[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8764-8768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 170713663-8176-02]
RIN 0648-BH04


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, 
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS implements longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish 
specifications for the 2018 fishing year and projected specifications 
for fishing years 2019 and 2020. This action is necessary to specify 
catch levels for the squid and butterfish fisheries based upon updated 
information on stock status. These specifications are intended to 
promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the squid and 
butterfish resources.

DATES: Effective April 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment 
(EA), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis are available from: Dr. Christopher M. 
Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 
North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-
2331. The EA/RIR/RFA analysis is also accessible via the internet at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0089. Stock 
assessment reports and assessment update reports for all species are 
available online at: www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reviews_report_options.php. 
Performance reports for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish 
fisheries are available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/msb.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, (978) 281-9141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations implementing the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require the Mid-Atlantic 
Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee 
to develop specification recommendations for each species based upon 
the ABC advice of the Council's SSC. The FMP regulations also require 
the specification of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability 
measure (AM) provisions for butterfish. Both squid species are exempt 
from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less 
than one year. In addition, the regulations require the specification 
of domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), 
total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), joint venture 
processing (JVP), commercial and recreational annual catch targets 
(ACT), the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and 
initial optimum yield (IOY) for both squid species.
    On December 13, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule (82 FR 58583) 
for the 2018-2020 squid and butterfish specifications recommended by 
the Council. The proposed rule for this action included additional 
background on specifications and the details of how the Council derived 
its recommended specifications for longfin and Illex squid and 
butterfish. Those

[[Page 8765]]

details are not repeated here. For additional information, please refer 
to the proposed rule for this action. Because we implemented Atlantic 
mackerel specifications for fishing years 2016-2018 on April 26, 2016 
(81 FR 24504), this action does not consider revisions to existing 
Atlantic mackerel specifications.

Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Illex Squid Specifications

       Table 1--Final 2018 and Projected 2019 and 2020 Illex Squid
                   Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL.....................................................         Unknown
ABC.....................................................          24,000
IOY.....................................................          22,915
DAH/DAP.................................................          22,915
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action maintains the existing Illex squid ABC of 24,000 mt for 
2018 and projects continuing that ABC for 2019 and 2020. The IOY, DAH, 
and DAP are calculated by deducting an estimated discard rate (4.52 
percent) from the ABC. This results in a IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,915 mt 
for 2018 that would be maintained for the 2019 and 2020 fishing years. 
These are the same specifications for the Illex squid fishery since 
2012. The Council will review these specifications during its annual 
specifications process following annual data updates each spring, and 
may change its recommendations for 2019 or 2020 if new information is 
available.

Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Longfin Squid Specifications

      Table 2--Final 2018 and Projected 2019 and 2020 Longfin Squid
                   Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL.....................................................         Unknown
ABC.....................................................          23,400
IOY.....................................................          22,932
DAH/DAP.................................................          22,932
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action maintains the existing longfin squid ABC of 23,400 mt 
for 2018 and projects continuing that ABC for 2019 and 2020. The IOY, 
DAH, and DAP are calculated by deducting an estimated discard rate 
(updated from 4.08 to 2.0 percent) from the ABC. This results in a IOY, 
DAH, and DAP of 22,932 mt for 2018 that would be maintained for the 
2019 and 2020 fishing years. This action also maintains the existing 
allocation of longfin squid DAH among trimesters according to 
percentages specified in the FMP (see Table 3). The Council will review 
these specifications during its annual specifications process following 
annual data updates each spring, and may change its recommendations for 
2019 or 2020 if new information is available.

