fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur.
The proposed new Vessel Master Survey is designed to solicit
subjective responses to questions on the decision-making process
applied for avoiding Chinook salmon bycatch when fishing for pollock
under Amendment 91. Part of the utility of these questions would be to
allow for comparison of the subjective information in each response
with other observed changes in fishing behavior and Chinook salmon
bycatch. Where possible, NMFS will examine the effect of the behavioral
influences reported in this survey in greater detail and corroborate
the responses with
[[Page 42107]]
other data sources, such as observer data, VMS data, and catch
accounting data.
The response to questions on bycatch avoidance may provide insight
as to how IPAs affect fishing behavior, when catch accounting and other
data are limited. For example, because Chinook salmon bycatch data
cannot be attributed to each trawl catcher vessel's haul, which limits
the usefulness of bycatch data to assess specific incentives, the
qualitative responses in the Vessel Master Survey may provide vessel
master assessments as to how IPA incentives impacted trawl catcher
vessel avoidance of Chinook salmon bycatch.
The Chinook salmon EDR program is also intended to assess the
accuracy of conclusions drawn by industry in the IPA Annual Report.
Analysis of Vessel Master Survey data may contribute to some
qualitative comparisons of a vessel master's response to these
questions and information provided in industry IPA Annual Reports.
Utilizing a vessel master's self-reported experiences and comparing
that with current catch and VMS data available to NMFS should improve
the opportunities for analysts to consider fishermen's experiences in
formulating assessments of the Amendment 91 program.
Proposed Regulatory Amendments
Definitions
Section 679.2 would be revised by adding a definition of designated
data collection auditor (DDCA) to apply to the use of a DDCA under
Sec. 679.65(e).
Vessel Movement Data
NMFS proposes to modify existing regulations to collect data
indicating a change of fishing location primarily to avoid Chinook
salmon bycatch.
Section 679.5(c)(4)(vi) describes catch-by-haul information
required in the trawl gear catcher vessel DFL and the catcher/processor
trawl Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (DCPL). A new paragraph
(c)(4)(vi)(I) would be added to request the operator of a trawl gear
catcher vessel to indicate each time the vessel moved to avoid Chinook
salmon in the trawl gear catcher vessel DFL.
Section 679.5(e)(6) describes requirements for a mothership landing
report. The eLandings mothership landing report would be revised to
require the operator of a mothership to record vessel movement data
provided by the trawl catcher vessel directed fishing for pollock in
the Bering Sea and delivering to the mothership. Section
679.5(e)(6)(i)(A)(12) would be added to require the operator of a
mothership to indicate whether prior to a haul, the operator of the
catcher vessel using trawl gear moved its fishing location primarily to
avoid Chinook salmon bycatch.
NMFS created a catcher/processor ELB that interfaces with
eLandings. The catcher/processor trawl gear ELB will allow NMFS to
determine any differences between movement related to avoidance of
Chinook salmon and other vessel movement by identifying any tow prior
to a move that is due primarily to Chinook salmon avoidance. Section
679.5(f)(1)(vii) would be revised to require that data on vessel
movement to avoid Chinook salmon be entered into the catcher/processor
ELB.
Section 679.5(f)(2)(ii), which describes the use of a DFL or DCPL
as backup for the ELB in the event of a computer or ELB failure, would
be replaced with text that provides general instructions to contact
NMFS Inseason Management, when the Internet fails. This general
instruction is necessary to assure a reasonable response to delays in
transmission of commercial fishery information, including the movement
of vessels to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch in the ELB.
Section 679.5(f)(7) describes the transmission of data in the ELB.
There are two distinct methods and time limits for data transmission
for the catcher vessel and the catcher/processor using an ELB. This
introductory text would be removed to avoid duplicating text that
follows in the distinct paragraphs.
Paragraph (f)(7)(i) would be corrected by revising the heading to
read ``Catcher/processors'' because it pertains only to catcher/
processors, not motherships. In addition, the transmission method would
be corrected to read ``online,'' not ``email attachment.''
Paragraph (f)(7)(ii) would be corrected by adding a heading to read
``Catcher vessels'' to maintain format for parallel headings with
paragraph (f)(7)(i) and replace the word ``export'' with ``transfer''
to provide a more exact term.
Prohibited Species Bycatch Management
Paragraph (f)(12)(vii) in Sec. 679.21 would be redesignated as
paragraphs (f)(13)(i) through (f)(13)(ii)(F) to reduce the number of
paragraph-levels used under (f)(12). Paragraph (f)(13)(ii)(E) would
describe requirements for data submittal on sub-allocations, transfers,
and catch of pollock and Chinook salmon PSC in the IPA Annual Report.
