Vol. 79 Tuesday, No. 227 November 25, 2014

Part II

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 902 50 CFR Part 679 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off ; Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for the and Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE under the Fishery Management Plans conducting a section 7 consultation to (FMP BiOp), and the 2014 Biological insure that the Federal action of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Opinion for the Authorization of Alaska authorizing the Alaska groundfish Administration Groundfish Fisheries under the fisheries is not likely to jeopardize the Proposed Revised Steller Sea Lion continued existence of an ESA-listed 15 CFR Part 902 Protection Measures (2014 BiOp) are species or result in the destruction or available at http:// adverse modification of its designated 50 CFR Part 679 alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ critical habitat. Under the provisions of [Docket No. 140304195–4947–02] protectedresources/stellers/ section 7 of the ESA, NMFS Alaska section7.htm. Region Sustainable Fisheries Division RIN 0648–BE06 • The 2008 Revised Steller Sea Lion (SFD) is the action agency and consults Recovery Plan (2008 Recovery Plan) is with the NMFS Alaska Region Protected Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic available from the NMFS Alaska Region Resources Division (PRD) on the Zone Off Alaska; Steller Sea Lion Web site at http:// impacts of groundfish fisheries for most Protection Measures for the Bering alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ ESA-listed species of marine mammals, Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish protectedresources/stellers/ including Steller sea lions. Fisheries Off Alaska recovery.htm. NMFS listed the WDPS of Steller sea • AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries The Fishery Management Plan for lions as endangered under the ESA in Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997). Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Aleutian Islands Management Area FMP Throughout this preamble, the term Commerce. is available from the North Pacific ‘‘Steller sea lions’’ means the WDPS of Steller sea lions unless otherwise ACTION: Final rule. Fishery Management Council Web site at http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/ specified. Steller sea lions are SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to PDFdocuments/fmp/BSAI/BSAIfmp.pdf. distributed from Prince William Sound implement Steller sea lion protection Written comments regarding the through the Aleutian Islands in Alaska measures to insure that groundfish burden-hour estimates or other aspects and in Russia on the Kamchatka fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian of the collection-of-information peninsula, Kuril Islands, and the Sea of Islands Management Area (BSAI) off requirements contained in this final rule Okhotsk. NMFS uses six sub-regions Alaska are not likely to jeopardize the may be submitted to NMFS at the above within Alaska for trend and status continued existence of the western address and by email to OIRA_ monitoring of Steller sea lions. These distinct population segment (WDPS) of [email protected] or fax to 202– sub-regions include the eastern Gulf of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 395–5806. Alaska (GOA), central GOA, and western GOA, the eastern Aleutian modify their designated critical habitat. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Islands/Bering Sea, central Aleutian These management measures disperse Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228. fishing effort temporally and spatially to Islands, and the western Aleutian SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS Islands. A seventh sub-region is located provide protection from potential published a proposed rule to implement competition for important Steller sea outside of the United States and is Steller sea lion protection measures on commonly referred to as the Russian lion prey species. This action is July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37486). The intended to protect the endangered sub-region because most of the Steller comment period on the proposed rule sea lion population in that sub-region is Steller sea lions, as required by the ended on August 15, 2014. NMFS Endangered Species Act, and to concentrated in Russia. received 17 letters of comments on the NMFS designated critical habitat for minimize, to the extent practicable, the proposed rule. Additional background Steller sea lions and identified haulouts, economic impact of fishery management information and detail on this action is rookeries, and foraging locations measures, as required by the Magnuson- provided in the proposed rule and is throughout Alaska waters ranging Stevens Fishery Conservation and briefly summarized in this final rule. throughout the GOA, the Bering Sea, Management Act. NMFS manages groundfish fisheries and the Aleutian Islands (58 FR 45269, DATES: Effective December 26, 2014. in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) August 27, 1993). Since publication of ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of: under the Fishery Management Plan for critical habitat definitions in 1993 (see • The Steller Sea Lion Protection Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 50 CFR 226.202), NMFS has identified Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in Aleutian Islands Management Area 19 additional haulouts in the BSAI and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery the GOA as important areas for Steller Management Area Environmental Management Council (Council) sea lions needing additional protection Impact Statement (EIS), the Record of prepared the FMP under the authority of from the potential effects of groundfish Decision, and the Regulatory Impact the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery fishing. More information and Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Conservation and Management Act justification for including these Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. haulouts are contained in the 2001 BiOp action are available from http:// 1801, et seq. Regulations governing (see ADDRESSES). NMFS is currently www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS fisheries and implementing the FMP considering revisions to the critical Alaska Region Web site at http:// appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. habitat designation to take into account alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ NMFS has management responsibility new information that has become sustainablefisheries/sslpm/eis/ for certain threatened and endangered available since NMFS designated default.htm. species, including Steller sea lions, critical habitat in 1993 (79 FR 46392, • The 2001 Biological Opinion for the under the Endangered Species Act August 8, 2014). Authorization of the Bering Sea and (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. Since listing Steller sea lions, NMFS Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska NMFS has the authority to promulgate has implemented a number of Groundfish Fisheries (2001 BiOp), the regulations to enforce provisions of the management measures, commonly 2010 Biological Opinion on the ESA to protect such species. As the known as Steller sea lion protection Authorization of Groundfish Fisheries action agency, NMFS is responsible for measures, to protect Steller sea lion prey

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70287

from the potential effects of groundfish This final rule implements a suite of process for the EIS and during the fishing. Steller sea lion protection management measures for the Atka public review of the draft EIS. measures disperse catch of groundfish mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock NMFS developed all alternatives with prey species in time (temporal fisheries primarily in the Aleutian the understanding that a preferred dispersion) and space (spatial Islands. These management measures alternative could only be selected as the dispersion) through a variety of harvest protect Steller sea lion prey to comply proposed action and implemented limitations and closure areas. Many of with the ESA requirement that NMFS through rule making if NMFS could these Steller sea lion protection insure that its actions are not likely to insure that the action was not likely to measures apply specifically to Atka jeopardize the continued existence of jeopardize the continued existence of mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock, endangered species or destroy or the Steller sea lions or result in which are important prey species for adversely modify its critical habitat. To destruction or adverse modification of Steller sea lions. protect Steller sea lion prey availability, their designated critical habitat. The Section 3.5.3 of the FMP, approved by this final rule protects specific areas that Council and NMFS understood that a the Secretary of Commerce under the are important to Steller sea lions and preferred alternative and any resulting Magnuson-Stevens Act, authorizes limits the amount of fishing within rule must meet the requirements of the regulations for fishery management Steller sea lion critical habitat. This ESA before factors that minimize the measures to protect marine mammals, final rule maintains a precautionary economic impacts on fishery without requiring amendment of the approach to the management of Steller participants could be considered. A FMP itself (see ADDRESSES). Steller sea sea lion prey species by spatially and detailed discussion of the purpose and lion protection measures for the Alaska temporally dispersing catch, need for the action is provided in the groundfish fisheries have been particularly in critical habitat, to EIS (see ADDRESSES). implemented under this FMP authority prevent localized depletion of these The alternatives ranged from since 1998. important prey resources. While Alternative 6, an alternative that would restrict fishing more than the status quo NMFS has revised the Steller sea lion protecting Steller sea lion prey, this alternative (Alternative 1), to protection measures several times. final rule also enhances fishing Alternative 4, the alternative that would NMFS has conducted several ESA opportunities and minimizes potential allow the most fishing opportunities. consultations to assess the impact of the adverse economic impacts on fishery participants and communities by Alternative 4 would reinstate the Steller groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. sea lion protection measures that were Previous actions to implement Steller removing restrictions on fishing implemented by the 2010 Interim Final in place prior to the 2010 Interim Final sea lion protection measures and their Rule, with a few exceptions. accompanying ESA consultations have Rule that have been determined to be unnecessary based on the 2014 BiOp. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provided more been subject to litigation. A detailed fishing opportunities and fewer history of previous Steller sea lion NMFS analyzed the impacts of the protection measures than Alternative 1, protection measures, ESA section 7 action and its alternatives in an EIS (see but included more protection measures consultations (i.e., biological opinions), ADDRESSES). NMFS published a notice than Alternative 4. Additional and litigation is provided in Chapter 1 of intent to prepare the EIS in the description of the alternatives is of the EIS (see ADDRESSES). Federal Register on April 17, 2012 (77 available in the EIS (see ADDRESSES). The most recent Steller sea lion FR 22750). The scoping period for the In October 2013, the Council protection measures were implemented EIS was approximately 6 months with recommended Alternative 5 as the in 2011 with the 2010 Interim Final the period ending October 15, 2012. preferred alternative for the EIS. Rule (75 FR 77535, December 13, 2010; NMFS also held a public scoping Alternative 5 is a suite of management corrected 75 FR 81921, December 29, meeting in coordination with a Council measures for the Atka mackerel, Pacific 2010). Steller sea lion protection meeting on October 2, 2012 (77 FR cod, and pollock fisheries that includes measures implemented in the 2010 52674, August 30, 2012). NMFS released fishery closures and limitations on catch Interim Final Rule limit harvest of Atka the draft EIS for public review on May in specific areas to mitigate the potential mackerel and Pacific cod. NMFS 17, 2013 (78 FR 29131). The comment adverse effects of fishing on Steller sea implemented these management period for the draft EIS ended on July lion prey resources. Alternative 5 measures consistent with the reasonable 16, 2013. NMFS released the final EIS retains important Steller sea lion and prudent alternative (RPA) on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29759). protection measures in Alternative 1 recommended in the 2010 FMP BiOp The decision analyzed in the EIS was and also allows more fishing by that NMFS determined were necessary whether to maintain the existing suite of removing or modifying some of to insure that the Alaska groundfish Steller sea lion protection measures measures in Alternative 1. Alternative 5 fisheries were not likely to jeopardize (Alternative 1, the 2010 Interim Final includes authorization for specific the continued existence of Steller sea Rule) or to implement a new suite of fishery research in the BSAI. This final lions or result in the destruction or Steller sea lion protection measures rule implements the Steller sea lion adverse modification of their designated (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). To provide protection measures in Alternative 5. critical habitat. The 2010 Interim Final a comprehensive analysis of the effects The Council recommended Rule established Steller sea lion of the alternatives, the EIS compares the Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative protection measures primarily in the six alternatives relative to each other based on the analysis in the draft EIS, Aleutian Islands, based on the and relative to a baseline period used to public comments, advice from its Steller population trends of the Steller sea lions assess the environmental conditions Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, input and the harvest of principal prey species affecting Steller sea lions (generally from the Council’s Advisory Panel and by the groundfish fisheries in the from 2004 through 2010). NMFS Scientific and Statistical Committee, Aleutian Islands. This action retains developed these alternatives through a and the best available scientific some and modifies some of the Steller collaborative process with the Council information. The Council considered sea lion protection measures and its Steller Sea Lion Mitigation the findings of the 2010 FMP BiOp, a implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Committee, and considered public review of the 2010 FMP BiOp sponsored Rule. comments received during the scoping by NMFS and conducted by the Center

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

for Independent Experts, and a review designed to limit competition for prey fisheries in the Aleutian Islands of the FMP BiOp sponsored by the with Steller sea lions. reporting area, defined at § 679.2 and States of Alaska and Washington. In The best available scientific shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR part 679. recommending Alternative 5 as its information suggests that the effects of The Aleutian Islands reporting area preferred alternative, the Council the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea consists of Statistical Areas 541, 542, determined that Alternative 5 would lions may be greatest around rookeries and 543 in the EEZ and adjacent State implement management measures that and haulouts due to the overlap of of Alaska (State) waters. The EEZ protect Steller sea lion prey as required foraging Steller sea lions and harvest of includes Federal waters that generally by the ESA. The Council determined their prey species in the fisheries. This occur from 3 nautical miles (nm) to 200 that Alternative 5 would protect specific action limits fishing to the greatest nm from shore. State waters generally areas that are important to Steller sea extent from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries occur from shore to 3 nm from shore. lions and limit the amount of fishing and haulouts, which corresponds with Area 541 and adjacent State waters within Steller sea lion critical habitat in the highest observed at-sea use by adult correspond to the eastern Aleutian order to protect Steller sea lion prey female, young-of-the-year, and juvenile Islands; Area 542 and adjacent State availability. Alternative 5 maintains a Steller sea lions, as shown in the Steller waters correspond to the central precautionary approach to the sea lion telemetry data described in the Aleutian Islands; and Area 543 and management of Steller sea lion prey 2014 BiOp (see Chapter 5 of the EIS and adjacent State waters correspond to the species in critical habitat by spatially Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp). western Aleutian Islands. and temporally dispersing catch to The 2014 BiOp identified the This final rule applies to vessels that prevent localized depletion of these importance of maintaining global, or catch groundfish that are required to be important prey resources. broad scale, limits on the harvest of deducted from a TAC under § 679.20 NMFS conducted a consultation on Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock. and that are required to be named on a the proposed action as required under Global limits are currently in place for FFP issued under § 679.4(b) in the BSAI section 7 of the ESA to determine these three species. Regulations prohibit reporting area. This rule also applies to whether fishing under Alternative 5 directed fishing in the BSAI or GOA if vessels that harvest groundfish in State would be likely to jeopardize the the projected spawning biomass of the waters that are managed under the continued existence of Steller sea lions fish stock falls below 20 percent of the State’s parallel groundfish fisheries. or destroy or adversely modify their unfished spawning biomass (see Parallel groundfish fisheries are fisheries that occur in State waters and critical habitat. NMFS issued a regulations at § 679.20(d)(4)). Atka where the catch of groundfish is biological opinion on April 2, 2014 mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries have not experienced this type deducted from the Federal TAC. Parallel (2014 BiOp, see ADDRESSES). New groundfish fisheries are opened and information in the external reviews of of directed fishing closure since global closed by the State concurrently with the 2010 FMP BiOp and the new limits became effective in 2003 (68 FR adjacent Federal fisheries. Parallel analyses that NMFS conducted in 204, January 2, 2003). fisheries are managed by the State under response to those external reviews were Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures regulations similar to those that apply in incorporated into the 2014 BiOp to This final rule implements a the Federal fisheries. The State parallel further understand the effects of the comprehensive suite of Steller sea lion fisheries that would be affected by this groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. protection measures. Steller sea lion action are the fisheries for groundfish The 2014 BiOp found that the protection measures regulate fishing by that occur in State waters adjacent to the implementation of the proposed action applying a combination of closed areas, BSAI. Additional detail on State parallel (Alternative 5) was not likely to harvest limits, and seasons that reduce fisheries is provided in Chapters 3 and jeopardize the continued existence of fishery competition for Steller sea lion 8 of the EIS (see ADDRESSES). Steller sea lions and was not likely to prey when and where Steller sea lions Area Closures destroy or adversely modify designated forage. To improve monitoring, this Steller sea lion critical habitat. The final rule also requires vessels named on NMFS has designated 100,286 square conclusions in the 2014 BiOp were a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP), that kilometers as critical habitat for Steller reached after considering the best use trawl gear to harvest groundfish that sea lions in the Aleutian Islands. This scientific and commercial information is deducted from the Federal total subsection summarizes the critical available, including Steller sea lion allowable catch (TAC), to set their habitat closed to fishing under this final behavior and fisheries data. The 2014 vessel monitoring system (VMS) to rule. A detailed discussion of the BiOp concludes that the proposed transmit the vessel location at least 10 amount of critical habitat closed under action would establish Steller sea lion times per hour. this final rule is in Section 5.3 of the protection measures for the Atka This section provides a summary of 2014 BiOp (see ADDRESSES). The area mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock the Steller sea lion protection measures closures are implemented by regulations fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea implemented in this final rule. For a at § 679.22 and Table 6 to 50 CFR part that spatially and temporally disperse more detailed explanation of the 679 for Atka mackerel, Table 5 to 50 fishing to mitigate potential competition regulatory provisions and the purpose of CFR part 679 for Pacific cod, and Table for prey resources between Steller sea each provision, please see the preamble 4 to 50 CFR part 679 for pollock. lions and these fisheries. Spatial and to the proposed rule (79 FR 37486, July With the final rule, NMFS is closing temporal fishery dispersion is 1, 2014). The preamble to the proposed 90 percent of critical habitat in the accomplished through closure areas, rule also provides a detailed comparison Aleutian Islands to Atka mackerel harvest limits, seasonal apportionment of this final rule with the 2010 Interim fishing, which results in 8 percent more of harvest limits, and limits on Final Rule. area open for Atka mackerel fishing in participation in a fishery. The proposed the Aleutian Islands compared to the action would retain or modify existing Atka Mackerel, Pacific Cod, and Pollock areas closed under the 2010 Interim closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal Fisheries Final Rule. This final rule prohibits apportionment of harvest limits, and This final rule applies primarily to the directed fishing with trawl gear for Atka limits on participation in ways that are Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock mackerel in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70289