   Table 3--Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Longfin Quota Trimester
                               Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Metric
                      Trimester                        Percent    tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr).........................................        43     9,861
II (May-Aug)........................................        17     3,898
III (Sep-Dec).......................................        40     9,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Butterfish Specifications

            Table 4--Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Butterfish Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2018            2019            2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL.............................................................          28,628          37,637          39,592
ABC = ACL.......................................................          17,801          27,108          32,063
Commercial ACT (ABC minus management uncertainty buffers for              16,911          25,075          28,857
 each year).....................................................
DAH (ACT minus butterfish cap and discards).....................          12,093          20,061          23,752
Directed Fishery closure limit (DAH minus 1,000 mt incidental             11,093          19,061          22,752
 landings buffer)...............................................
Butterfish Mortality Cap (in the longfin squid fishery).........           3,884           3,884           3,884
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action implements a butterfish ABC of 17,801 mt in 2018, and 
projected ABCs of 27,108 mt in 2019, and 32,063 mt in 2020. For 
butterfish, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. Deducting an estimate of 
management uncertainty from each year's ABC/ACL (5 percent in 2018, 7.5 
percent in 2019, and 10 percent in 2020) results in commercial ACTs of 
16,911 mt in 2018, and projected ACTs of 25,075 mt in 2019, and 28,857 
mt in 2020. This action maintains the butterfish cap for the longfin 
squid fishery at the 2014 level of 3,884 mt for 2018 and projects 
maintaining that level for 2019 and 2020. Subtracting the existing 
butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery (3,884 mt), catch 
in other fisheries (637 mt), and an estimate of discards in the 
directed butterfish fishery (2.4 percent) results in a DAH of 12,093 mt 
in 2018, and projected DAHs of 20,061 mt in 2019 and 23,752 mt in 2020. 
This action also maintains the existing allocation of the butterfish 
mortality cap among longfin squid trimesters according to percentages 
specified in the FMP (see Table 5). Finally, this action maintains the 
existing 1,000-mt set aside in each year to account for incidental 
landings of butterfish after a closure of the directed fishery. We will 
close the directed butterfish fishery once 11,093 mt is caught in 2018. 
The Council will review these specifications during its annual 
specifications process following annual data updates each spring, and 
may change its recommendations for 2019 or 2020 if new information is 
available.

 Table 5--Final Trimester Allocation of Butterfish Mortality Cap on the
  Longfin Squid Fishery for 2018 and Projected Allocations for 2019 and
                                  2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Trimester                     Percent      Metric tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr)................................           43           1,670
II (May-Aug)...............................           17             660
III (Sep-Dec)..............................           40           1,554
                                            ----------------------------
    Total..................................          100           3,844
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 10 comments in response to the proposed rule for this 
action. Two comments were from industry groups, the Garden State 
Seafood Association (GSSA) and Seafreeze, Ltd., Eight comments were 
from individuals. Five comments received were not relevant to the 
proposed action and are not included in this final rule.
    Comment 1: One individual requested that NMFS post weekly 
butterfish

[[Page 8766]]