Section 679.61(f)(2)(ii) would be revised to remove pollock from
information required as this requirement is redundant with the
reporting requirement in paragraph (f)(13)(ii)(E).
Section 679.61(f)(2)(vii) would be added to provide that AFA
cooperatives report pollock and Chinook salmon PSC allocation and catch
in the AFA annual cooperative report or in the IPA Annual Report, as
also provided in Sec. 679.21(f)(13)(ii)(E).
Chinook Salmon EDR
Section 679.65 would be added to describe the Chinook salmon EDR
and the forms used to collect economic data for the Chinook salmon
bycatch management program. In addition, an audit procedure for the
Chinook salmon EDR would be added, including the use of a DDCA as
defined under Sec. 679.2.
Classification
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description
of the action, the reasons why it is being considered, and a statement
of the objectives of and the legal basis for this action are included
at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY
section of the preamble. A summary of the remainder of the IRFA
follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
The directly regulated entities for this proposed action are those
members of the commercial fishing industry that participate in the
directed pollock trawl fishery in the Bering Sea. These entities
include the AFA-affiliated pollock fleet and the six CDQ groups that
receive allocations of Bering Sea pollock. Under a conservative
application of the Small Business Administration criteria and the best
available data, six small entities out of an estimated 122 respondents
are eligible to submit the transfer report (Table 1). To provide these
estimates of the number of non-CDQ AFA-affiliated pollock entities that
were not small, earnings from all Alaskan fisheries for 2010 were
matched with the vessels that participated in the AFA-affiliated
pollock fleet for that year.
[[Page 42108]]
Table 1--Summary of Small and Large Entities for Regulatory Flexibility Act Purposes and Number of Vessels, Inshore Processors, and CDQ Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly regulated by Total directly
Entity class Units action Small Non-small regulated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catcher/processors....................... Vessels......................... Yes........................ 0 16 ..............
Motherships.............................. Vessels......................... Yes........................ 0 3 ..............
Catcher vessels.......................... Vessels......................... Yes........................ 0 90 ..............
Inshore processors....................... Plants (including fixed floating Yes........................ 0 7 ..............
platforms).
CDQ groups............................... Non-profit organizations........ Yes........................ 6 0 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total small and non small entities... ................................ ........................... 6 116 122
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the non-CDQ AFA-affiliated pollock entities directly
regulated by the proposed action were members of AFA cooperatives in
2010 and, therefore, NMFS considers them ``affiliated'' large (non-
small) entities for RFA purposes.
Due to their status as non-profit corporations, the six CDQ groups
are identified as ``small'' entities. This proposed action directly
regulates the six CDQ groups, and NMFS considers the CDQ groups to be
small entities for RFA purposes. As described in regulations
implementing the RFA (13 CFR 121.103) the CDQ groups' affiliations with
other large entities do not define them as large entities. Complete
descriptions of the CDQ groups, and the impacts of this action, are
located in sections 2.5 and 6.10.3 of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for Amendment 91, which may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Four alternatives were considered in the RIR/IRFA for this proposed
rule (See ADDRESSES). Alternative 1, the no action alternative, would
not expand data collection for evaluating Amendment 91. Current data
collected by NMFS would still allow for assessment of basic information
such as the changes in the catch of Chinook salmon. IPA plans and IPA
annual reports may also provide some industry impressions of the
effects of Amendment 91 on Chinook salmon bycatch or effectiveness of
the IPAs. Alternatives 2 and 3 included options for expanded data
collection by implementing the use of ledger forms for recording
Chinook salmon PSC or pollock allocations and transfers, the price for
each transfer of Chinook salmon PSC or pollock, detailed fuel price and
use data, vessel movement data, and a Vessel Master Survey. Alternative
4 (the preferred alternative) included flexible reporting of Chinook
salmon and pollock allocations and transfers in the annual IPA report
or AFA cooperative report, Chinook salmon bycatch quantities and prices
of compensated Chinook salmon transfers in the CTR, average fuel use
and prices in the Vessel Fuel Survey, vessel movement data in current
recordkeeping and reporting collections, and vessel master impressions
of the effects of Chinook salmon bycatch incentives in the Vessel
Master Survey. The Council also considered and removed alternatives to
collect more detailed revenue and cost data (including roe production,
expanded Chinook transfer data, revenue data, and daily operating cost
data).