from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm as allocations made to accommodate from rookeries in Areas 543 and 542. to 10 nm from rookeries, and from 0 nm incidental catch amounts (ICAs), and This final rule also prohibits directed to 20 nm around Agligadak Island. allocations to other non-CDQ fishing for Atka mackerel in waters from With this final rule, NMFS is closing participants as applicable for the 0 nm to 20 nm from Steller sea lion 65 percent of critical habitat in the specific fishery from the 2015 harvest haulouts and rookeries in Area 542 Aleutian Islands to pollock fishing, specifications. The 2015 biomasses, located between 178° E longitude and which results in 35 percent more area OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and harvest limit 180° E longitude and east of 178° W open to pollock fishing in the Aleutian amounts are subject to change pending longitude. In Area 541, this final rule Islands compared to the previous the completion of the final 2014 Stock prohibits directed fishing with trawl closures. In Area 543, this final rule Assessment and Fishery Evaluation gear inside critical habitat, except for a prohibits directed fishing for pollock in (SAFE) Report and the Council’s portion of critical habitat from 12 nm to 95 percent of critical habitat, including recommendations for final 2015 and 20 nm around . 0 nm to 20 nm from rookeries and 2016 harvest specifications during its With the final rule, NMFS is closing haulouts, except 3 nm to 20 nm from December 2014 meeting. NMFS will 22 percent of critical habitat in the , Alaid and Chirikof haulouts publish the final harvest limits in the Aleutian Islands to Pacific cod fishing that remain outside of 20 nm from final 2015 and 2016 harvest with non-trawl gear (hook-and-line, pot, rookeries. In Area 542, west of 178° W and jig), which results in 23 percent longitude, this final rule prohibits specifications. more area open to Pacific cod fishing directed fishing for pollock in waters Table 1 provides the Atka mackerel with non-trawl gear in the Aleutian from 0 nm to 20 nm from haulouts and harvest limits for 2015, based on the Islands compared to the areas closed rookeries, except in the specified open 2015 ABC (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014). under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. In area near the . East of 178° In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C) Area 543, this final rule prohibits W longitude, this final rule prohibits sets two Atka mackerel harvest directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters directed fishing for pollock in waters limitations for Areas 542 and 543. First, from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries and from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and in Area 543, the annual TAC is limited from 0 nm to 10 nm from from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries, to an amount no greater than 65 percent for hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. except at /Ship Rock of the ABC apportioned for Area 543. In Area 542, this final rule prohibits where directed fishing for pollock is The second limit would allow no more directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters prohibited in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm than 60 percent of the annual TAC, from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries for from haulouts and rookeries in a portion evenly apportioned between the A and ° hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. In of Kanaga Sound east of 178 W B seasons, to be harvested in critical Area 541, this final rule prohibits longitude. In Area 541, this final rule habitat west of 178° W longitude. This directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters prohibits directed fishing for pollock in area includes all of Area 543 and the from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries west critical habitat from 0 nm to 3 nm from ° western portion of Area 542. Section of 172.59 W longitude and in critical haulouts and 0 nm to 10 nm from 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) evenly divides the habitat from 0 nm to 20 nm east of rookeries. harvest of TAC between the A and B 172.59° W longitude for hook-and-line Harvest Limits and Seasons seasons and applies the seasonal and pot gear vessels. Directed fishing for apportionment of Atka mackerel Pacific cod with hook-and-line, pot gear, This final rule, in conjunction with harvests in Area 543, Area 542, and the and jig gear vessels is prohibited in the existing regulations, establishes harvest combined Area 541/Bering Sea. Section Seguam Foraging Area. limits by sector, area, and season for the With the final rule, NMFS is closing Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 679.23(e)(3)(ii) maintains the directed 52 percent of critical habitat in the fisheries in the Aleutian Islands. This fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl Aleutian Islands to Pacific cod fishing subsection summarizes the harvest gear A season dates from January 20 with trawl gear, which results in 23 limits and seasons established under through June 10, and extends the B percent more area open to Pacific cod this final rule. The preamble to the season from June 10 through December fishing with trawl gear in the Aleutian proposed rule describes the harvest 31. Prior to this final rule, the Atka Islands compared to the areas closed limits and seasons in greater detail (79 mackerel B season occurred from June under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. In FR 37486, July 1, 2014). 10 through November 1. This additional Area 543, this final rule prohibits Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide the 2015 season length provides greater directed fishing for Pacific cod with estimates of biomass, the overfishing opportunity for trawl gear harvesters to trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm levels (OFLs), the acceptable biological distribute catch throughout the year. to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm catches (ABCs) from the 2015 harvest Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) prohibits any to 10 nm from rookeries. In Area 542, specifications (79 FR 12108, March 4, unharvested Atka mackerel A season this final rule prohibits directed fishing 2014), and the harvest limit amounts for allowance that is added to the B season for Pacific cod with trawl gear vessels in Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock from being harvested within waters 0 waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts fisheries established under this final nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries. rule. Tables 1, 2, and 3 also describe the located in Areas 543, 542, and 541. This In Area 541, this final rule prohibits allocations that are made to the Western provision ensures that harvest is not directed fishing for Pacific cod with Alaska Community Development Quota concentrated within critical habitat trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm (CDQ) Program as CDQ reserves, as well during the B season.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—2015 BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS ATKA MACKEREL BIOMASS, OFL, ABC, AND TAC; SECTOR, SEASON, AND AREA ALLOCATIONS; AND CRITICAL HABITAT LIMITS UNDER THIS FINAL RULE [Amounts are in metric tons]

2015 Atka Mackerel Biomass, OFL, ABC, and TAC

Biomass ...... 387,308 OFL ...... 74,898 ABC ...... 64,477 TAC ...... 56,769

1 Area 541/ Sector Season Bering Sea Area 542 Area 543

2015 Sector, Season, and Area Allocations and Critical Habitat Limits

Area ABC ...... n/a ...... 21,769 20,685 22,023 Area TAC ...... n/a ...... 21,769 20,685 14,315

CDQ reserve ...... Total ...... 2,329 2,213 1,532 A season ...... 1,165 1,107 766 Critical habitat limit ...... n/a 664 460 B season ...... 1,165 1,107 766 Critical habitat limit 3 ...... n/a 664 460

ICA ...... Total ...... 1,000 75 40

Jig 2 ...... Total ...... 92 0 0

BSAI trawl limited access ...... Total ...... 1,835 1,840 0 A season ...... 917 920 0 Critical habitat limit ...... n/a 552 0 B season ...... 917 920 0 Critical habitat limit 3 ...... n/a 552 0

Amendment 80 ...... Total ...... 16,513 16,557 12,743

Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 2015 ...... Total ...... 8,958 9,938 7,854 A season...... 4,479 4,969 3,927 Critical habitat limit ...... n/a 2,981 2,356 B season...... 4,479 4,969 3,927 Critical habitat limit 3 ...... n/a 2,981 2,356

Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 2015 ...... Total ...... 7,555 6,619 4,889 A season...... 3,778 3,310 2,445 Critical habitat limit ...... n/a 1,986 1,467 B season...... 3,778 3,309 2,444 Critical habitat limit 3 ...... n/a 1,985 1,466 1 Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii) allocates the Atka mackerel TACs, after subtracting the Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserves, jig gear allo- cation, and incidental catch allowances (ICAs) to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The allocation of the TAC for Atka mackerel to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is established in Table 33 to part 679 and § 679.91. The CDQ reserve is 10.7 percent of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). 2 Section 679.20(a)(8)(i) requires that up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea TAC be allocated to jig gear after subtracting the CDQ reserve and ICA. Under the final 2015 harvest specifications, this allocation is 0.5 percent. The jig gear allocation is not apportioned by season. 3 Any unharvested Atka mackerel A season allowance that is added to the B season is prohibited from being harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 6 to this part and located in Areas 541, 542, and 543. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.

In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) cod GHL at 3 percent of the sum of the In this final rule, sets a Pacific cod harvest limit based on Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea § 679.23(e)(5)(ii)(C)(2) extends the abundance in Area 543 as determined Pacific cod ABCs. Table 2 provides the Pacific cod trawl gear C season from by the annual stock assessment process. proposed 2015 Aleutian Islands Pacific November 1 to December 31 for NMFS will first subtract the State cod biomass, OFL, ABC, TAC, GHL, the Amendment 80 and Community Pacific cod Guideline Harvest Level sector allocations under the 2015 Development Quota CDQ trawl vessels. (GHL) amount from the Aleutian Islands harvest specifications, and the Area 543 Prior to this final rule, the Pacific cod Pacific cod ABC, then NMFS will harvest limit under this final rule. The trawl gear C season occurred from June determine the harvest limit in Area 543 Area 543 harvest limit is based on an 10 through November 1. This additional by multiplying the percentage of Pacific estimate of Pacific cod abundance for season length provides greater cod estimated in Area 543 by the Area 543 from the 2013 stock opportunity for trawl gear harvesters to remaining ABC for Aleutian Islands assessment for Aleutian Islands Pacific distribute catch throughout the year. Pacific cod. The State sets the Pacific cod.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70291

TABLE 2—2015 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS groups, and the incidental catch of Sector Harvest PACIFIC COD BIOMASS, OFL, ABC, limit pollock in all other groundfish fisheries. TAC, GHL, SECTOR ALLOCATIONS, These harvest limits would ensure the Non-CDQ allocations ...... 5,793 harvest of pollock is constrained in the AND THE AREA 543 HARVEST LIMIT Area 543 harvest limit ...... 1,609 UNDER THIS FINAL RULE winter when pollock harvests are most likely to occur and when pollock [Amounts are in metric tons] In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6) sets harvest appears to be an important part of the 2015 Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Biomass, limits for pollock in the A season Steller sea lion diet (Section 5.3.3 in OFL, ABC, TAC, and GHL (January 20 to June 10) and the B season 2014 BiOp). (June 10 to November 1) in Areas 543, Table 3 provides estimates of the 2015 Biomass ...... 58,911 542, and 541. In Area 543, the A season Aleutian Islands pollock biomass, OFL, OFL ...... 20,100 ABC ...... 15,100 pollock harvest limit is no more than 5 ABC, TAC under the 2015 harvest TAC ...... 6,487 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock specifications, and area specific harvest GHL ...... 8,613 ABC. In Area 542, the A season pollock limits under this final rule. NMFS notes harvest limit is no more than 15 percent that the maximum TAC in the Aleutian of the Aleutian Islands ABC. In Area Harvest Islands pollock fishery is constrained by Sector limit 541, the A season pollock harvest limit statutory and regulatory provisions that is no more than 30 percent of the limit the maximum Aleutian Islands 2015 Sector and Area Allocations Aleutian Islands ABC. These limits pollock TAC to 19,000 metric tons (see apply to all harvests; this includes regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)). CDQ portion of the TAC ...... 694 harvests by the Aleut Corporation, CDQ

TABLE 3—2015 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS POLLOCK BIOMASS, OFL, ABC, AND TAC; SECTOR AND SEASON ALLOCATIONS; AND THE A SEASON HARVEST LIMITS, BY AREA, UNDER THIS FINAL RULE [Amounts are in metric tons]

2015 Aleutian Islands Biomass, OFL, ABC, and TAC

Biomass ...... 289,307 OFL ...... 47,713 ABC ...... 39,412 TAC ...... 1 19,000

2015 Aleutian Islands Sector, Season, and Area Allocations

Sector 2 Seasons 4 Area 541 Area 542 Area 543

Harvest Limits 3 ...... A season 11,824 5,912 1,971

CDQ Directed Fishing Allowance ..... Total ...... 1,900 A season ...... 760 n/a B season ...... 1,140

ICA ...... Total ...... 2,000 A season ...... 1,000 n/a B season ...... 1,000

Aleut Corporation ...... Total ...... 15,100 A season ...... 14,005 n/a B season ...... 1,095 1 Statutory and regulatory provisions limit the maximum Aleutian Islands pollock TAC to 19,000 mt (see regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)). 2 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) and (ii), the annual Aleutian Islands pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing al- lowance (10 percent) and second the ICA (2,000 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a directed pollock fishery. 3 Note that although the area specific harvest limits total to more than 19,000 mt, the TAC constrains total harvests in the Aleutian Islands. NMFS will prohibit fishing if the TAC is reached in the Aleutian Islands even if some amount is unharvested within an area specific harvest limit. 4 Section 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(3)(i) limits the harvest of Aleutian Islands pollock in the A season to no more than 40 percent of the ABC. This harvest includes the directed pollock fishery, CDQ directed fishing allowance, and the ICA. To establish the A season directed pollock fishery al- location within the seasonal limit, NMFS determines the amount of ICA that will be necessary to support other groundfish fisheries during the A season.

Summary of Regulation Changes an inadvertent omission. This regulatory describe the process for setting the NMFS made three changes to the final correction has no impact on the Steller Pacific cod harvest limit for Area 543. rule. One change is in response to sea lion protection measures but The proposed rule at § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) public comment, and one change is a provides an accurate description of said that NMFS would adjust the ABC technical correction. The third change existing Pacific cod seasons. Additional by deducting the State guideline harvest revises 15 CFR 902.1(b) to reflect discussion of this change is in Comment level (GHL). This is not the case, as revisions to recordkeeping and reporting 7 included under Response to Public NMFS does not adjust the ABC. NMFS requirements. Comments, below. modified this paragraph to explain that First, NMFS added the term ‘‘C Second, NMFS revised NMFS will first subtract the State GHL season’’ to § 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) to correct § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) to more accurately Pacific cod amount from the Aleutian