landings, including butterfish landings against the butterfish 
mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, on the Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) quota monitoring website so that the 
fishing industry has a better understanding of fishery operations 
during the year.
    Response: We post weekly landings of all species on the GARFO quota 
monitoring website unless doing so violates Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements to protect the confidentiality of submitted data. We 
currently post butterfish landings against the mortality cap in the 
longfin squid fishery on the GARFO website. While we had previously 
posted landings from the directed butterfish fishery, a recent review 
of landings data indicated that doing so is no longer consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act confidentiality requirements, as posting 
landings may inadvertently reveal landings or dealer purchases by an 
individual entity. Current regulations require us to reduce butterfish 
possession limits when landings reach the butterfish closure threshold 
and the DAH. Moving forward, we will post butterfish landings once 
catch has reached 75 percent of the closure threshold. This will inform 
the public of cumulative butterfish landings and allow fishery 
participants to plan operations sufficiently in advance of any required 
adjustments to possession limits without compromising efforts to 
protect the confidentiality of any entity's butterfish landings or 
purchases.
    Comment 2: One individual stated generally that too many fish are 
being caught, resulting in overfishing and the possibility of resource 
decline into extinction and negative impacts to predators, recommending 
that quotas for all species should be reduced by 50 percent.
    Response: Longfin squid is not overfished and is considered to be 
lightly exploited. Illex squid abundance in 2016 was near the long-term 
median, with the SSC suggesting that annual landings of up to 26,000 mt 
do not appear to have harmed the stock. Therefore, there is no 
scientific evidence to suggest that either of these species are subject 
to overfishing or that quota reductions for these species are warranted 
at this time. For butterfish, the latest stock assessment update 
indicated that the fishing mortality rate is well below the overfishing 
limit and that biomass is well above the target level in 2016. The SSC 
recommended, and this final rule implements, a 42-percent reduction in 
the 2018 butterfish ABC based on concerns regarding declining trends in 
both biomass and recruitment in recent years. The 2018-2020 
specifications for these species should ensure sufficient forage for 
predators. Extinction is not a concern with these species.
    Comment 3: One individual expressed concern with the substantial 
increase in butterfish ABCs in 2019 and 2020, stating that these 
increases are based on an expectation that a higher historic 
recruitment rate will return in those years despite reductions in 
observed recruitment in recent years. The individual suggested that 
there is no scientific evidence that historic recruitment will occur in 
2019 or 2020 based on the declining trend in recruitment in recent 
years.
    Response: We disagree. We recognize the recent declining trend in 
butterfish recruitment and its effects on spawning stock biomass and 
projected ABCs. We support the use of the low 2016 recruitment estimate 
to inform SSC recommendations for the 2018 butterfish ABC as it 
represents the best scientific information available. As documented in 
the 2017 butterfish assessment update, we know that terminal year 
recruitment estimates are highly uncertain. In 2014, the 58th Stock 
Assessment Workshop (SAW 58) (see ADDRESSES) concluded that the 2012 
recruitment estimate (terminal year for that assessment update) was the 
lowest in the time series. Updated data have substantially raised the 
2012 recruitment estimate, and 2013-2015 recruitment was estimated to 
be much higher than the 2012 estimate. The SSC recognized that 
predicting future recruitment is very difficult, as the butterfish 
stock has experienced years of low recruitment followed by 
substantially higher recruitment (see 2017 butterfish assessment 
update). They preferred to use yearly recruitment estimates taken from 
the entire time series (1989-2016) to project 2019 and 2020 butterfish 
ABCs because the entire time series includes recruitment estimates from 
both high and low years. This is a practice used in other stock 
assessments, and was reviewed as part of the 2017 butterfish assessment 
update and SSC deliberations. Therefore, the use of time series 
recruitment to project 2018 and 2019 butterfish ABCs is consistent with 
the best scientific information available. Further, the Council expects 
to review future butterfish ABCs as additional information on 
butterfish recruitment becomes available. The Council could adjust 2019 
and 2020 projected specifications if new information indicated 
recruitment conclusions for this action need to be updated.
    Comment 4: One individual indicated that the butterfish ABC 
reduction is unnecessary due to the short lifespan of the species and 
recent mechanical problems and inefficiencies with the Northeast 
Fisheries Science Center's survey vessel. The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., 
also opposed the proposed butterfish specifications. Instead, they 
supported an alternative that would specify a constant ABC of 24,500 mt 
for 2018-2020. They highlight that butterfish is neither overfished, 
nor subject to overfishing, and assert that it is unlikely that 
butterfish biomass will be reduced in half because of poor recent 
recruitment. Similar to other short-lived species, they suggest that 
butterfish may lack a strong stock-recruit relationship, noting that 
butterfish recruitment has been highly variable and unpredictable, with 
terminal year recruitment estimates previously underestimated. They 
contend that basing ABC decisions on recruitment alone in this action 
is not scientifically sound. Further, they state that without the fall 
2017 NMFS survey to update recruitment estimates, the Council cannot 
verify the low 2016 recruitment estimate or adjust the 2019 ABC based 
on updated data. Similar to past SSC decisions to phase in summer 
flounder quota reductions, they argue that such an alternative would 
avoid substantially reducing commercial butterfish quotas unnecessarily 
and provide for a more stable fishery.
    Response: We agree that butterfish is neither overfished, nor 
subject to overfishing and that recruitment is highly variable. 
According to SAW 58, because butterfish are a short-lived species that 
are typically dominated by one or two yearclasses of fish, recruitment 
has a strong influence over biomass. As a result, declining recruitment 
translates into declining biomass. The most recent stock assessment 
update showed continuing declines in both recruitment and biomass since 
the late 1990s. Catches of age zero butterfish were nearly absent in 
the fishery during 2016, have declined in the NMFS surveys since 
peaking in the mid 1990s, and were the lowest in the fall Northeast 
Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) time series in 2016. 
Although recent NEAMAP survey indices have been more variable than NMFS 
surveys, a similar downward trend in both the fall NEAMAP and NMFS 
survey indices for butterfish have been observed since 2007 and 1989, 
respectively. These declining trends in both recruitment and spawning 
stock biomass, as documented in the best scientific