Collection of the data in Alternatives 2 and 3 and in alternatives
not advanced for analysis would expand the data available to study the
effectiveness of salmon bycatch measures (including IPAs) across
various segments of the fleets and would improve understanding of the
effects of those measures on participants in the fisheries.
Specifically, these detailed roe production, expanded Chinook salmon
transfer data, revenue data, and daily operating cost data, as well as
data from Alternatives 2 and 3 could be used to conduct more in-depth
examination of revenue and cost tradeoffs of vessels when avoiding
Chinook salmon bycatch.
Alternative 1 was not selected because it would not address the
objectives of the Chinook EDR program to increase the quality and
quantity of data for assessing the effects of Amendment 91 IPAs, the
PSC limits, and the performance standard on when, where, and how
pollock fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur.
While acknowledging that data in Alternatives 2 and 3, along with
the additional detailed roe production expanded Chinook transfer data,
revenue data, and daily operating cost data could increase the amount
of information concerning the fishery and Chinook salmon bycatch
avoidance, the Council elected to not select these data intensive
alternatives. The Council did not advance these alternatives as well as
additional alternatives for analysis. The Council determined that
Amendment 91 incentives should be in operation for a period of time
before NMFS could analyze how industry recordkeeping could be used to
develop data collection instruments. The data forms required to collect
information in Alternatives 2 and 3 and the additional roe, transfer
and daily cost data would require additional development. Also, the
Council determined the cost and burden of collecting the additional
data would be substantial.
Alternative 4 was chosen because the limited scope of the data
collected is feasible to implement in a timely manner, would likely
increase the quality and quantity of data for assessing the effects of
Amendment 91 IPAs, the PSC limits, and the performance standard on
when, where, and how pollock fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur,
and would permit a more expansive data collection in the future.
Alternative 4 would have the least impact of the four alternatives on
small entities while continuing to meet the objectives of the action.
Additional industry outreach and Council review of the EDR program
was carried out to ensure that the Chinook salmon EDR program was
compatible with industry recordkeeping procedures and consistent with
the intent of the Council recommendations. In June 2010, the three EDR
forms were reviewed and revised by members of the Bering Sea pollock
industry in an industry workshop sponsored by NMFS. In October 2010,
the Council reviewed the three revised data forms developed for this
action, draft regulations, and the draft Paperwork Reduction Act
submission. The Council voted unanimously that NMFS go forward with
this proposed rule with minor,
[[Page 42109]]
clarifying revisions to the data collection forms.
The analysis did not identify any Federal rules that would
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
In the CTR, NMFS expects the representative for each of the four
sectors to actively track transfers throughout the year and report
these in the fillable on-line CTR form once per year. For each
individual Chinook transfer that consisted of a monetary exchange, each
entity involved in a compensated transfer is required to submit an
entry in the CTR to record transfer information. NMFS estimates that
each entity will require 15 minutes to track each transfer and enter
that data in either an internal tracking system provided to the
representative for the sector, or in a separate CTR.
The CTR is estimated to be 90 percent electronic because most of
these reports will be submitted as attachments to e-mails or via the
Internet. Some reports may be submitted by fax.
The proposed new Vessel Master and Vessel Fuel Surveys would be
completed at the end of the year and would be electronically submitted
in a fillable on-line web form. The certification page would be
submitted by mail, fax, or as an attachment to an e-mail. NMFS expects
that many vessel masters (for the Vessel Master Survey), and vessel
owners and leaseholders (for the Vessel Fuel Survey) may compile notes
in season to respond to the specific survey questions at years end. The
burden associated with tracking activity will vary depending on the
circumstances encountered during the year.
OMB Collection of Information
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have
been submitted to OMB for approval. Burden estimates were developed for
each of the four Office of Management and Budget collections that are
revised or created for the proposed Chinook salmon EDR program. The
proposed revised and new collections and reporting burdens are listed
below by OMB control number.
OMB Control Number 0648-AKRL
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 23
minutes for a catcher vessel trawl gear DFL; and 35 minutes for an AFA
catcher/processor trawl gear ELB--
OMB Control Number 0648-0401
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 40
hours for an IPA; 40 hours for an IPA Annual Report; and 8 hours for an
AFA Annual Cooperative Report--
OMB Control Number 0648-0515
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 35
minutes for a mothership eLandings landing report--OMB Control Number
0648-NEW [EDR]
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to annually
average 40 hours for a CTR; 8 hours for a Vessel Fuel Survey; and 3
hours for a Vessel Master Survey.
Reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
NMFS seeks public comment regarding whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS
(see ADDRESSES), e-mail to [email protected], or fax to 202-
395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 11, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.,
Pub. L. 108-447.