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Islands Pacific cod ABC. Then NMFS would require NMFS SFD to reinitiate exposure of Steller sea lions to potential will determine the harvest limit in Area ESA section 7 consultation. The triggers constraining competition between the 543 by multiplying the percentage of for reinitiating consultation are fishery and Steller sea lions. Roughly 90 Pacific cod estimated in Area 543 by the provided at 50 CFR 402.16. percent of the time during a year there remaining ABC for Aleutian Islands will be only 1 or 2 vessels fishing Atka Comments on Fishery Management Pacific cod. This correction clarifies a mackerel within a given management Measures procedure but does not change the area (e.g., Area 542). With the removal intended process for setting the Pacific Comment 1: The proposed rule of the ‘‘platoon system’’ under this cod harvest limitation and has no continues to reduce the Atka mackerel action, the Atka mackerel fishery will be impact on the Steller sea lion protection TAC, restrict catch in Steller sea lion highly dispersed in time and space. measures. critical habitat, and spread the catch out Response: NMFS acknowledges the Third, this final rule revises and adds temporally and spatially. Further, the comment. Chapter 8 of the EIS describes data elements within a collection-of- majority of Steller sea lion critical the operations of vessels fishing for Atka information for recordkeeping and habitat remains closed for Atka mackerel under this action. Note that reporting requirements; therefore 15 mackerel in the Aleutian Islands: 76 the ‘‘platoon system’’ is also called the CFR 902.1(b) is revised to correctly percent of critical habitat in Area 543; Atka Mackerel Harvest Limit Area reference the sections resulting from 93 percent in Area 542; and almost all (HLA) fishery. The 2010 Interim Final this final rule. 15 CFR 902.1(b) of Area 541 except a small area Rule removed the HLA fishery and this identifies the location of NOAA southeast of Seguam Pass. These final rule maintains that removal. See regulations for which Office of measures will reduce the operational the proposed rule preamble for a more Management and Budget (OMB) efficiency of harvesters fishing under detailed discussion of the HLA fishery approval numbers have been issued. the provisions of the Amendment 80 and the reason for its removal (79 FR Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Program. This is particularly true given 37499). Reduction Act requires that agencies current low permissible harvest levels, Comment 3: Strike the term ‘‘Area inventory and display a current control even if allowed catches are managed 541’’ from the proposed rule at number assigned by the Director of the cooperatively among participants in the § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) where it reads, OMB for each agency information Amendment 80 Program. ‘‘Any unharvested Atka mackerel A collection. Response: NMFS acknowledges the season allowance that is added to the B comment. Amendment 80 to the FMP season is prohibited from being Response to Public Comments identified participants using trawl harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm The comment period on the proposed catcher/processors in the BSAI active in of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table rule ended on August 15, 2014 (79 FR groundfish fisheries other than Bering 6 to this part and located in Areas 541, 37486). NMFS received 17 letters during Sea pollock (i.e., the head-and-gut fleet 542, and 543.’’ Any unused A season the proposed rule comment period. or Amendment 80 vessels) and Atka mackerel should roll to B season NMFS released the final EIS on May 23, established a framework, known as the and be available throughout the area 2014 (79 FR 29759). NMFS received two Amendment 80 Program, to regulate open to fishing within Area 541. This letters of public comment on the final fishing by this fleet (72 FR 52668, will allow the fleet to disperse effort as EIS. The 19 letters received contained September 14, 2007). The Amendment was envisioned under this action. This 59 unique comments. All of the 80 Program created Amendment 80 change in regulation is also supported comment letters received are posted on quota share based on the historic catch by NMFS research that showed little http://www.regulations.gov, search term of quota share species by Amendment exchange of Atka mackerel inside and NOAA–NMFS–2012–0013. 80 vessels, facilitated the development outside of areas 12 nm from shore Although NMFS is not required to of cooperative arrangements within Area 541. respond to comments received as a (Amendment 80 cooperatives) among Response: The regulations at result of issuance of the final EIS, NMFS quota shareholders, and assigned an § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) are correct and decided to provide responses as part of exclusive harvest privilege for a portion NMFS made no changes to regulations the decision-making process. Due to the of the TAC of quota share species for in response to this comment. NMFS overlap of issues, NMFS summarizes participants in Amendment 80 intended to prohibit the harvest of Atka and responds to the comments received cooperatives. Chapter 8 of the EIS mackerel TAC rolled over from the A on the final EIS and the comments on describes the factors affecting the season inside critical habitat in the B the proposed rule in this final rule operational efficiency of vessels in the season in Areas 541, 542, and 543. This preamble. Amendment 80 Program under this prohibition preserves the intent of the In many of the letters, members of the action. existing seasonal apportionment of Atka public also made comments on the 2014 Comment 2: The development of the mackerel TAC, which is to temporally BiOp. NMFS responds to comments on Atka mackerel management measures by disperse harvest. Currently, in each the 2014 BiOp that are related to the the Council’s Steller Sea Lion Mitigation management area, 50 percent of the TAC proposed rule and EIS. However, Committee was guided in large measure is assigned to the A season and 50 comments on the 2014 BiOp that are not by the results of NMFS Fishery percent to the B season, see related to the proposed rule or EIS are Interaction Team studies. The Atka § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). Also, the not addressed further in this preamble. mackerel management measures ability to roll over unused TAC from the NMFS notes that this final rule does not implemented by this action are intended A season to the B season is limited implement the 2014 BiOp, and the 2014 to meet the goal of reducing the under § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D). As explained BiOp is not subject to notice-and- possibility of competition. These Atka in the preamble to the proposed rule, comment rulemaking requiring a mackerel management measures are the purpose of this provision is to limit response in this final rule. All letters responsive to the best available the amount of harvest that could occur were provided to NMFS PRD for their information and to the performance in critical habitat to further protect Atka review. NMFS PRD and NMFS SFD did standards of the 2010 FMP BiOp (see mackerel prey resources for Steller sea not identify any new information ADDRESSES). The 2014 BiOp provides a lions inside critical habitat (79 FR provided in public comments that relevant context for evaluating the 37500). Unharvested Atka mackerel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70293

TAC from the A season can be harvested and TAC under the proposed action of Alaska GHL Pacific cod fishery, could in the B season outside of critical analyzed in the 2010 FMP BiOp. reduce fixed gear harvest opportunity in habitat. This provision also provides for Because there were no limits on the the Aleutian Islands and increase the greater spatial dispersion of harvest amount of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC proportion of trawl harvest of Pacific away from Steller sea lion critical that could be caught in Areas 541 and cod. The lack of an Aleutian Islands habitat. 542, the RPA contained triggers to cue Pacific cod TAC apportionment between Comment 4: The proposed rule would NMFS and the public that reinitiation of fixed gear and trawl gear for Areas 543, restore some productive fishing grounds section 7 consultation should occur if 542, and 541 will result in a decreased in the Aleutian Islands and remove the fishing exceeded historical catch proportion of fixed-gear Pacific cod no-retention regulations for the Pacific amounts in these management areas. harvest in the Aleutian Islands and an cod fishery in Area 543. These measures NMFS considered these triggers increased proportion of trawl Pacific provide some reduction in the impacts important because the RPA and its cod harvest in the Aleutian Islands. This of Steller sea lion protection measures implementing 2010 Interim Final Rule means more Pacific cod harvest in the to the Pacific cod fishery relative to the also closed Area 543 to directed fishing Aleutian Islands will be harvested by 2010 Interim Final Rule. However, the and prohibited retention of Pacific cod. trawl gear that is more temporally amount of TAC available to the Pacific With the closure of Area 543 to directed compressed (February and March), cod fishery in the Aleutian Islands will fishing and retention of Pacific cod fishes at a higher rate (than fixed gear), be only a small fraction of what was prohibited under the 2010 Interim Final and is more likely to cause localized available and what was harvested prior Rule, NMFS was concerned that harvest depletion. This is inconsistent with the to 2011 because of the decision to displaced from Area 543 would cause stated intent of the proposed rule. separate BSAI Pacific cod into separate an increase in harvest in Areas 542 and Response: This final rule implements stocks with separate OFLs, ABCs, and 541. NMFS included a discussion of measures necessary to protect Steller sea TACs. With the adoption of separate these triggers from the 2010 FMP BiOp lion prey. The changes proposed by the Pacific cod TACs for the Aleutian in the preamble to the 2010 Interim commenter to apportion the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, the new Final Rule; however, as explained in Islands Pacific cod TAC between fixed measures provide much better that preamble, NMFS did not include gear and trawl gear and between the A protection of the Pacific cod resource at these triggers in the implementing and B seasons are not Steller sea lion the global scale than did the 2010 FMP regulations (75 FR 77541). protection measures. Apportioning the BiOp RPA implemented in the 2010 The 2014 BiOp did not recommend Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC Interim Final Rule. reinitiation triggers for the Pacific cod between fixed gear and trawl gear and Response: NMFS acknowledges the fishery because the nature of the Pacific between the A and B season would comment. Chapter 8 of the EIS describes cod fishery and harvest limits have require a separate regulatory the management of the Pacific cod changed since the 2010 FMP BiOp. As amendment. NMFS cannot add this fishery under this action. of 2014, Pacific cod OFLs, ABCs, and provision or an interim measure to the Comment 5: NMFS could alleviate the TACs are specified separately for the final rule because it not been concern over the concentration of eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. considered, analyzed, or made available Pacific cod harvest in Area 543 and 542 The amount of Pacific cod catch in the for public comment. The Council could by including re-consultation triggers in Aleutian Islands is expected to be consider and analyze this proposal and the final rule similar to the re- substantially reduced relative to prior make a recommendation to NMFS for a consultation triggers NMFS included in years when the OFL, ABC, and TAC future regulatory amendment. the 2010 Interim Final Rule that were combined for the BSAI. Therefore, A separate Aleutian Islands Pacific established non-trawl and trawl sector the potential for a shift of a substantial cod TAC was established starting in guideline harvest limits for Pacific cod amount of fishing effort from one area 2014 that resulted in a substantial by area. NMFS should consider re- of the Aleutian Islands to another does reduction in the Pacific cod available for consultation triggers as non-regulatory not exist under this action. harvest in the Aleutian Islands. The guideline harvest levels distinct for The reinitiation notice in Section 10.0 Council and NMFS were aware of the trawl and non-trawl sectors Pacific cod of the 2014 BiOp stated that formal impact of the Aleutian Islands Pacific harvest in Areas 543 and 542 (and consultation may be required if the cod TAC on the fixed gear fleet’s harvest possibly 541). These re-consultation Aleutian Islands Pacific cod harvest is opportunities when the Council took triggers could serve as an interim concentrated in Areas 542 or 543, as this action to split the Pacific cod TAC. With measure to address immediate concerns would reflect a pattern not seen in the the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC, it until superseded by Council action. Re- historical fishery data. The EIS and the is likely that trawl vessels will be able consultation triggers would ensure less 2014 BiOp anticipated that a larger to fully harvest this limited TAC before concentration of harvest in these areas proportion of the Aleutian Islands the Pacific cod are available for harvest due to greater temporal dispersion of Pacific cod TAC is likely to be harvested by fixed gear vessels. harvest by vessels using fixed gear, by trawl gear rather than by non-trawl The EIS analyzed the impacts of the which is more temporally dispersed gear and the Council did not proposed action and its alternatives than harvest by vessels using trawl gear. recommend harvest limits. with the understanding that a separate Re-consultation triggers would also Comment 6: Make two changes to the Pacific cod TAC would be implemented ensure harvest by non-trawl gear, which regulations: (1) Apportion the Aleutian in 2014 (see Chapter 5 of the EIS). The fishes at a slower rate than trawl gear Islands Pacific cod TAC between fixed 2014 BiOp acknowledged the impacts of and is less likely to contribute to gear and trawl gear for Areas 543, 542, the Pacific cod TAC split, including the localized depletion. and 541; and (2) apportion the Aleutian fact that the trawl fishery would harvest Response: NMFS included triggers for Islands Pacific cod TAC between the A the TAC, when it analyzed the proposed reinitiation of the section 7 consultation and B seasons for Areas 543, 542, and suite of Steller sea lion protection for Pacific cod harvest in Areas 541 and 541. Without these changes, the measures and found that the 542 as part of the RPA in the 2010 FMP proposed rule, in conjunction with implementation of this final rule was BiOp. The Pacific cod ABC and TAC separate management of Aleutian not likely to jeopardize the continued were specified as a combined BSAI ABC Islands Pacific cod and increasing State existence of Steller sea lions and was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

not likely to destroy or adversely modify measure that will protect the long term catch of Aleutian Islands pollock may designated Steller sea lion critical productivity of the Pacific cod stock. be less than the TAC for the reasons habitat. Therefore, the final rule is While these measures will result in less stated by the commenter, NMFS does consistent with the stated intent for this Pacific cod being available in the not have specific information indicating action. Aleutian Islands in the short run, the that catch will be consistently below the Comment 7: The proposed regulatory more conservative management of Aleutian Islands TAC in future years. text at § 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) states, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod could The EIS and the 2014 BiOp assumed ‘‘Harvest of seasonal apportionments in provide the community of Adak with a that pollock catch in the Aleutian the Amendment 80 limited access more stable resource base in the long Islands would equal the TAC for fishery. (1) Pacific cod ITAC assigned run. purposes of analyzing the effects of this for harvest by the Amendment 80 Response: NMFS acknowledges the action. limited access fishery in the A season comment and notes that this final rule Comment 11: The proposed rule to may be harvested in the B seasons.’’ is intended to spatially disperse the allow pollock fishing in some portions This mistakenly omits a reference to the Pacific cod fishery. of critical habitat will finally realize C season contained in paragraph Comment 10: Prior to the 2014 BiOp, Congress’ intent of providing for (a)(7)(v)(A) that states, ‘‘Use of seasonal no analysis of a commercial pollock economic development for Adak in the apportionments by Amendment 80 fishery in the Aleutian Islands had been 2004 legislation allocating Aleutian cooperatives. (1) The amount of Pacific undertaken since Congress allocated Islands pollock to the Aleut cod listed on a CQ permit that is pollock to the Aleut Corporation in Corporation. assigned for use in the A season may be 2004. The 2014 BiOp takes the first hard Response: NMFS acknowledges the used in the B or C season.’’ We believe look at the spatial distribution of the comment. this was an inadvertent omission and historic Aleutian Island pollock fishery Comment 12: Reduce the TAC for the the words ‘‘or C’’ belong in paragraph in comparison to the telemetry data on Bering Sea Aleutian Islands pollock (a)(7)(v)(B)(1) so that it would read: Steller sea lion foraging locations. It also fishery by 50 percent because it may be ‘‘Pacific cod ITAC assigned for the compares Steller sea lion dive profiles a cause in the Steller sea lion harvest by the Amendment 80 limited with pollock fishing depths. In both population decline. One of the Steller access fishery in the A season may be cases the 2014 BiOp finds the least sea lion’s primary food sources is harvested in the B or C seasons.’’ overlap of any of the three prey species. pollock. Not having a stable food supply Response: NMFS agrees that this was Additionally, scat data presented in the forces the Steller sea lions to travel a typographical error and has made the 2010 FMP BiOp showed Aleutian farther and compete with other marine change to the final rule Islands pollock had the lowest animals for different food resources. § 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) to correct this frequency of occurrence in Steller sea Local residents are wondering why inadvertent omission. Section lion scat of the three prey species of there are more frequent Steller sea lion 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) now reads, ‘‘Harvest concern. sightings in areas of the Bering Sea that of seasonal apportionments in the The statutory and regulatory were previously uninhabited by sea Amendment 80 limited access fishery. provisions that limit the maximum lions. (1) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest amount of pollock TAC that may be Response: NMFS manages pollock in by the Amendment 80 limited access harvested in the Aleutian Islands means the Aleutian Islands separately from the fishery in the A season may be that the pollock TAC in 2015 would be Bering Sea. This action changes harvested in the B or C seasons.’’ The less than 50 percent of the Aleutian management of the Aleutian Islands changes NMFS made to § 679.20(a)(7)(v) Islands pollock ABC. The commenter pollock fishery, as detailed in this are discussed in the preamble to the notes that Aleutian Islands pollock preamble. The Aleutian Islands pollock proposed rule (79 FR 37502). This harvest is likely to be significantly less TAC is greatly reduced from the ABC regulatory correction has no impact on than the TAC because allocations due to a number of factors described in the Steller sea lion protection measures. provided to CDQ groups (i.e., 10 percent Comment 10 and shown in Table 3 in Comment 8: The management of the Aleutian Islands TAC) may be this preamble. The Bering Sea pollock measures put forward in the proposed harvested in the Bering Sea, and fishery is outside the scope of this rule are, on the whole, a significant regulations allocate 50 percent of the action. improvement over the measures that are TAC remaining after allocation to CDQ The 2010 FMP BiOp analyzed the currently in place from the 2010 Interim groups to vessels less than 60 feet in impacts of the Bering Sea pollock Final Rule, particularly in regards to the length overall. These smaller vessels fishery on Steller sea lions and re-opening of Area 543 to Pacific cod will have difficulty harvesting their concluded that the management fishing. The new measures are more pollock allocations due to the greater measures currently in place, including consistent with the best available depths at which pollock is found in the the management measures for the Bering science on the impacts of groundfish Aleutian Islands and the more limited Sea pollock fishery, are not likely to fisheries on the Steller sea lions and fishing capabilities of smaller vessels to jeopardize the continued existence of reflect management measures developed harvest pollock at depth given the Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely and supported by the Council and its necessary horsepower and gear modify their designated critical habitat. Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee. requirements. The 2014 BiOp concluded management Response: NMFS acknowledges the Response: NMFS agrees that the measures in this action for the Aleutian comment. Aleutian Islands pollock TAC is likely Islands pollock fishery are not likely to Comment 9: The Pacific cod fishery to be substantially below the Aleutian jeopardize the continued existence of has been the primary basis of seafood Islands pollock ABC in the foreseeable Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely processing in Adak and a mainstay of future because existing statutory and modify their designated critical habitat. the local economy. Re-opening portions regulatory provisions limit the A wide range of factors can affect the of critical habitat to fishing will provide maximum Aleutian Islands pollock TAC distribution of Steller sea lions (see more spatial dispersion of the fishery. to 19,000 mt (see regulations at Chapter 5 of the EIS for additional Setting a separate TAC for Aleutian § 679.20(a)(5)(iii) and Table 3 in this details on Steller sea lion distribution). Islands Pacific cod is a precautionary preamble). NMFS notes that although The occurrence of Steller sea lions at a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70295