[[Page 8767]]

information available, formed the basis for the SSC's recommended 2018 
butterfish ABC of 17,801 mt.
    As noted above in the response to Comment 3, terminal year 
recruitment estimates have been previously underestimated and revised 
upward based on additional data. We will not know whether the 2016 
recruitment estimate was similarly underestimated until additional data 
are available. We agree that mechanical problems with the RSV Henry B. 
Bigelow will prevent us from updating recruitment estimates from the 
fall NMFS survey and may limit the information available to the Council 
to adjust the 2019 or 2020 ABCs, as appropriate. However, these 
problems occurred after the completion of the butterfish assessment 
update and do not affect the 2018-2020 butterfish ABCs recommended by 
the Council. Further, an updated estimate of 2016 recruitment is 
unlikely to substantially affect the declining trend observed in recent 
years. The Council can revise future butterfish ABCs based on any 
available information, including NEAMAP data, during the required 
annual review of these specifications.
    The SSC considered the constant ABC alternative advocated by the 
GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., but did not recommend it based on declining 
trends in biomass and recruitment. The SSC recognized that a stable ABC 
approach has been used in other fisheries, but noted that there are 
different needs for different species and that a stable ABC approach 
was not appropriate for butterfish for biological reasons. At the May 
2017 meeting, the SSC also admitted that they lacked the social science 
expertise and Council guidance necessary for evaluating economic 
tradeoffs between the different alternatives and the associated impacts 
to fishing communities. The Council considered the SSC's input during 
their June 2017 meeting, and chose to follow the recommendations of the 
SSC instead of adopting a different suite of butterfish ABCs. We did 
not receive sufficient information through public comment to challenge 
recommendations by either the SSC or the Council, and have, therefore, 
implemented the proposed butterfish ABCs through this final rule.
    Comment 5: The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., highlighted seemingly 
conflicting estimates of the probability of overfishing butterfish 
between the SSC report, the proposed rule, and supporting materials for 
the Council's June 2017 meeting. Specifically, they note that the SSC 
report and the proposed rule state that the probability of overfishing 
(the P* metric) is estimated at 0.08, but the Council meeting 
supporting materials indicated P* = 0.34. They sought clarification as 
to the correct probability of overfishing butterfish.
    Response: The correct P* value is 0.34. In other words, there is an 
average 34 percent probability that the proposed butterfish ABCs would 
result in overfishing during 2018-2020 based on the SSC's judgement of 
true underlying assessment uncertainty. The 0.08 probability of 
overfishing is the average probability of overfishing that the 
projection model calculates when the proposed ABCs are entered. The 
0.08 probability assumes that the model fully captures all elements of 
uncertainty. However, the SSC believes there is additional uncertainty 
that is not fully captured in the model. Therefore, the model is rerun 
using a 100 percent coefficient of variation (a measure of 
uncertainty--the higher the number, the higher the uncertainty) to 
estimate the probability of overfishing. This generated an average P* 
of 0.34 for the proposed 2018-2020 butterfish ABCs, which is consistent 
with the Council's policies for setting ABCs.
    Comment 6: The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., asked why the proposed 
butterfish ABCs have a P* value less than 0.4, when the Council's risk 
policy indicates that stocks with a typical life history should have a 
40-percent chance of overfishing (P* = 0.4) when the stock is above the 
biomass target. They note that in 2016, butterfish was at 141 percent 
of the target biomass and that the Council should have used a P* = 0.4 
to calculate butterfish ABCs.
    Response: As noted in the response to Comment 4 above, while the 
2016 spawning stock biomass estimate was above the target level, the 
2017 butterfish assessment update projected that butterfish spawning 
stock biomass would decline to below the target level (45,616 mt) until 
2020. The P* values for 2018 and 2019 ABCs are 0.28 and 0.35, 
respectively, because the biomass is projected to be less than the 
biomass target in those years. In 2020, P* = 0.4 because biomass was 
estimated to be above target levels. This is consistent with the 
Council's risk policy. The average of these values is 0.34, below 0.4, 
due to the lower biomass estimates in 2018 and 2019.
    Comment 7: Noting that the fall 2017 NMFS survey was not conducted, 
the GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., asked for data from the recruitment 
indices from fall 2017 NEAMAP. They asked if integrating the NEAMAP and 
state survey recruitment and biomass indices would change the 
butterfish ABC projections.
    Response: The fall 2016 NEAMAP indices were included in the 2017 
butterfish assessment update model runs and presented to the SSC when 
they considered butterfish ABCs proposed in this action. As noted above 
in the response to Comment 4, the fall 2016 NEAMAP recruitment indices 
were the lowest in the time series. Fall 2017 NEAMAP indices are not 
available at this time but will be considered in the next assessment or 
update. State survey data were previously considered in the last 
assessment but were not used because they were not representative of 
the entire stock area. During the June 2017 Council meeting, the 
Council asked if state survey data could be considered, but they were 
informed that a benchmark assessment would be needed to reconsider 
state survey data in a future assessment.
    Comment 8: The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., objected to the fact that 
the projections used to calculate butterfish ABCs in the 2017 
assessment update assumed that the fishery would fully harvest the DAH 
of 20,652 mt during 2018-2020. They indicated that this assumption is 
completely erroneous and assumes that the fishing mortality rate would 
exceed the known rate by several orders of magnitude. They asked about 
the impact that this assumption has on the outcome of the 
specifications process.
    Response: The 2017 fishing year was still ongoing when the SSC and 
Council recommended butterfish ABCs. Projections for 2018-2020 ABCs 
require some estimate of butterfish landings during each year. As a 
conservative approach, the projections assumed that 2017 landings would 
be equal to the DAH for 2017--the bridge year between the assessment 
update and when proposed ABCs would be implemented--and that landings 
would equal the ABC in 2019 and 2020. These assumptions are consistent 
with standard practice. We agree that it is unlikely that the fishery 
would have caught 20,652 mt during 2017. Preliminary estimates indicate 
that only about 3,700 mt were landed during 2017, although discards are 
still unknown at this time. However, the projections were also run 
using several other estimates of butterfish landings, including 3,139 
mt (the fishery landings when the projections were run), 6,278 mt 
(double the landings when projections were run), and 9,100 mt (2014 
DAH). All of these sensitivity runs resulted in negligible changes on 
the resulting spawning stock biomass estimates used to calculate ABCs. 
Therefore, it is unlikely that an updated