2. In Sec. 679.2 add a definition for ``Designated data collection
auditor'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Designated data collection auditor (DDCA) means the NMFS-designated
contractor to perform the functions of a data collection auditor for
the Chinook PSC Compensated Transfer Report.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 679.5,
A. Revise paragraphs (c)(4)(vi) introductory text, (f)(1)(vii),
(f)(2)(ii), and (f)(7).
B. Add paragraph (c)(4)(vi)(I) and paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A)(12).
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) Catch-by-haul information. The operator must record the
following information (see paragraphs (c)(4)(vi)(A) through (I) of this
section) for each haul (see Sec. 679.2). If no catch occurred for a
given day, write ``no catch.''
* * * * *
(I) Movement to Avoid Salmon. If a catcher vessel is directed
fishing for pollock in the Bering Sea, indicate with a check mark (X)
whether, prior to the haul, the operator moved fishing location
primarily to avoid salmon bycatch.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(12) For deliveries from catcher vessels directed fishing for
pollock in the Bering Sea, indicate whether, prior to the haul, the
operator of the catcher vessel moved fishing location primarily to
avoid Chinook salmon bycatch.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) AFA and CDQ trawl catcher/processors. The operator of an AFA
catcher/processor or any catcher/processor harvesting pollock CDQ must
use a combination of NMFS-approved catcher/processor trawl gear ELB and
eLandings to record and report groundfish and PSC information. In the
ELB, the operator must enter processor identification information;
catch-by-haul information; prohibited species discard or disposition
data for all salmon species in each haul; and indicate whether, prior
to the haul, the
[[Page 42110]]
operator moved fishing location primarily to avoid Chinook salmon
bycatch. In eLandings, the operator must enter processor
identification, groundfish production data, and groundfish and
prohibited species discard or disposition data for all prohibited
species except salmon.
(2) * * *
(ii) Reporting groundfish by ELB. If the User is unable to submit
commercial fishery information due to hardware, software, or Internet
failure for a period longer than the required reporting time, contact
NMFS Inseason Management at 907-586-7228 for instructions. When the
hardware, software, or Internet is restored, the User must enter this
same information into the electronic logbook (ELB) or other NMFS-
approved software.
* * * * *
(7) ELB data submission--(i) Catcher/processors. The operator of a
catcher/processor must transmit ELB data directly to NMFS online
through eLandings or other NMFS-approved data transmission mechanism,
by 2400 hours, A.l.t., each day to record the previous day's hauls.
(ii) Catcher vessels. The operator of a catcher vessel must
transmit ELB data directly to NMFS as an e-mail attachment or to NMFS
through a shoreside processor, SFP, or mothership who received his/her
groundfish catch. Through a prior agreement with the catcher vessel,
the operator of a mothership or the manager of a shoreside processor or
SFP will forward the ELB data transfer to NMFS as an e-mail attachment
within 24 hours of completing receipt of the catcher vessel's catch.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 679.21, paragraph (f)(12)(vii) is redesignated as
paragraph (f)(13) and revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.21 Prohibited Species Bycatch Management.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(13) IPA Annual Report. The representative of each approved IPA
must submit a written annual report to the Council at the address
specified in Sec. 679.61(f). The Council will make the annual report
available to the public.
(i) Submission deadline. The IPA Annual Report must be postmarked
or received by the Council no later than April 1 of each year following
the year in which the IPA is first effective.
(ii) Information requirements. The IPA Annual Report must contain
the following information:
(A) A comprehensive description of the incentive measures in effect
in the previous year;
(B) A description of how these incentive measures affected
individual vessels;
(C) An evaluation of whether incentive measures were effective in
achieving salmon savings beyond levels that would have been achieved in
absence of the measures;
(D) A description of any amendments to the terms of the IPA that
were approved by NMFS since the last annual report and the reasons that
the amendments to the IPA were made;
(E) Sub-allocation to each participating vessel of the number of
Chinook salmon PSC and amount of pollock (mt) at the start of each
fishing season, and number of Chinook salmon PSC and amount of pollock
(mt) caught at the end of each season, unless reported under Sec.
679.61(f)(2); and
(F) In-season transfers.
(1) Transfers among entities. For in-season transfer of Chinook
salmon PSC or pollock among AFA cooperatives, entities eligible to
receive Chinook salmon PSC allocations, or CDQ groups, provide the
following information:
(i) Date of transfer;
(ii) Name of transferor;
(iii) Name of transferee;
(iv) Number of Chinook salmon transferred; and
(v) Amount of pollock (mt) transferred.