location not previously observed may be to as the Russian sub-region because by the Council. See response to due to reasons other than the lack of most of the Steller sea lion population Comment 16. adequate prey resources in other in that sub-region is concentrated in The 2014 BiOp considered the effects locations. Russia. NMFS receives information on of two proposed actions: The modified the trend and status of Steller sea lions Steller sea lion protection measures in Comments on Steller Sea Lion Issues in this sub-region from its counterparts the Aleutian Islands Federal groundfish Comment 13: The proposed rule in Russia and Japan. fisheries and State of Alaska parallel preamble fails to include any Non-pup counts increased at a groundfish fisheries for Atka mackerel, information regarding the current total significant rate from 2000 through 2012 Pacific cod, and pollock (the action population status of Steller sea lions. in the eastern GOA, the western GOA, implemented through this final rule); The status of the Steller sea lion and the eastern Aleutian Islands. Non- and research to better understand the population should be included in the pup counts increased at a non- potential effects of these fisheries on preamble to the rule to give context to significant rate from 2000 through 2012 Steller sea lions. As required by the the proposed management measures. in the central GOA. Counts of non-pups regulations codified at 50 CFR 402.14, The proposed rule is for management decreased at a significant rate in the the 2014 BiOp includes a summary of measures to protect Steller sea lions, but western Aleutian Islands and at a non- the information on which the opinion is the rule provides no information on the significant rate in the central Aleutian based, a detailed discussion of the total population status. Islands from 2000 through 2012. effects of the action on the listed Steller Response: A complete description of The Russian sub-region of Steller sea sea lions and designated critical habitat, the status of the Steller sea lion lions is estimated to have increased and NMFS’ opinion that the action is population is provided in Section 5.1.1 from 13,000 sea lions in the 1990s to not likely to jeopardize the continued of the EIS and Section 3.3 of the 2014 16,000 by 2005. Data collected through existence of the WDPS of Steller sea BiOp. The WDPS of Steller sea lions is 2012 indicate that overall Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify distributed from Prince William Sound lion abundance in the Russian sub- their designated critical habitat. NMFS through the Aleutian Islands in Alaska region continues to increase and is now based its opinion in the 2014 BiOp on and in Russia on the Kamchatka similar to the 1960s (27,100). Between the best scientific and commercial data peninsula, Kuril Islands, and the Sea of 1995 and 2012, pup production available as required by 50 CFR 402.14. Okhotsk. The 2008 Recovery Plan (see increased overall in the Russian sub- Please see the 2014 BiOp for additional ADDRESSES) uses the population trend in region by 3.1 percent per year. However, detail (see ADDRESSES). non-pups to gauge the species’ status. just as in the United States portion of Comment 16: The proposed rule is In 2012, the estimated abundance of the range, there are significant regional premised on the unprecedented finding the entire WDPS of Steller sea lions differences in Steller sea lion from the 2014 BiOp that the (pups and non-pups, United States and population trends in the Russian sub- preponderance of available data does Russia/Asia) was 79,300 sea lions (see region (see the EIS Chapter 5 and 2014 not support a conclusion that the Section 3.3.1 of the 2014 BiOp). BiOp for full details). groundfish fisheries and groundfish Abundance of the United States portion Comment 14: Given the robust abundance are limiting Steller sea lion of the population is estimated at 52,200 increase in the total United States population growth rates. animals based on data from 2012. Steller population of Steller sea lions, the Response: These implementing sea lion abundance in the Russian removal of some of the Steller sea lions regulations are premised on the portion of the population is estimated at protection measures in the 2010 Interim information available to the Council, its 27,100 animals based on data collected Final Rule is warranted. Additionally, Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, through 2012. this population increase, combined with and NMFS throughout the development There is evidence that Steller sea lion the fact there is no evidence supporting of this action. When it recommended non-pup counts in Alaska increased at the nutritional stress hypothesis (i.e., the suite of Steller sea lion protection an average rate of 1.67 percent per year that fisheries are removing key Steller measures implemented in this final rule, between 2000 and 2012. Because the sea lion prey species in a way that the Council reviewed all of the United States portion of the range diminishes resources for Steller sea information available, including the occurs exclusively within Alaska, lions), is grounds for the removal of 2010 FMP BiOp, the Center for reference to the United States portion of additional undue restrictions on the Independent Experts’ review of the 2010 the Steller sea lion population is BSAI groundfish fisheries. BiOp, as well as the external review synonymous with the Alaska portion of Response: NMFS acknowledges the commissioned by the States of Alaska the Steller sea lion population. comment; however, the changes made to and Washington, the EIS analysis, and However, there are strong differences in Steller sea lion protection measures are public comments. trends across the range of Steller sea based on the best available scientific NMFS then conducted an ESA section lions in Alaska. There is strong evidence information and not those stated in the 7 consultation on the Council’s of a positive trend (2.89 percent per comment. recommended proposed action and year) east of Samalga Pass and strong Comment 15: The 2014 BiOp fails to issued the 2014 BiOp. The 2014 BiOp evidence of a continued decline (¥1.53 provide a sound, scientific basis for concluded that the proposed action is percent per year) west of Samalga Pass. concluding no jeopardy or adverse not likely to jeopardize the continued NMFS uses six sub-regions within modification and, therefore, it does not existence of the WDPS of Steller sea Alaska for trend and status monitoring provide an objective foundation for the lions or destroy or adversely modify of Steller sea lions. These sub-regions proposed rule. The 2014 BiOp analysis their critical habitat. The 2014 BiOp include the eastern GOA, central GOA, on which the proposed rule is based is also explains that NMFS maintains that and western GOA, the eastern Aleutian flawed to such an extent that it should a cautionary approach to fishing for Islands/Bering Sea, central Aleutian be set aside, the proposed rule prey species in Steller sea lion critical Islands, and the western Aleutian withdrawn, and the consultation re- habitat is warranted, especially in Islands. A seventh sub-region (i.e., initiated. winter when NMFS has the least Russia/Asia) is located outside the Response: NMFS based this rule on information about prey biomass, and United States and is commonly referred the preferred alternative recommended that catch should be dispersed in time

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and space to prevent localized the 2010 FMP BiOp—as the proposed population declined substantially—60 depletion—at least until such time as rule would repeal the very Steller sea percent from 2000 to 2012—and a 2013 NMFS has better local biomass and lion protection measures instituted as study found that the probability of exploitation rate estimates (see the 2014 the 2010 RPA. Because the 2010 FMP extinction in the western Aleutian BiOp, page 227). Consistent with that BiOp reflects a credible and consistent Islands is substantial within 50 years. recommendation, the Steller sea lion analysis of the best available science, Response: The recovery criteria in the protection measures implemented in the status quo protection measures for 2008 Recovery Plan are discussed in this final rule dispersed fishing in time Steller sea lions adopted as a Section 3.5 of the 2014 BiOp and and space to prevent localized depletion consequence of that analysis and Section 1.9.4 of the EIS. The recovery of prey species. reflected in the 2010 Interim Final Rule criteria compose the core standards Comment 17: While measures other must be at least maintained—if not upon which to base a decision to than those currently in place strengthened. remove Steller sea lions from the conceivably might satisfy NMFS’ Response: The connection between Endangered Species List. The biological obligations under the ESA, the available the 2010 FMP BiOp and the 2014 BiOp (demographic) recovery criteria are scientific information about the fisheries on the Alaska groundfish fisheries is intended to maintain Steller sea lion and Steller sea lions does not justify explained in Section 1.0 of the 2014 populations throughout their range. new measures that simply allow more BiOp. The 2014 BiOp did not entirely Currently, there are no geographic gaps fishing without a coincident increase in replace the previous 2010 FMP BiOp. in the range of Steller sea lions and the other protections. Alternative 5 is The analysis contained in the 2010 FMP Recovery Team determined, and NMFS arbitrary because it is based on the 2014 BiOp remains valid and meets NMFS’ concurred, that it is important to the BiOp. requirement to consult at the FMP level. species’ viability to maintain Response: Alternative 5 (the preferred NMFS did a project-level, focused populations in all six sub-regions of the alternative implemented in the final consultation on the proposed action to WDPS. Significant declines over large rule) was not based on the 2014 BiOp. modify Steller sea lion protection areas (two sub-regions or more) could NMFS worked with the Council and its measures in the Aleutian Islands. The indicate that the extinction risk may Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee 2014 BiOp is the result of that still be high and that further research to identify the reasonable range of consultation. The 2014 BiOp considered would be needed to understand the alternatives for analysis in the EIS. In a different proposed action than the threats before delisting. NMFS notes developing the alternatives, the Steller 2010 FMP BiOp, namely the proposed that although the recovery criteria are Sea Lion Mitigation Committee and changes to the Aleutian Islands Pacific still applicable, there have been Council considered the 2010 FMP BiOp, cod, Atka mackerel, and pollock substantial improvements in the best external reviews of 2010 FMP BiOp, the fisheries; scientific research on these available scientific information on draft EIS, public comments, and NMFS’ fisheries and other changes to the Steller sea lions since the publication of response to public comments received fishery management structure since the 2008 Recovery Plan. The 2014 BiOp on the draft EIS. Based on this 2010; and new information available considered the best available scientific information, the Council determined subsequent to completion of the 2010 information. that the available scientific information FMP BiOp. The proposed action to The abundance of Steller sea lions in about the fisheries and Steller sea lions modify Steller sea lion protection Alaska is increasing at a statistically supports alternative Steller sea lion measures replaces the RPA in the 2010 significant rate; however, the increase is protection measures to those in the 2010 FMP BiOp, which was implemented as due to significant increases in Interim Final Rule. The Council then the 2010 Interim Final Rule. Based on population growth in three of the six recommended Alternative 5 as the an analysis of the proposed action and sub-regions (the eastern Aleutian preferred alternative based on the the new information, the 2014 BiOp Islands, the western GOA, and the analysis in the draft EIS, public concludes that the proposed action is eastern GOA). Steller sea lions continue comments, and the best available not likely to jeopardize the continued to decline in the central Aleutian scientific information. existence of Steller sea lions or destroy Islands and western Aleutian Islands. In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS analyzed the or adversely modify their designated The rate of decline is not statistically effects of Alternative 5 after it was critical habitat. significant in the central Aleutian recommended by the Council. NMFS Comment 19: The proposed rule Islands, but is statistically significant in conducted the ESA section 7 violates NMFS’ ESA obligation to avoid the western Aleutian Islands. The rate of consultation on Alternative 5 prior to jeopardizing the prospects of Steller sea increase is uncertain in the central releasing the final EIS and commencing lions for recovery and is inconsistent GOA. See response to Comment 13 for rulemaking. The 2014 BiOp found that with the 2008 Recovery Plan (see additional information on the the implementation of Alternative 5 was ADDRESSES). The best available science, population status of Steller sea lions. not likely to jeopardize the continued reflected in the 2008 Recovery Plan, Section 3.6 of the 2014 BiOp and existence of the WDPS of Steller sea indicates that a large sub-regional Section 5.1.1.2 of the EIS discuss the lions and was not likely to destroy or population decline constitutes a threat extinction risk of Steller sea lions in adversely modify designated Steller sea to the prospect of recovery for Steller Alaska. The studies presented in those lion critical habitat. The conclusions in sea lions as a whole. NMFS is proposing sections show no risk of extinction for the 2014 BiOp were reached after to allow additional fishing within the Steller sea lion in the WDPS within 100 considering the best scientific and designated critical habitat for the years. These studies also considered the commercial information available, western and central Aleutian sub- probability of extinction in each of the including Steller sea lion behavior and regions, even though Steller sea lion six specific sub-regions within 100 fisheries data. populations continue to decline in those years. The studies concluded that Comment 18: The 2010 FMP BiOp areas and NMFS acknowledges that Steller sea lion populations in all six of remains valid and, for precisely this existing fishing levels cannot be ruled the sub-regions, with one exception, reason, both the proposed rule and 2014 out as a contributing cause of the have no risk of extinction within 100 BiOp must be abandoned. The proposed ongoing decline. Significantly, the years. The population in the western rule simply cannot be reconciled with western Aleutian sub-regional Aleutian Islands sub-region is predicted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70297

to have a high probability of extinction NMFS’ opinion about the effects of preservation of wildlife or natural within 100 years. the proposed fisheries on the Steller sea habitats. As explained in Section 7.1 of the lion population in the western Aleutian Response: NMFS is concerned about 2014 BiOp, NMFS considered the effects Islands sub-region and their designated the continued decline of Steller sea of the proposed action on the survival critical habitat is summarized in Section lions in the western and central and recovery of sea lion populations in 7.3 of the 2014 BiOp. The measures Aleutian Islands sub-regions. However, the individual sub-regions per the implemented by this final rule to reduce NMFS concluded that the changes to the criteria in the 2008 Recovery Plan. potential competition between the Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries NMFS’ opinion in the 2014 BiOp is that groundfish fisheries and Steller sea management in this final rule are not the preponderance of available data lions overall, and in sea lion critical likely to reduce the survival or recovery does not support a conclusion that the habitat in the western Aleutian Islands, of sea lion populations in the western or groundfish fisheries as proposed and the are not likely to appreciably reduce the central Aleutian Island sub-regions, let current groundfish abundance are likelihood of survival or recovery of the alone the WDPS of Steller sea lions as limiting Steller sea lion population a whole. See response to Comment 19. western Aleutian Islands Steller sea lion growth rates. NMFS acknowledges that, The EIS analyzed the environmental sub-population. However, based on an due to significant data gaps, NMFS impacts of the proposed action and its assessment of the available data, NMFS cannot rule out the effects of fishing as alternatives on wildlife and habitat. contributing to the continued decline in concluded that a decline in numbers of Comment 21: NMFS’ refusal to the western Aleutian Islands and the the western Aleutian Islands Steller sea address the correlation between sub- lack of recovery in the central Aleutian lion population is likely to continue for regional population trends and Steller Islands (see Section 5.4.5 of the 2014 unknown reasons, even apart from any sea lion protection measures is arbitrary BiOp). changes in the fisheries, and that the and harmful because it defies a key Given these data gaps, NMFS measures implemented by this rule are performance standard set forth in the maintains that a precautionary approach not likely to yield population level 2010 FMP BiOp. The proposed rule to fishing for sea lion prey species in effects that would appreciably change purports to maintain the goal of Steller sea lion critical habitat is the likelihood of survival or recovery of providing more protection to Steller sea warranted, especially in winter, and that the Steller sea lion population within lions where more decline in their catch of prey species should be the western Aleutian Islands sub-region. population is evident. As the proposed dispersed in time and space to prevent NMFS also concluded that the effects of rule would eliminate Steller sea lion localized depletion of prey at least until the proposed fisheries in the central protection measures in the central and NMFS has better information about Aleutian Islands (corresponding with western Aleutian Islands, the portion of local biomass and exploitation rates (see NMFS management areas 542 and 541) the species’ range where the population Section 5.4.5 of the 2014 BiOp). The are not likely to appreciably reduce the continues to decline, it obviously fails Steller sea lion protection measures likelihood of survival or recovery in the to meet this performance standard. The implemented in this final rule maintain central Aleutian Islands sub-region. proposed rule would open more critical substantial groundfish fishery closures Because the proposed fisheries are not habitat to more fisheries in Area 543 and catch limits in Steller sea lion likely to reduce the survival or recovery relative to Areas 541 and 542, despite critical habitat (see Section 5.3 in the of Steller sea lion populations in the the fact that the negative population 2014 BiOp and Sections 2.1.5 and western and central Aleutian Islands trend is most pronounced in Area 543. 5.2.2.6 of the EIS) to reduce the sub-regions, NMFS concluded that the Response: Contrary to the potential for competition for prey proposed fisheries are not likely to commenter’s assertion, this final rule between the fisheries and sea lions and appreciably reduce the likelihood of does not eliminate Steller sea lion to ensure that the fisheries are not likely survival or recovery of the WDPS of protection measures in the central and to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions (Section 7.3 of the 2014 western Aleutian Islands, but rather the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy BiOp). maintains or modifies Steller sea lion of adversely modify their designated protection measures in a manner that is critical habitat. Comment 20: All protections should consistent with the mandates of the ESA For example, directed fishing for Atka remain in place to protect Steller sea and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod with lions until NMFS can confirm that the Section 1.10.3 of the EIS describes the trawl gear will be prohibited in 76 threats that have resulted in the objective and performance standards to percent, 95 percent, and 76 percent, unforeseen and unexplained declines of mitigate potential adverse impacts of the respectively, of the area designated as Steller sea lion populations in the fisheries on Steller sea lions. The critical habitat in the western Aleutian central and western Aleutian Islands Council and NMFS considered these Islands (Area 543). Limits will be have abated. The 2010 Interim Final performance standards when selecting imposed on the amount of the TAC of Rule management measures to protect the preferred alternative in the EIS. The these Steller sea lion prey species that the population in these sub-regions performance standards reflect concepts may be taken from Area 543, which represent the maximum spatial extent NMFS has applied for over a decade to corresponds with the western Aleutian and amount of fishing that can be mitigate potential impacts of the Islands sub-region (see Section 2.1.5 of permitted by the commercial groundfish groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions the EIS). Seasonal catch limits will also fisheries. In fact, with ongoing declines and their critical habitat. The specific be imposed and the amount of Atka persisting in these areas despite the set of performance standards for this mackerel that can be caught in Steller protection measures instituted by the action originated in the 2010 FMP BiOp sea lion critical habitat in the central 2010 Interim Final Rule, additional and was subsequently modified in the and western Aleutian Islands (Areas 543 protection measures may be necessary. EIS to reflect new information available and 542) will be limited to 60 percent There are no conditions under which since the since 2010 FMP BiOp was of the TAC. Refer to the preamble to the these endangered Steller sea lions prepared. The action implemented in proposed rule for the full suite of Steller would not be jeopardized if restrictions this final rule adheres to the sea lion protection measures were relaxed. The environmental impact performance standards by closing implemented by this final rule. of fishing is never conducive to the important Steller sea lion habitat and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