[[Page 8768]]

catch estimate would have substantially changed the projected 
butterfish ABCs.
    Comment 9: One individual indicated that NMFS is not recognizing 
shifts in economic, governmental, and ecological trends in setting 
future catch levels. The individual suggested that changes in tax law, 
economic booms, the impacts of offshore drilling, relative 
profitability between small and large operations, technological 
innovation, and demand may all affect future estimates of fish stocks 
and the appropriate levels of catch in future years.
    Response: Each year, Council staff develop a fishery information 
document summarizing trends in fishery landings, revenues, and 
participation. In addition, the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 
Butterfish Advisory Panel meets to develop and discuss a fishery 
performance report. This report describes the factors that influence 
fishing effort and landings, including markets, environmental/
ecological issues (weather, temperature, availability), management 
measures, or other issues relevant to the fishery's operations (see 
ADDRESSES). This input is used to provide context to fishery operations 
and help the Council and its SSC understand catch patterns when setting 
ABCs in each fishery. Therefore, we are considering many of the factors 
identified by the commenter when setting catch levels. Further, the 
profitability of affected entities, including both large and small 
operations, are explicitly considered in the National Environmental 
Policy Act and associated economic analyses conducted in support of 
this action and included in the EA prepared by Council staff (see 
ADDRESSES).

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is 
consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other 
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the 
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received 
regarding this certification and no other information has been obtained 
that suggests any other conclusion. As a result, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

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

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-04123 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P