(2) Transfers among IPA vessels. Transfers among vessels
participating in the IPA provide the following information:
(i) Date of transfer;
(ii) Name of transferor;
(iii) Name of transferee;
(iv) Number of Chinook salmon transferred; and
(v) Amount pollock (mt) transferred.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 679.61,
A. Revise the heading of paragraph (f), and paragraph (f)(2)(ii);
and
B. Add paragraph (f)(2)(vii).
Sec. 679.61 Formation and operation of fishery cooperatives.
* * * * *
(f) Annual reporting requirements. * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of
sideboard species and PSC, except for Chinook salmon PSC, on an area-
by-area and vessel-by-vessel basis;
* * * * *
(vii) Sub-allocation to each participating vessel of the number of
Chinook salmon PSC and amount of pollock (mt) at the start of each
fishing season, and number of Chinook salmon PSC and amount of pollock
(mt) retained and discarded at the end of each season, unless that data
is reported in the IPA report at Sec. 679.21 (f)(13)(ii)(E).
* * * * *
6. Section 679.65 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.65 Bering Sea Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management Program
Economic Data Report (Chinook salmon EDR program).
(a) Requirements. NMFS developed the regulations under this Sec.
679.65 to implement the Chinook salmon EDR program. Additional
regulations that implement specific portions of the Chinook salmon EDR
program are set out under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this
section:
(1) Daily fishing logbook (DFL), catcher vessel trawl gear. See
Sec. 679.5(c)(4).
(2) Electronic logbook (ELB), AFA and CDQ trawl catcher/processors.
See Sec. 679.5(f) in combination with eLandings pursuant to Sec.
679.5(e).
(3) IPA Annual Report. See Sec. 679.21(f)(13).
(4) AFA cooperative annual reporting requirement. See Sec.
679.61(f)(2).
(b) Chinook salmon PSC Compensated Transfer Report (CTR). (1) An
owner or leaseholder of an AFA-permitted vessel and the representative
of any entity that received an allocation of Chinook salmon PSC from
NMFS must submit a CTR, Part 1, each calendar year, for the previous
calendar year.
(2) Any person who transferred Chinook salmon PSC allocation after
January 20, and paid or received money for the transfer, must submit a
completed CTR (Part 1 and Part 2) for the previous calendar year.
(3) The CTR is available through the Internet on the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by contacting
NMFS at 206-526-6414.
(4) Each year, the completed CTR must be submitted electronically
on or before 1700, A.l.t., on June 1, following the instructions on the
form.
(c) Vessel Fuel Survey. (1) An owner or leaseholder of an AFA-
permitted vessel must submit all completed Vessel Fuel Surveys for each
vessel used to harvest pollock in the Bering Sea in a given year.
(2) The Vessel Fuel Survey is available through the Internet on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by
contacting NMFS at 206-526-6414.
[[Page 42111]]
(3) The owner or leaseholder annually must submit a completed
Vessel Fuel Survey, electronically on or before 1700, A.l.t., on June
1, following the instructions on the form.
(d) Vessel Master Survey. (1) For any AFA-permitted vessel used to
harvest pollock in the Bering Sea in the previous year:
(i) The vessel master must complete the Vessel Master Survey, Part
1A.
(ii) An owner or leaseholder must complete the Vessel Master
Survey, Part 1B.
(iii) An owner or leaseholder must submit all Vessel Master
Surveys, Parts 1A and 1B completed by the owner and all of the masters
electronically on or before 1700, A.l.t., on June 1, following the
instructions on the form.
(2) The Vessel Master Survey is available through the Internet on
the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or
by contacting NMFS at 206-526-6414.
(e) Chinook salmon EDR verification and audit procedures. NMFS or
the designated data collection agent (DDCA) will conduct verification
of Chinook salmon EDR information with the persons identified at Sec.
679.65(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (d)(1)(i), and (d)(1)(ii).
(1) The persons identified at Sec. 679.65(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1),
(d)(1)(i), and (d)(1)(ii) must respond to inquiries by NMFS and its
DDCA for purposes of the CTR, within 20 days of the date of issuance of
the inquiry.
(2) The persons identified at Sec. 679.65(b)(1) and (b)(2) must
provide copies of additional data to facilitate verification by NMFS
and its DDCA for purposes of the CTR. These paper or electronic copies
may include, but are not limited to, previously audited or reviewed
financial statements, worksheets, tax returns, invoices, receipts, and
other original documents substantiating the data submitted.
[FR Doc. 2011-17894 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P