foraging areas to directed fishing for review of the 2010 BiOp, as well as to resources by depth can be difficult to Steller sea lion prey species, dispersing public comment on the 2010 BiOp and judge using the available information. catch between seasons, limiting the to the external review commissioned by Scientific studies of Steller sea lion amount of sea lion prey species that the states of Alaska and Washington. foraging patterns are just beginning to may be caught inside critical habitat, Response: NMFS acknowledges the characterize the diving depths and maintaining and establishing 3-nm comment. patterns of Steller sea lions, and they are groundfish fishing closures around Comment 23: The EIS’s focus on raw likely capable of foraging patterns not designated and emerging rookeries in numbers concerning area closures and yet described or anticipated. Describing the Aleutian Islands, and including catch volumes do not meaningfully the overlap in depth between fisheries additional harvest controls for Steller capture the severity of the impacts or and Steller sea lions is further sea lion prey species in Area 543—the the degree to which the action may complicated by diet or seasonal vertical western Aleutian Islands. This final rule adversely affect Steller sea lions or their migrations of the fish resources for also conserves prey availability for habitat. The EIS analysis assumes that reproduction, refuge, or foraging. Steller sea lions by closing areas to fishery removals of prey may adversely Response: Overlap in fishery and directed fishing for Atka mackerel affect Steller sea lions, and that Steller sea lion foraging depth is one where tagging studies indicate high incremental increases in prey removals necessary condition for competition movement of fish from inside to outside and opening more areas of critical between fisheries and Steller sea lions closure areas. habitat, relative to status quo, could for prey species. Information on sea lion A greater percentage of the critical have incremental, adverse effects on foraging and fishing depths is discussed habitat area will be open to directed prey availability for Steller sea lions. in Section 5.3.5 of the 2014 BiOp and fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific While these assumptions are Section 5.2.2.1 of the EIS. The 2014 cod in Area 543 relative to Areas 542 or appropriate, the EIS applies them in an BiOp contains a detailed analysis of 541 under this final rule. However, this exclusively relativistic manner, never fishery and Steller sea lion foraging final rule imposes stricter harvest limits offering an ultimate, objective judgment depths as one aspect of the exposure for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in of the environmental effects of the analysis. The objective of an exposure Area 543 compared to the harvest limits alternatives on Steller sea lions. analysis in a biological opinion is to that will apply in Areas 542 and 541 Response: Chapter 5 of the EIS establish the extent of spatial and (see Section 2.1.5 of the EIS) in provides a clear explanation of the temporal overlap of the proposed action accordance with the performance methods used for the analysis of the with the listed species and designated standards in the 2010 FMP BiOp. Taken potential effects of the fisheries on critical habitat. NMFS conducted a new as a whole, these measures meet the Steller sea lions. The analysis examines exposure analysis in the 2014 BiOp in performance standards by limiting catch the effects of the alternatives on response to comments from two external overall in the areas where the rate of incidental takes (Section 5.2.1), harvest scientific reviewers who cited decline is most evident. The of prey species (Section 5.2.2), and shortcomings with the exposure specification of a separate Aleutian disturbance (Section 5.2.3). Section analysis in the 2010 FMP BiOp. Islands Pacific cod ABC and TAC 5.2.2 describes the method and While the depth analysis in the 2014 beginning in 2014 (see Section 3.3.3 of assumptions used to analyze the effects BiOp is more detailed than in the EIS, the EIS) substantially reduced Pacific of the alternatives with the best the conclusions of the respective cod harvests in the Aleutian Islands scientific information available. The analyses are in accord with each other. relative to baseline harvests. The best available scientific information For example, the EIS concludes that historical data indicate that higher includes quantitative fisheries catch competition may be less likely between Pacific cod catches are expected in Area information in time and space and Steller sea lions and fisheries that 541 compared to Areas 542 and 543 (see critical habitat locations in relation to harvest species found deeper in the EIS Sections 8.11 and 8.18.3). As fishing activity. This information is water column. In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS explained in the preamble to the used to compare and contrast the effects also inferred greater potential depth proposed rule (79 FR 37486), the of the alternatives. The EIS provides overlap with sea lions between the measures to mitigate the potential conclusions for each effect based on the Pacific cod and Atka mackerel fisheries effects of the pollock fishery on Steller results of the analysis. The assumptions than for pollock fisheries, based on the sea lions and critical habitat conform to that are used in the analysis are clearly available data. The pollock fishery the performance standard and are more stated for the public’s understanding of occurs at deeper depths than the Pacific protective where the Steller sea lion the nature of the available information cod and Atka mackerel fisheries (see decline is most evident. To meet the and how this information is used in the Section 5.3.5 in the 2014 BiOp). NMFS objective of the mitigation measures (see analysis. The commenter’s request that also noted in the 2014 BiOp that there EIS Section 1.10.3), the Council and this information be presented and that were limitations in the available data for NMFS considered the performance an objective judgment on the effects of drawing inferences about the cause of standards, changes to the fisheries the alternatives be provided can be apparent depth partitioning in some relative to the action analyzed in the found in the EIS in the sections portion of sea lion dives and pollock 2010 FMP BiOp, and the effects of the referenced above and in its conclusions. trawl hauls. These conclusions are alternatives when selecting the Comment 24: The 2014 BiOp is consistent with the conclusions in preferred alternative being implemented premised on an examination of the Section 5.2.2.1 of the EIS, which notes in this final rule. overlap in depth between the fisheries that diel or seasonal vertical migrations Comment 22: The Council’s and Steller sea lion diving, by season, of fish complicates the description of recommended preferred alternative is based on our best understanding of the depth overlap between the fisheries and supported by the EIS and the 2014 two variables. The EIS undercuts the Steller sea lions. BiOp. Together, these two documents reliability of this work to reach a Comment 25: The assessment of the fulfill the U.S. District Court’s directive conclusion of no jeopardy, stating that frequency and intensity of fishery to NMFS to take a hard look at the data. the extent to which competition removals in the 2014 BiOp does not In doing so, NMFS has been responsive between fisheries and Steller sea lions support the BiOp’s ‘‘no jeopardy’’ to the Center for Independent Experts’ may be avoided through partitioning of conclusion. This assessment is also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70299

contrary to the EIS because the EIS taken by the fisheries and Steller sea below a quasi-extinction threshold acknowledges that the critical link lions and notes the limitations of the within 50 and 100 years. A quasi- between fisheries removals (e.g., time, available data and the uncertainty about extinction threshold is the population rate, location) and the effects on Steller the extent of potential overlap. size, greater than zero, at which a sea lions is poorly understood and that Comment 27: The EIS’ approach population is ultimately doomed to the relationship between these catch obscures the potential severity of the extinction due to genetic or physical rates and the impacts on prey cannot be proposed action for both Steller sea constraints of the small, remaining determined except that higher catch lions in the central and western population. NMFS examined three rates in relation to low prey abundance Aleutian Islands and Steller sea lions as methods: The Morris and Doak (MD) would be more likely to result in a whole. Unfortunately, the population method (Morris and Doak 2002), and localized depletions. trends for non-pups in the central and restricted and unrestricted agTrend Response: Section 5.3.7 in the 2014 western Aleutian Islands sub-regions methods (Johnson 2013). The results for BiOp analyzes the probable extent of continue to decline, with a particularly each method were qualitatively the removal of important Steller sea lion severe decline in abundance (a 60 same: There is approximately a zero prey under the proposed action. Section percent decrease) observed in the percent probability of quasi-extinction 5.3.8 of the 2104 BiOp presents NMFS’ western Aleutian Islands between 2000 of the Steller sea lion population in conceptual model of how Steller sea and 2012. A 2013 study found that the Alaska as a whole within the next 100 lions are exposed to the effects of prey probability of extinction in the western years. Similarly, there is approximately removal by the groundfish fisheries. Aleutian Islands is substantial even a zero percent probability of quasi- Section 5.3.8 of the 2014 BiOp and within 50 years. The EIS fails to extinction of the Steller sea lion Section 5.2.2 of the EIS consistently acknowledge that even a modest population from each of the sub-regions describe the conditions expected to lead increase in pressure on prey resources within Alaska within the next 100 years, to localized depletion of prey. in the western Aleutian Islands could with one exception for the western Consistent with the limitations to precipitate a severe result, given that the Aleutian Islands sub-region. The assessing effects described in Section sub-population already faces a high risk probability of extirpation of the Steller 5.2.2.1.4 of the EIS, Section 5.3.8 of the of extirpation. The EIS also fails to note sea lion population in the western 2014 BiOp acknowledges that NMFS that such an outcome could have Aleutian Islands sub-region is lacks data to determine conclusively equally severe ramifications outside of substantial even within 50 years. whether the fisheries fragment the prey the western Aleutian Islands, as the best The EIS states that competition with patches, modify the proportion of prey available science indicates that the fisheries may affect prey availability to at depth, and ultimately result in extirpation of Steller sea lions in the Steller sea lions. In the EIS, prey effects reduced prey abundance. western Aleutians would be significant are considered adverse effects because, Comment 26: Assessing the potential to the WDPS, and would be expected to based on information available on prey overlap in the size of prey consumed by appreciably reduce the likelihood of interaction, it is assumed there are no Steller sea lions and those taken in the both their survival and recovery in the beneficial effects from removal of prey. commercial fishery is another key wild. Removal of prey can have direct and analytical prong of the 2014 BiOp. The Response: Sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.2 indirect adverse effects on Steller sea 2014 BiOp’s conclusion of limited of the EIS describe the population lions. The EIS discusses the potential overlap and no jeopardy is not abundance and trends for the entire adverse effects to Steller sea lions from consistent with the EIS, which found WDPS of Steller sea lion pups and non- the harvest of prey resources in the that the ranges of size of prey selected pups based on the best scientific Aleutian Islands under all of the by Steller sea lions, as referenced above, information available. The purpose and alternatives. After conducting this do overlap with the ranges of size of need of the action focuses the analysis, and analysis of other factors prey taken in the groundfish fisheries in alternatives and the analysis of the detailed in the EIS, NMFS concluded in the Aleutian Islands as calculated in effects on the action area, the Aleutian the 2014 BiOp that although there is a this analysis. Islands, which is a portion of the range substantial risk of extinction of the Response: As discussed in Section of WDPS of Steller sea lions. Section Steller sea lion population in the 5.2.2.1.2 of the EIS, overlap in size 5.1.1.2 describes the population trend western Aleutian Islands based on between fish consumed by Steller sea for the entire WDPS of Steller sea lions projected population trends, additional lions and those taken in the commercial (i.e., Alaska and Russia/Asia), the entire management measures beyond those fishery is one of several necessary Alaska portion of the range of Steller sea implemented in this final rule were not conditions for competition for prey. lions, and the population trends in each required to insure that groundfish Overlap in size of prey eaten by Steller sub-region in Alaska. This puts the fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the sea lions and size of fish caught by the population trend in the action area in continued existence of the WDPS of groundfish fisheries is analyzed in context for the entire population. NMFS Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely Section 5.2.2.1.2 of the EIS and Section notes that the abundance of WDPS modify their designated critical habitat. 5.3.6 of the 2014 BiOp. The two Steller sea lions in Alaska is increasing Comment 28: The EIS does not analyses consistently conclude that the at a statistically significant rate, though comply with NEPA because it fails to best available scientific information the Steller sea lion population in the analyze the significance of the effects of indicates that the size ranges of prey western Aleutian Islands sub-region is the action on endangered Steller sea eaten by Steller sea lions and the size declining at a statistically significant lions. The EIS did not determine the range of fish taken in the groundfish rate (see response to Comment 13). population-level effects to Steller sea fisheries in the Aleutian Islands overlap. The EIS analysis focuses on the effects lions from the indirect effects of fishing The 2014 BiOp discusses that the best on Steller sea lions that occur in the on prey availability for the alternatives. available scientific information Aleutian Islands. EIS Section 5.1.1.2 Rather than assess potential population- indicates greater overlap in the size of discusses the process Johnson (2013) level consequences of each alternative Atka mackerel and pollock taken by the developed for forecasting the population using objective metrics, prey effects fisheries and Steller sea lions compared of Steller sea lions and summarized the were analyzed purely in comparative to the overlap in the size of Pacific cod probability of the population falling form by evaluating the percentage of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

critical habitat closed to each fishery critical habitat to a great degree. Yes, on unfished spawning biomass (see and the harvest of prey species in a mass balance basis, there are enough regulations at § 679.20(d)(4)). Atka critical habitat by each fishery fish for fishermen and Steller sea lions mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock exclusively within the western and to share. But Steller sea lions are not the fisheries have not experienced this type central Aleutian Islands. The details on only inhabitants of this ecosystem; other of directed fishing closure since global local closures and catch within critical predators like seabirds, killer whales, limits became effective in 2003 (68 FR habitat in Areas 541, 542, and 543, and seals depend on fish being 204, January 2, 2003). while appropriate, are no substitute for abundant in this area and some of those Additionally, NMFS conducts further analysis in a broader context, species are showing worrisome declines ecosystem modeling and incorporates including at the population level of the that may be related to too few fish in the ecosystem considerations, including WDPS of Steller sea lions. A population- ocean. predation, into the stock assessment level analysis for each alternative in the Response: NMFS’ rationale for this models. See response to comment 54. EIS is essential to making a reasoned final rule is supported by the 2014 BiOp Further, the EIS analyzes the impacts choice among the proposed (see ADDRESSES). The 2014 BiOp of the proposed action and its management regimes for the western concludes that the proposed action alternatives on a wide range of and central Aleutian Islands because the would establish Steller sea lion ecosystem elements, including local fish best available science as reflected in the protection measures for the Atka populations in Chapter 3, killer whales 2008 Recovery Plan (see ADDRESSES), mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock and seals in Chapter 5, seabirds in provides a clear basis for the conclusion fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea Chapter 6, and on the ecosystem as a that sub-regional declines have a that spatially and temporally disperse whole in Chapter 7. profound effect on the future of the fishing to mitigate potential competition Comment 30: NMFS improperly fails entire species. for prey resources between Steller sea to disclose in the final EIS the strong Response: The EIS analysis provides lions and these fisheries. Spatial and dissenting views held by NMFS the decision makers with the ability to temporal fishery dispersion is scientists regarding the analysis and compare and contrast the effects of the accomplished through closure areas, conclusions contained in the draft 2014 alternatives on the human environment harvest limits, seasonal apportionment BiOp. For example, Alaska Fisheries consistent with the requirements of of harvest limits, and limits on Science Center scientists prepared a NEPA by disclosing information on participation in a fishery. The proposed memorandum stating that the spatial fishery removals of prey and critical action would retain or modify existing overlap analysis in the draft 2014 BiOp habitat closures under the alternatives closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal is fundamentally flawed and cannot be within the action area. EIS Chapter 5 apportionment of harvest limits, and used as a basis to evaluate spatial includes the evaluation of the effects of limits on participation in ways that are overlap between fisheries and Steller the alternatives on Steller sea lion designed to limit competition for prey sea lions, nor support any conclusions incidental takes, disturbance, and with Steller sea lions. about whether jeopardy or adverse potential effects on prey using the best NMFS agrees that a wide range of modification to critical habitat may or available information. NMFS reviewed species occurring in the action area prey may not be expected to occur as a result the information available to inform the on groundfish. NMFS conservatively of the fishery action. The Steller Sea analysis and determined that a manages the groundfish fisheries and Lion Coordinator for the Alaska Region population-level analysis was not limits catch for ecosystem prepared a memo stating that the necessary to determine the potential considerations, including a conservative exposure analysis in the draft 2014 effects of the alternatives on Steller sea optimum yield cap and a global control BiOp was fundamentally flawed and lions and their critical habitat because rule. In the 2010 FMP BiOp, NMFS needed to be redone and the draft 2014 the effects of fishing occur at the local analyzed the effects of the authorization BiOp was not consistent with the NOAA scale and the decision was which suite of groundfish fisheries, including the Scientific Integrity Policy because it of protections measures is appropriate prosecution of parallel groundfish does not provide accurate or adequate to meet the purpose and need for the fisheries in Alaska state waters (see acknowledgement or discussion of action. EIS Section 5.2.2 describes the ADDRESSES). The 2010 FMP BiOp is uncertainties or the probabilities method used to analyze the effects of comprehensive in scope and considers associated with both optimistic and the alternatives with the best available the fisheries and the overall pessimistic projections for sea lions. scientific information and the management framework established by These memos indicate there was assumption applied to the analysis. Best the FMP to determine whether that internal dissent within NMFS regarding scientific information available includes framework contains necessary measures the draft 2014 BiOp analysis that the EIS quantitative fisheries catch information to ensure the protection of listed species relies upon for its discussion regarding in time and space and critical habitat and critical habitat. The 2010 FMP BiOp the environmental impacts of the locations in relation to fishing activity. analyzed the pattern and level of fishery proposed action on Steller sea lions. This information is used to compare and removals occurring in different NMFS was obligated to disclose and contrast the effects of the alternatives. groundfish fisheries and the policy discuss these adverse opinions within Comment 29: We strongly disagree choices, decisions about exploitation the body of the EIS and failed to meet with the core of NMFS’ rationale for this strategies, and stock and stock complex that obligation. proposal which is: (1) There are enough assessments that set the harvest levels. Response: NMFS is not obligated to fish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian The 2014 BiOp identified the discuss pre-decisional internal agency Islands for fishermen and Steller sea importance of maintaining global, or discussions in an EIS. However, NMFS lions to share; the small Steller sea lions broad scale, limits on the harvest of does discuss areas of controversy and population only consumes a small Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock. uncertainty in the Executive Summary portion of fish we think are there; and Global limits are currently in place for and in Chapter 5 of the EIS. NMFS relies (2) we have designed a system with these three species. Regulations prohibit on EIS Chapter 5 for the analysis of the enough spatial and temporal dispersal directed fishing in the BSAI or GOA if impacts of the proposed action and its of the fishing effort such that fishing the projected spawning biomass of the alternatives on Steller sea lions. All does not overlap with Steller sea lions fish stock falls below 20 percent of the internal agency discussions were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70301

considered by NMFS in making the final habitat area closures applicable to the section 7 consultation are documented determination. harvest of key Steller sea lion prey in the 2014 BiOp. In the 2014 BiOp, Comment 31: In our July 12, 2013, species of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, NMFS concluded that the comments on the draft EIS, we and pollock and sustainable implementation of the proposed action recognized the effort of NMFS to management of the Aleutian Islands was not likely to jeopardize the produce a thorough analysis that groundfish fisheries. continued existence of the WDPS of articulates the anticipated impacts of a Comment 33: In light of the protective Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely complex proposal and applauded your purpose of the ESA, NMFS must respect modify designated Steller sea lion partnerships with the U.S. Coast Guard, Congress’ intent to give the benefit of critical habitat. Economic impacts were U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the the doubt to the species. NMFS’ action not a factor in making that conclusion. Alaska Department of Fish and Game in should be consistent with the ESA’s NMFS agrees that ESA section 7 developing the EIS. We identified conservation goals and the ESA’s policy analyses should err on the side of the Alternative 5 as a practical combination of institutionalized caution. survival and recovery of the listed of some of the more beneficial aspects The proposed rule asserts that the species when the effects of an action are of other alternatives for the Atka Council and NMFS understood that a uncertain. The analysis in the 2014 mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock preferred alternative and any resulting BiOp is a cautionary examination of the fisheries, based in large part in response rule must meet the requirements of the effects of the groundfish fisheries on to stakeholder concerns identified ESA before factors that minimize, to the Steller sea lions and their designated during scoping. We also recognized that extent practicable, the economic critical habitat. NMFS assumes that an intensive monitoring program will be impacts on fishery participants could be groundfish fisheries may compete with implemented with this alternative, and considered. This assertion Steller sea lions for prey. NMFS makes adjustments made as results are notwithstanding, the proposed rule this assumption even though there is assessed. We did not have concerns repeatedly states that certain lesser substantial scientific debate as to regarding the preferred alternative and protection measures have been selected whether such competition exists, or if it offered no additional suggestions for because they ‘‘balance’’ conservation of does, whether the levels of removals in further minimizing impacts. The EIS Steller sea lions with economic the fishery would be sufficient to cause continues to identify modified opportunities for the commercial competition in a way that would Alternative 5 as the NMFS preferred fisheries. The balancing approach impede the survival and recovery of alternative. We support this decision undertaken by the Council and NMFS is Steller sea lions. In Section 5.3.8 of the and recommend that this alternative be unlawful because the ESA disallows 2014 BiOp, NMFS presents a conceptual selected in the Record of Decision. balancing the benefit to the species model illustrating the pathways through Response: NMFS acknowledges the against the economic and technical which Steller sea lions are exposed to comment. burden on the industry. NMFS proposes the stressor of reduced prey resources an unprecedented reversal of the ESA’s Comments on Economic Issues due to the groundfish fisheries. NMFS’ mandated precaution and appears to conceptual model for Steller sea lion Comment 32: Reject the proposed premise its analysis and conclusions on behavioral and physiological responses rollback of needed protections for an illegal shifting of the burden of proof to reduced prey resources is shown in Steller sea lions. The proposed rule and an impermissible elevation of Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp. reflects an abdication of NMFS’ economic considerations. NMFS discusses where the available stewardship obligations, does not Under the ESA, economic data allow inference of the effects and comply with NMFS’ legal or moral considerations may not be considered in where the available data are equivocal obligations, is not consistent with the an agency’s determination of whether an as to the effects on prey availability and best available science, and appears to action is likely to cause jeopardy—a subsequent effects on Steller sea lion prioritize short-term economic gain determination that must be based fitness. In cases where the data are ahead of long-term sustainable exclusively on the best available equivocal, to avoid underestimating the management. A decision to authorize science. Because the legislation reveals potential risk to the survival and significant additional fishing pressure a conscious decision by Congress to give recovery of Steller sea lions, NMFS even as Steller sea lions continue to endangered species priority over the assumes the groundfish fisheries may decline in the central and western primary missions of Federal agencies, compete with sea lions for prey and Aleutian Islands and fail to meet NMFS may not give equal priority to assumes that the most extreme recovery criteria overall would run economic concerns and its obligations physiological consequences would directly counter to those moral, ethical, under the ESA. result. In those cases, NMFS concluded and legal obligations. Response: The purpose and need for that local Steller sea lion populations Response: This action implements a this action is explained in Section 1.3 of may be affected by the proposed action suite of Steller sea lion protection the EIS. The purposes of this action are but that the magnitude of the effect measures in the Aleutian Islands to first, comply with the requirements of would not be sufficient to appreciably groundfish fisheries that adheres to the the ESA by implementing Steller sea reduce the likelihood of survival or requirements of the ESA and Magnuson- lion protection measures in the Alaska recovery in either the central or western Stevens Act, and are consistent with our groundfish fisheries and, secondly, and Aleutian Islands sub-regions. Because legal and stewardship obligations. only after the first purpose is met, to the action is not likely to appreciably NMFS used the best available minimize, to the extent practicable, reduce the likelihood of survival or commercial and scientific data to inform economic impacts to the groundfish recovery in the individual sub-regions, development of the alternatives and fisheries from the measures. the proposed action is not likely to analyze their impacts on Steller sea In compliance with the ESA, NMFS appreciably reduce the likelihood of lions and the human environment. This conducted a section 7 consultation on survival or recovery of the WDPS of final rule maintains protections the action implemented in this final Steller sea lions. In other cases, the best consistent with the ESA for Steller sea rule. During that consultation, NMFS scientific data available support a lions through numerous spatial and used the best scientific and commercial conclusion that the proposed groundfish temporal harvest limits and critical data available. The results of the ESA fisheries are not likely to cause localized

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

depletion of prey and are not likely to habitat. This determination was made Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 10 reduce the fitness of individual sea lions without the consideration of economic National Standards in developing these or adversely modify their designated impacts, as discussed in response to regulations (see EIS Section 13.2.4). critical habitat. Comment 33. The statement of purpose and need In developing the proposed action At the same time, NMFS is managing specifies the underlying purpose and and its alternatives, the Council and fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens need to which NMFS is responding in NMFS did consider impacts on fishery Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act proposing the alternatives, including the participants. NMFS is required to requires NMFS to implement protection proposed action. As explained in the consider the impacts of its fishery measures in a manner that minimizes EIS, the need to comply with section 7 management actions on fishery adverse economic impacts, to the extent of the ESA is the primary driver for participants under the Magnuson- practicable, on those affected by the implementing Steller sea lion protection Stevens Act, Executive Order 12866, restrictions under the Steller sea lion measures. As NMFS has stated and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In protection measures. Under the purpose previously in the preamble to the the preamble to the proposed rule, and need for this action, NMFS must proposed rule and in this preamble, NMFS describes each regulatory meet the requirements of the ESA and NMFS did not consider economic provision and provides an explanation do so in a manner that also meets the factors when determining if the as to why the Council recommended requirements to manage fisheries to proposed action would jeopardize the and NMFS approved and implemented minimize adverse economic impacts to continued existence of Steller sea lions these regulatory provisions. These fishery participants and fishery or destroy or adversely modify their explanations address why a particular dependent communities, where designated critical habitat. See response regulatory provision was included or practicable, under the requirements of to Comment 33 and the 2014 BiOp for why a particular provision from the Magnuson-Stevens Act. additional detail. 2010 Interim Final Rule was revised or Comment 35: According to the EIS, However, after NMFS meets its removed. However, it is NMFS’ NMFS’ assertion that it must balance requirements under the ESA, NMFS also conclusions in its 2014 BiOp that the ESA obligations against the potential needs to make sure that the measures regulatory provisions, individually and cost of protection measures to the that it implements minimize, to the collectively, are not likely to jeopardize fishery industry is grounded in National extent practicable, adverse economic the continued existence of Steller sea Standard 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens impacts to groundfish fishery lions or destroy or adversely modify Act. While National Standard 7 does participants under the Magnuson- designated Steller sea lion critical encourage NMFS to minimize costs and Stevens Act. This is not the same as habitat. to avoid unnecessary duplication where giving equal priority to economic Comment 34: The EIS does not possible, NMFS may not give equal concerns and ESA obligations. comply with the National priority to economic concerns under the This final rule implements an Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Magnuson-Stevens Act and its extensive suite of Steller sea lion because its statement of purpose and obligations under the ESA because the protection measures that impose need impermissibly elevates economic ESA reflects a conscious decision by economic costs on the fishing industry considerations and impermissibly Congress to give endangered species compared to no protection measures. qualifies NMFS’ conservation priority over the primary missions of This final rule also relaxes some Steller obligations pursuant to the ESA and the Federal agencies. sea lion protection measures Magnuson-Stevens Act with a duty to Despite the proposed rule’s frequent implemented under the 2010 Interim minimize costs, where practicable. and prominent invocation of the need to Final Rule. These changes to Steller sea NMFS insists that in meeting ESA minimize economic impacts, nowhere lion protection measures were requirements, it also needs to make sure does the proposed rule explain the legal recommended by the Council based on that the measures that it implements or policy genesis of this objective. While the best scientific information available. minimize, to the extent practicable, National Standard 7 does encourage NMFS conducted a section 7 adverse economic impacts to the NMFS to minimize costs and to avoid consultation on the Council’s groundfish fisheries. NMFS’ emphasis unnecessary duplication where recommendation under the on a balance of meeting the ESA possible, NMFS may not select and requirements of the ESA (see 2014 obligations while minimizing economic elevate one Magnuson-Stevens Act BiOp) and determined that the Council’s impacts to the extent practicable is both obligation from among the several recommendation was not likely to misplaced and unlawful. management obligations imposed by the jeopardize the continued existence of Response: NMFS has determined that statute. In addition to National Standard Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely the EIS complies with NEPA. The 7, the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes modify their designated critical habitat. purpose and need in the EIS is clear that substantive obligations to conserve and Removing or modifying specific NMFS needs to implement Steller sea manage fishery resources and to protect protection measures and allowing some lion protection measures to meet its the marine ecosystem. NMFS cannot increases in fishing is not the same as obligations under the ESA. The ESA is simply ignore these additional prioritizing financial benefit for the clear that economic factors are not Magnuson-Stevens Act obligations or fishing industry. See the preamble to the considered by the consulting agency prioritize financial benefit for the proposed rule for a complete discussion (NMFS PRD) when making a fishing industry. of the specific Steller sea lion protection determination about the impact of this Response: Federal fishery measures that are modified or removed action under a section 7 consultation. management in the Aleutian Islands as with this final rule. NMFS SFD consulted on this action and a whole is designed to conserve and Comment 36: The approach of the NMFS PRD determined that the manage fishery resources, protect the Council and NMFS was to ensure that implementation of this action was not marine ecosystem, and promote the a preferred alternative met the likely to jeopardize the continued long-term healthy and stability of the requirements of the ESA before existence of Steller sea lions and was fisheries, in accordance with the considering factors that minimize, to the not likely to destroy or adversely modify Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council extent practicable, the economic designated Steller sea lion critical and NMFS have fully considered the impacts on fishery participants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70303

Response: NMFS agrees and regions have been slower to respond mitigation, aiming for a very high degree acknowledges the comment. than others, minimal, if any, evidence of protection for Steller sea lions while Comment 37: In formulating and indicates that human activity such as reducing, but not eliminating, impacts selecting NEPA alternatives, NMFS may fishing and the resulting variations in on fishery-dependent industry and not select and elevate one Magnuson- prey availability negatively affect the communities. Stevens Act obligation from among the Steller sea lion population. In light of Response: NMFS acknowledges the several management obligations this tenuous connection, the harsh comment. imposed by the statute. The Magnuson- fishing restrictions imposed by the 2010 Comment 41: We are encouraged that Stevens Act includes substantive Interim Final Rule were unsupported. In the economic impacts of the 2010 obligations to conserve and manage contrast, the proposed rule presents a Interim Final Rule will be significantly fishery resources and to protect the more appropriate management decision, reduced if the measures in the proposed marine ecosystem. NMFS cannot simply which would ease many of those rule are approved. The new Steller sea ignore these additional Magnuson- restrictions and enable increased lion protection measures under this Stevens Act obligations or prioritize fishing. The proposed rule is both proposed rule retain a significant financial benefit for the fishing industry. consistent with the balanced amount of economic impact to the Response: Federal fishery recommendation of the Council and Amendment 80 sector relative to what management in the Aleutian Islands as supported by adequate analysis of the was in place prior to 2011. After a whole is designed to conserve and best available science presented in the reviewing the proposed rule and the manage fishery resources, protect the 2014 BiOp. specifics of proposed fishery measures marine ecosystem, and promote the Response: The Steller sea lion and groundfish quotas, we estimate that long-term health and stability of the protection measures implemented by the proposed Steller sea lion measures fisheries. The Council and NMFS have the 2010 Interim Final Rule were based would restore a little less than half of fully considered the Magnuson-Stevens on the 2010 FMP BiOp (see ADDRESSES) the loss to the Amendment 80 sector Act and the National Standards in and supported by the best available from the 2010 Interim Final Rule. developing this action, its alternatives, information at that time. Response: NMFS acknowledges the and the implementing regulations. Comment 39: The proposed rule will comment. Specifically, EIS Chapter 3 details how benefit Alaskans, their communities, the Comment 42: The proposed rule will NMFS considered the effects of the commercial fishing fleet, and the help to alleviate some of the economic alternatives on target species; EIS seafood processing industry by easing impact that the 2010 Interim Final Rule Chapter 4 details how NMFS considered the severe fishing restrictions set forth has had on the Alaskan economy. The the effects of the alternatives on non- under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. That proposed rule allows for increased target species; Chapter 5 details how rule, which resulted in harsh economic flexibility for Alaskan vessels to harvest NMFS considered the effects of the impacts, resulted from the hypothesis Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock, alternatives on marine mammals; that groundfish fisheries are causing which will in turn support the seafood Chapter 6 details how NMFS considered nutritional stress to the Steller sea lions. processing industry and the local the effects of the alternatives on Subsequent independent, expert peer economies of several remote coastal seabirds; and Chapter 7 details how reviewers have questioned the scientific communities. The combination of NMFS considered the effects of the basis for and the legitimacy of that reduced closures and increased catch alternatives on the ecosystem. NMFS hypothesis. The State’s interests will be limits creates a more effective and responds to public comments on each of best served through implementation of a targeted management system in light of the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s 10 National management structure that balances the the minimal evidence of competition for Standards in EIS Section 13.2.4. interests of fishing opportunities with prey between the fisheries and the This final rule implements an scientifically defensible protections for Steller sea lion. Our family business is extensive suite of Steller sea lion Steller sea lions. The proposed rule encouraged by opportunities granted protection measures that impose would accomplish those objectives. under the proposed rule that allow economic costs on the fishing industry Response: NMFS acknowledges the harvest in Areas 541, 542, and 543 compared to no protection measures. comment. otherwise not available under the 2010 This final rule also relaxes some Comment 40: The proposed rule will Interim Final Rule. restrictions on fishing implemented by eliminate several of the most severe Response: NMFS acknowledges the the 2010 Interim Final Rule, thereby limitations implemented under the 2010 comment. relieving some of the costs imposed by Interim Final Rule, including complete that action. NMFS has determined that retention restrictions for Atka mackerel Comments on Community Issues these specific restrictions were not and Pacific cod in Area 543, and Comment 43: The measures put in necessary to insure that groundfish closures for pollock fishing in place with the 2010 Interim Final Rule fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to designated critical habitat in Areas 543, hit Adak harder than any other jeopardize the continued existence of 542, and 541. NMFS would replace community. Not only was the Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely these complete closures with more immediate local impact severe, the modify their designated critical habitat targeted temporal and spatial resulting loss of activity impacted long and therefore could be removed. restrictions and catch limits based on term revenue to Adak attributable to Comment 38: The proposed rule available data showing the potential those fiscal years. We support the reflects a positive first step towards overlap between Steller sea lion proposed regulations because NMFS establishing an appropriate management occurrence and the fisheries. The provided a well-written and well- regime that adequately protects the proposed rule would retain significant reasoned justification in the 2014 BiOp Steller sea lion without imposing restrictions on fishing that are intended for the determination that the proposed unnecessary impacts on the Alaskan to prevent any potential effects of action will not result in jeopardy or economy, as did the 2010 Interim Final fisheries on Steller sea lions, regardless adverse modification. Rule. The Steller sea lion population in of whether or not the effects are actually The proposed rule reduces the Alaska has increased substantially since occurring. The proposed rule takes a negative social and economic impacts to 2000. While populations in some sub- very precautionary approach to the City of Adak and introduces the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

economic certainty to allow for the Response: NMFS acknowledges the FMP BiOp itself counsels in favor of processing plant operators to develop comment. NMFS notes that it analyzed Alternative 1, as any lesser protection plans that will keep the operation, and the impacts to commercial fishermen in measures than those established by 2010 all of its beneficiaries, employed or EIS Chapters 8 and 9, the initial Interim Final Rule likely are unlawful otherwise engaged. Re-opening Atka regulatory flexibility analysis for the under the ESA. The 2010 FMP BiOp’s mackerel fishing in limited areas west of proposed rule, and in the final conclusion reflects NMFS’ long- Adak will provide more opportunity for regulatory flexibility analysis for the standing and well-documented rationale fuel sales and logistical support needs of final rule. that commercial fisheries adversely affect Steller sea lions by competing the Atka mackerel catcher/processor Comments on the EIS Alternatives fleet. This should provide a partial relief with them for prey. Unless and until to the Adak community from the Comment 46: The 2014 BiOp is much NMFS can determine that the threats impacts of lower fuel sales resulting improved and addresses the current that have resulted in ongoing declines from the 2010 Interim Final Rule. The conduct of the fishery in a have abated, the management measures proposed rule would allow pollock straightforward manner. The 2014 BiOp described in Alternative 1 represent the fishing in portions of the critical habitat. also suggests that the areas we now maximum spatial extent and amount of This change will allow the pollock know are important feeding areas for fishing that can be permitted by the allocation, granted to the Aleut Steller sea lions (inside 10 nm) were commercial groundfish fisheries. Corporation for the purpose of economic already mostly closed to Atka mackerel, Response: NMFS disagrees. development, to be harvested in the Pacific cod, and pollock fishing even Alternative 5 best meets the purpose Aleutian Islands. This will provide the before the 2010 Interim Final Rule was and need for this action. As NMFS has opportunity to generate the necessary implemented. This indicates that (1) noted earlier in response to other revenues to address the economic more of the 2010 Interim Final Rule’s comments, this action is distinct from development needs the community has restrictions could have been relaxed; (2) the action considered in the 2010 BiOp required for more than a decade. the alternatives considered by NMFS and includes new information not should have been expanded to include Response: NMFS acknowledges the considered in the 2010 BiOp. NMFS has even more fishing; and (3) the preferred comment. determined that the regulations alternative is excessively protective. Comment 44: The proposed rule implementing Alternative 5 are in More could have been done using the better utilizes the available information compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens new information in the 2014 BiOp to Act, as detailed in the EIS and Record and properly takes into account relevant reduce restrictions in the regulations of Decision. NMFS has determined that factors to ensure the Steller sea lion without impacting Steller sea lions, Alternative 5 is in compliance with the population avoids jeopardy while particularly in the absence of direct ESA, as detailed in the 2014 BiOp. The maintaining viable economic information supporting the theory that 2014 BiOp concludes that the proposed opportunities for Aleut Corporation the groundfish fisheries adversely action would establish Steller sea lion shareholders. Aleut Corporation impact Steller sea lions. protection measures for the Atka shareholders directly rely on Steller sea Response: The alternative selected by mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock lions for subsistence needs. No single the Council and implemented by this fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea group would be harmed greater by the rule was selected after considering other that spatially, temporally, and globally lower population trends of the Steller alternatives that would have allowed disperse fishing to mitigate potential sea lions. However, Steller sea lion more fishing opportunities in the competition for prey resources between conservation must be balanced with the Aleutian Islands. Although an Steller sea lions and these fisheries. ability for Aleuts to ‘‘call home’’ their alternative suite of management Spatial and temporal fishery dispersion traditional lands that are economically measures could have been selected and is accomplished through closure areas, based on commercial fisheries. The reviewed under section 7 of the ESA, harvest limits, seasonal apportionment proposed rule maintains a high level of the management measures implemented of harvest limits, and limits on continued protection around critical here represent a precautionary approach participation in a fishery. The proposed habitat (especially in Areas 543 and to management in recognition of the action would retain or modify existing 542) with more restrictive measures the requirements of the ESA. Additional closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal farther west one goes. The proposed rule detail on the precautionary nature of apportionment of harvest limits, and also allows for increased fishing this action relative to other actions limits on participation in ways that are opportunities, the economic lifeblood of considered is provided in the EIS and designed to limit competition for prey the Aleutian region. the 2014 BiOp. between fisheries and Steller sea lions. Response: NMFS acknowledges the Comment 47: NMFS must select Comment 48: If NMFS wants to take comment. Alternative 1 (status quo). Among the the precautionary approach that this Comment 45: Continue to consider alternatives evaluated in the EIS, situation really requires, it could simply the economic impacts of decisions on Alternative 1 is the only viable one prohibit fishing and monitor to see what local, small-scale, commercial consistent with the conservation happens to the Steller sea lion fishermen that deliver their catches to obligations imposed by the ESA and the population over the next 5 to 10 years. on-shore processing facilities. The Magnuson-Stevens Act. The current Prohibition or severe reduction of catcher/processors play an important protection measures for Steller sea lions fishing activity in the Aleutian Islands economic role to the Aleutian Islands in the central and western Aleutian is the one and only tool to slow and region, but so do local, family Islands reflect the minimum steps reverse the Steller sea lion decline. The businesses who purchase fuel and NMFS must take to address ongoing economic impact of prohibiting supplies from the community of Adak declines and to protect Steller sea lions. commercial fishing or severely restrict it and who deliver catch to in-state The outcome of the recent litigation in Areas 543 and 542 would not be processing facilities who greatly over the 2010 FMP BiOp and the status large, particularly not compared to the contribute to the lifeblood of economic quo Steller sea protection measures commercial fisheries prosecuted in the development to rural Alaskan compels selection of Alternative 1 to Bering Sea. NMFS would rather allow a communities like Adak. maintain current protections. The 2010 very small fishery with $12 million

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70305

dollars per year of ex vessel revenue in Some commenters suggested that NMFS restrictive of fishing relative to 2012 (and perhaps 10 percent of that in consider specific measures that were Alternative 1 for analysis and net profit) to go forward and expand, intended to be more protective than the comparison with the less restrictive than to take a precautionary approach management measures implemented protection measures under the other using more current science and reduce under Alternative 1, other commenters alternatives. Because Alternative 6 or eliminate fishing in the area to save did not provide specific measures. As represents an outlier alternative that the last 1,000 western Aleutian Islands discussed in EIS Section 2.3, after may not be offered for the first time in Steller sea lions. careful analysis, NMFS found that many the EIS, NMFS must refrain from issuing Response: NMFS analyzed an of the specific measures suggested in a record of decision and issue a alternative in the EIS, Alternative 6, that public comments were not more supplemental draft EIS—subject to would prohibit retention of Atka conservative than Alternative 1. Some of public notice and comment—instead. In mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock in the specific measures suggested in addition to Alternative 6, the the Aleutian Islands (Areas 543, 542, public comments were already supplemental draft EIS should analyze and 541, and adjacent State of Alaska incorporated in the alternatives or in the other feasible conservation waters). The economic impacts of other ongoing NMFS actions. The alternatives identified in public Alternative 6 are detailed in EIS Chapter remaining specific measures proposed comments. 8. The impacts of Alternative 6 on in public comment were not a Response: A supplement to an Steller sea lions are detailed in EIS reasonable alternative to the proposed environmental impact statement is Chapter 5. NMFS did not choose action. The proposed action is a suite of required ‘‘if: (i) The agency makes Alternative 6 as the preferred alternative Steller sea lion protection measures. substantial changes in the proposed because while Alternative 6 would Steller sea lion protection measures action that are relevant to provide the most protection to Steller control the location, gear type, and environmental concerns; or (ii) There sea lion prey species, it is not timing of fishing for Atka mackerel, are significant new circumstances or practicable because it would restrict pollock, and Pacific cod in the Aleutian information relevant to environmental fisheries beyond what is necessary to Islands. A number of the specific concerns and bearing on the proposed meet the ESA requirement to insure the measures proposed in public comments action or its impacts’’ (40 CFR fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the would not control the location, gear 1502.9(c)). The addition of Alternative 6 continued existence of Steller sea lions type, and timing of fishing for Atka in the final EIS did not make substantial or destroy or adversely modify mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod in changes in the proposed action that designated Steller sea lion critical the Aleutian Islands (see EIS Section 2.3 were relevant to environmental habitat. Therefore, Alternative 6 would for more detail). And, as explained in concerns and did not provide significant not best meet the purpose and need for the response to Comment 59, NMFS is new circumstances or information this action (see Section 1.3 of the EIS). already working to ensure that relevant to environmental concerns and Comment 49: NMFS has failed to ecosystem considerations, like the needs bearing on the proposed action or its consider reasonable alternatives that of predators, are taken into would provide additional protections impacts. Therefore NMFS was not consideration in setting catch levels. required to supplement the draft EIS for Steller sea lions. Instead of NMFS carefully designed Alternative before releasing the final EIS and record constructing and evaluating an 6 to be a Steller sea lion protection of decision. Additionally, EIS Section alternative that would provide measure that is more conservative than 2.3 analyzes the conservation improved protections for Steller sea Alternative 1 and provides for effects alternatives identified in public lions, NMFS evaluated closing the that can be analyzed and compared to comments and explains why they were entire action area to all fishing. the other alternatives. Further, Alternative 6 is not responsive to the Alternative 6 does not close the action not reasonable. concerns raised in comments or area to all fishing. As explained in EIS Comment 51: NMFS should rescind sufficient to satisfy NMFS’ legal Section 2.1.6, Alternative 6 would the EIS and prepare a new draft EIS obligations. Public comments did not prohibit retention of Atka mackerel, that—consistent with NMFS’ propose closing the entire Aleutian Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian acknowledged obligations pursuant to Islands to all fishing for Atka mackerel, Islands, species identified as important NEPA, ESA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Pacific cod, and pollock. A large closure prey species for Steller sea lions. Act—includes a lawful statement of might be a reasonable alternative, but it Vessels would be prohibited from purpose and need, evaluates a full range is not a mechanism through which directed fishing for these species and of alternatives, objectively accounts for NMFS can improve fisheries prohibited from retaining any incidental the full context and severity of the management choices in such a way as catch of these species while directed potential indirect effects of fishing on to better ensure that ecosystem fishing for other groundfish targets (e.g., Steller sea lions, and transparently considerations, like the needs of Pacific ocean perch). addresses dissenting scientific views predators, are taken into consideration Comment 50: NMFS’ addition of within NMFS. in setting catch levels. It appears that, Alternative 6 to the final EIS required a Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS has upon recognizing the glaring deficiency supplemental draft EIS because determined that the EIS is consistent in its draft, NMFS decided to select the Alternative 6 is outside of the range of with NEPA, the ESA, and the most extreme version of a protective alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS. Magnuson-Stevens Act. The EIS alternative rather than giving careful The most environmentally protective includes a lawful statement of purpose thought to a useful evaluation of alternative included in the draft EIS was and need (Section 1.3), evaluates a full potential changes in management. Alternative 1, while Alternatives 2, 3, 4, range of alternatives (Chapter 2), NMFS’ choice is both disappointing and and 5 all allow more fishing. The draft objectively accounts for the full context insufficient. EIS specifically stated that alternatives and severity of the potential indirect Response: Alternative 6 was designed more protective than the status quo effects of fishing on Steller sea lions to be responsive to the request in public were not analyzed. Alternative 6 was (Chapter 5), and transparently addresses comment on the draft EIS for a more specifically added to the final EIS to dissenting scientific views (Executive protective alternative than Alternative 1. have an alternative that is more Summary, Chapter 1, and Chapter 5).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Comment 52: NMFS made a passing mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock Comment 54: In Section 2.3.2 of the attempt in the EIS at exploring the fisheries in addition to the season and EIS, NMFS incorrectly concludes that effects of an alternative harvest strategy area closures. predator needs are fully incorporated for Atka mackerel on the Atka mackerel In EIS Section 2.3, NMFS analyzed into the existing process for setting population. In concert with explicitly the ideas suggested in public comments catch levels. This statement is belied by considering current predation mortality to change the harvest strategy in the jeopardy and adverse modification and the projected predation mortality Aleutian Islands. NMFS explains that conclusions reached in NMFS’ previous from an increasing Steller sea lion changes to the harvest strategy are biological opinions for Steller sea population, such a model could begin to outside the scope of this action and do lions—if the needs of Steller sea lions formally address ecosystem concerns. not meet the purpose and need. The were properly accounted for in setting NMFS, however, failed to analyze such revisions to the harvest strategy catch levels, then that catch would not an alternative model structure. proposed in public comment would not result in jeopardy to the population or Response: As explained in EIS provide the necessary protections for adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 2.3, evaluations of alternative Steller sea lions. Revisions to the NMFS’ insistence that the needs of stock assessment model structures and harvest strategy recommended by the predator are incorporated in the harvest alternative harvest strategies do not commenter do not meet the purpose and specifications process is contrary to meet the purpose and need for this need for the action because they do not NMFS’ own identified gaps in applying action to implement Steller sea lion provide additional protections for ecosystem-based fisheries management. protection measures. The commenter’s Steller sea lions by reducing potential There is currently no explicit recommendation addresses the stock competition between Steller sea lions accounting of predation mortality in the assessment process used by the Council and fishery harvests when and where stock assessments for Atka mackerel, and NMFS on an annual basis. NMFS Steller sea lions forage. As explained Aleutian Islands pollock, or Aleutian conducts this work through the annual throughout the EIS, the Steller sea lion Islands Pacific cod. The natural harvest specification process. That protection measures are a suite of mortality parameters used in these process is explained in the final rule measures that regulates fishing activity models are constant, or change little that implements the annual final 2014 by applying seasons, area closures, and from year to year. The parameters used and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR harvest limits all with the goal of have little relation to trends in predator 12108, March 4, 2014). reducing potential fishery competition populations or the actual level of NMFS notes that the process for for Steller sea lion prey when and where predation. In contrast, when predation modifying fishery stock assessment Steller sea lions forage. mortality is explicitly considered in models for Atka mackerel or any other NMFS is continually striving to prey population models, the biological groundfish species does not require understand the prey requirements of reference points generated are generally rulemaking to develop, analyze, or Steller sea lions and minimize potential more conservative (i.e., recommend implement alternative model structures. competition at the finest scale possible higher standing biomass). Moreover, NMFS continues to develop techniques with the best available information. development of a process through to evaluate the effects of the groundfish Further, NMFS does not change stock which to account explicitly for predator fisheries and management system on the assessment methods or harvest strategy needs was considered in the draft 2010 ecosystem. NMFS continues to develop through regulations. The Council and FMP BiOp. This draft also called for a state-of-the-art ecosystem models with a NMFS are continually assessing the process to address the dietary needs of goal to better evaluate risks to ecosystem scientific methods used for stock sea lions and other predators as fishing given current and alternative harvest assessment. NMFS uses the best levels are set. Accounting fully for strategies. This scientific work is available scientific information to predator needs in setting catch levels ongoing and, while important to improve stock assessment methods and would be an important step toward groundfish fishery management, it is evaluate ecosystem considerations. An ecosystem-based management, and this outside the scope of this rulemaking example of this is the decision to NEPA process is an appropriate venue process. This action implements establish separate ABCs and TACs for through which to do so explicitly. regulations to restrict vessels from Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Response: NMFS disagrees with the fishing in specific areas and at specific Aleutian Islands. Starting in January comment’s characterization of the EIS. times to limit competition of prey 2014, as recommended by the Council In Section 2.3.2, NMFS explains that the resources with Steller sea lions. and based on genetic and other needs of predators are incorporated in Comment 53: NMFS should not morphological evidence, NMFS the harvest specifications process by consider only changes to the restrictions separated Aleutian Islands Pacific cod applying natural mortality (including on fishing times and areas under the from the Bering Sea Pacific cod stock. predation) for a target species stock Steller sea lion protection measures. This results in lower maximum assessment. Additionally, NMFS Any of the guidelines that affect potential catches in the Aleutian Islands scientists are evaluating the current fisheries that compete with Steller sea due to the establishment of separate groundfish management system relative lions should be subject to review in this OFLs, ABCs, and TACs in the Bering to the impact on the ecosystem. NMFS process. Public comments on the draft Sea and Aleutian Islands. With this scientists have developed multispecies EIS suggested measures intended to split, the TAC in the Aleutian Islands models that explicitly incorporate provide a starting place from which results in a maximum harvest of roughly predator/prey relationships. Results NMFS could construct such an half the previous average harvest rate in from these models have generally alternative. NMFS incorrectly rejected the Aleutian Islands prior to the split, concluded that the assumptions used for any ideas designed to alter or affect the and lower fishing mortality rates, than harvest limit recommendations under harvest strategy in the Aleutian Islands. those proposed by the commenter. The our existing stock assessment process Response: NMFS has considered more impacts of the implementation of an are generally conservative. than changes to the time and area Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC are NMFS scientists have compared using measures. NMFS also considered a discussed in EIS Section 3.3, however, a constant, time-invariant natural range of harvest limits. This final rule that action was separate from the action mortality in stock assessment models to implements harvest limits for the Atka implemented in this final rule. using models in which natural mortality

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70307

includes time- (and age-) varying Those choices are disappointing and they are all correct, including the estimates of predation mortality potentially illegal. instructions for submitting comments (Hollowed, A. B., J. N. Ianelli, and P. A. Response: The Council and NMFS on http://www.regulations.gov. Livingston. 2000. Including predation seek consensus-based resolutions where Additionally, the Federal Register mortality in stock assessments: A case possible, and when such resolutions are notice provides instructions for the study involving Gulf of Alaska walleye consistent with legal requirements. public to mail written comments to the pollock. ICES Journal of Marine Science, However, the Council and NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS 57, pp. 279–293). These and other recognize that controversial issues such Alaska Region. studies indicate that estimates are as the potential interaction between Classification uncertain and in such cases, using a commercial fisheries and Steller sea natural mortality that is more lions—a subject of substantial scientific Pursuant to section 305(d) of the conservative is more risk averse (Clark, debate (see EIS Executive Summary)— Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS W.G. 1999. Effects of an erroneous are rarely resolved by consensus. Assistant Administrator has determined natural mortality rate on a simple age- Furthermore, Section 302(e) of the that this final rule is consistent with the structured model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that all FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson- Sci. 56:1721–1731). Council decisions be made by majority Stevens Act, and other applicable law. NMFS’ ongoing scientific work to vote, recognizing the fact that not all This final rule has been determined to evaluate predator/prey relationships controversies or policy choices can be be not significant for the purposes of and develop multispecies models is resolved by consensus. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. separate from the rulemaking process The fact that NMFS is implementing Formal consultation under section 7 NMFS conducted for this final rule to regulations that the commenter of the ESA was completed for this restrict vessels from fishing in specific disagrees with is not a basis to conclude action. On April 2, 2014, NMFS issued areas and at specific times to limit that they represent poor management or a biological opinion (2014 BiOp) on the potential competition with Steller sea are illegal. action. The 2014 BiOp found that the lions. Comment 56: Please do not allow any implementation of the action and NMFS disagrees with the comment’s more fishing that would in any way supporting research described in characterization of the previous impact Steller sea lions. We humans Chapter 11 of the EIS were not likely to biological opinions. As explained in the take too much as it is. And we have jeopardize the continued existence of EIS and all previous BiOps, NMFS’ alternatives like a vegan diet, as well as endangered Steller sea lions or result in concern has been the potential eco-tourism to make money off these sea the destruction or adverse modification competition of fisheries with Steller sea lions over and over again by charging of their critical habitat. lions for prey when and where Steller people to observe them. Keep the NMFS prepared a final EIS for this sea lions forage. NMFS has imposed current fishing restrictions in place, and action. The final EIS was filed with the Steller sea lion protection measures that keep in mind that the population of Environmental Protection Agency on include seasonal restrictions, area these sea lions has not recovered. Show May 16, 2014. A notice of availability closures, and catch limits with the goal some backbone for your convictions and was published on May 23, 2014 (79 FR of reducing the potential of fisheries to do not cave in to fishing interests’ 29759). In approving this action, NMFS affect Steller sea lion foraging pressure. issued a Record of Decision identifying Response: NMFS acknowledges the opportunities. These are coupled with the selected alternative. A copy of the comment. Record of Decision is available from fine-scale fishery evaluations following Comment 57: Closing areas to NMFS (see ADDRESSES the surgical approach outlined in the commercial fishing and enforcing these ). 2008 Recovery Plan, the 2010 FMP closures is the only way to protect Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, BiOp, the 2014 BiOp, and the latest Steller sea lions from the firearms of NMFS mailed letters to approximately information regarding sea lion behavior commercial fishermen. 660 Alaska tribal governments, Alaska and prey resources as described in EIS Response: NMFS has worked closely Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Chapters 3 and 5. Implementing the with the Council and the State of Alaska corporations, and related organizations Steller sea lion protection measures that to eliminate illegal shooting of Steller providing information about the EIS and regulate fishing activity, as is being sea lions. EIS Section 5.3.4 provides soliciting consultation and coordination done by this final rule, is a separate additional information on the with interested tribal governments and action from NMFS’ ongoing scientific occurrence of illegal shooting. Closing ANCSA corporations. NMFS received work to understand and model commercial fishing is not required to no comments on the EIS from tribal predator/prey relationships and eliminate illegal shooting. governments or ANCSA corporation evaluate the impacts of fish harvest on Comment 58: As fishermen in these representatives. Section 1.7 of the EIS the ecosystem using the latest scientific waters, we are appalled that some provides more detail on NMFS’ techniques. public comments indicate fishermen outreach with Alaska tribal governments and ANCSA corporations (see Comments on Additional Issues evoke actions intended to harm Steller sea lions. At no time do we ever harass ADDRESSES). NMFS received one Comment 55: The Council and NMFS marine mammals. comment on the proposed rule from have taken significant steps to move Response: NMFS acknowledges the Kawerak, Inc., a regional non-profit toward holistic, ecosystem-based comment. tribal consortium of the Bering Strait management. Continue that momentum Comment 59: Are you telling the Region. NMFS summarized and by seeking a durable, consensus-based public to go to an inaccurate site in your responded to this comment under resolution to controversies about the Federal Register notice to stifle public Response to Public Comments, above interaction between industrial fisheries comment? (see Comment 12). NMFS received one and sea lions. Instead, the Council has Response: NMFS encourages public comment from Aleut Enterprise, LLC, a suggested and NMFS has adopted new comment. NMFS checked all of the Web wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleut measures certain to continue the sites in the Federal Register notice for Corporation. NMFS summarized and controversy and poor management. the proposed rule (79 FR 37486) and responded to this comment under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Response to Public Comments, above Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy targeted Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or (see Comments 10, 11, 43, and 44). Comments on the Proposed Rule pollock in the Aleutian Islands in 2010 were classified as large entities since Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis NMFS published a proposed rule on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37486). An initial their gross revenues, or their gross This final regulatory flexibility regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) revenues and those of their affiliated analysis (FRFA) incorporates the IRFA, was prepared and summarized in the entities, exceeded the SBA threshold of a summary of the significant issues ‘‘Classification’’ section of the preamble $20.5 million. The IRFA details the raised by the public comments in to the proposed rule. The comment process used to determine if a vessel was affiliated with other businesses and response to the IRFA, and NMFS period closed on August 15, 2014. is not repeated here. responses to those comments, and a NMFS received 17 letters of public In addition to vessels in directed summary of the analyses completed to comment on the proposed rule. No fisheries, NMFS identified 20 vessels support the action. comments were received on the IRFA, with incidental catches of Atka Section 604 of the Regulatory or on the small entity impacts of this mackerel or Pacific cod in Area 543 that Flexibility Act requires that, when an rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of are directly regulated by this action. agency promulgates a final rule under the SBA did not file any comments on Alternative 1, the status quo, prohibits section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, the proposed rule. retention of Atka mackerel or Pacific after being required by that section or Number and Description of Small cod in Area 543. This comprehensive any other law to publish a general Entities Regulated by the Action prohibition on retention is relaxed notice of proposed rulemaking, the under this action, the preferred The small entity estimates reported in agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section alternative. This prohibition directly the IRFA for this action have been 604 describes the required contents of a regulates vessels that would otherwise reviewed for compliance with have retained these species in Area 543. FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for, subsequent inflation adjustments to and objectives of, the rule; (2) a Thus, the preferred alternative directly SBA thresholds for identifying small regulates these vessels in this area. Only statement of the significant issues raised entities (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). by the public comments in response to small numbers of vessels took incidental The change in thresholds did not lead catches of these species in Area 543 the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to changes in the small entity estimates. a statement of the assessment of the during the baseline years. Over the NMFS identified three groups of entire baseline period, from 2004 agency of such issues, and a statement entities that would be directly regulated of any changes made in the proposed through 2010, only six separate fixed by this action: (1) Federally-permitted gear catcher/processors or trawl catcher rule as a result of such comments; (3) vessels that harvest Atka mackerel, the response of the agency to any vessels were identified with incidental Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian catches of Atka mackerel and/or Pacific comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Islands; (2) CDQ groups that receive an Advocacy of the Small Business cod from 2004 through 2010. None of allocation of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, these is believed to be a small entity Administration (SBA) in response to the and pollock in the Aleutian Islands; and proposed rule, and a detailed statement based on a knowledge of vessel (3) the Aleut Corporation, which affiliations. Fourteen fixed gear catcher of any change made to the proposed rule receives an allocation of pollock in the in the final rule as a result of the vessels had incidental catches during Aleutian Islands. The following the same years. All of these are comments; (4) a description of and an paragraphs provide estimates of the estimate of the number of small entities considered to be small entities based on numbers of small entities in these three a review of their gross revenues from all to which the rule will apply or an categories that are directly regulated by explanation of why no such estimate is sources, and their affiliations. None of this action. NMFS estimates that 26 these vessels fished all years; the available; (5) a description of the vessels, and the six CDQ groups, are projected reporting, recordkeeping and median number of years fishing in Area directly regulated small entities. 543 for a vessel in this group during the other compliance requirements of the NMFS identified 51 vessels active in rule, including an estimate of the classes baseline period was two years. The directed fisheries for Atka mackerel or aggregate fixed gear catcher vessel of small entities which will be subject Pacific cod in 2010 that would have to the requirement and the type of revenues from Area 543 for these vessels been directly regulated by this action. are estimated to average about $11,300 professional skills necessary for Twelve vessels—one catcher/processor a year in real 2012 dollars, during the preparation of the report or record; and and 11 catcher vessels—were believed baseline years (2004 through 2010). (6) a description of the steps the agency to be small entities. One of these vessels Average revenues per vessel-year from has taken to minimize the significant was a pot catcher/processor, and the this source are estimated to be about economic impact on small entities remaining vessels were trawl catcher $2,200. consistent with the stated objectives of vessels. The estimated average gross Through the CDQ program, the applicable statutes, including a revenue from the identified small Council and NMFS allocate a portion of statement of the factual, policy, and entities, in 2012 (the most recent year the BSAI groundfish TACs, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative with complete revenue information), apportion prohibited species catch adopted in the final rule and why each was about $1.4 million. Note that firm limits for Pacific halibut, Pacific one of the other significant alternatives revenues may have been larger, if these salmon, and several crab species, to 65 to the rule considered by the agency firms had revenues from sources other eligible Western Alaska communities. which affect the impact on small than the identified vessels. If this was These communities work through six entities was rejected. the case, average gross revenues for non-profit CDQ groups, and are required Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule small entities may be underestimated or to use the net proceeds from the CDQ the number of small entities might be allocations to start or support activities A statement of the need for, and overestimated, and the direction of the that will result in ongoing, regionally objectives of, the rule is contained on impact on average revenue for the based, commercial fishery or related pages 4 through 10 of the preamble to remaining vessels would be unknown. businesses. The six CDQ groups receive this final rule and is not repeated here. The remaining 39 vessels that directly allocations through the specifications

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70309

process, and are directly regulated by significant alternatives to the rule Alternative 4. However, Alternative 4 this action, but the 65 communities are considered by the agency that affect the may be less restrictive to small entities, not directly regulated. Because they are impact on small entities was rejected. since Alternative 5 adds a catch limit for explicitly defined as small nonprofit At its October 2013 meeting, the Pacific cod in Area 543 that limits area entities within the Regulatory Council adopted Alternative 5. This catch in proportion to the annual stock Flexibility Act, the six CDQ groups are alternative is described in detail in assessment. Alternative 5 was selected considered small entities for purposes of Chapter 2 of the EIS. Section 8.13.1 of over the less restrictive Alternative 4 to this analysis. the EIS and Section 1.13.1 of the insure that Pacific cod fisheries in the The Aleut Corporation receives all of Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) provide BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the the pollock directed fishing allocation an analysis of Alternative 5, while continued existence of endangered in Areas 541, 542, and 543. The Aleut Section 8.20 of the EIS, and Section 1.14 Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely Corporation is an ANCSA corporation, of the RIR compare Alternative 5 to the modify their designated critical habitat. and is a holding company evaluated other alternatives for affected fleets. NMFS notes that Alternative 5 was according to the SBA criteria at 13 CFR This FRFA describes the impacts of selected with the clear understanding 121.201, using a $7 million gross annual Alternative 5 relative to other that the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod receipts threshold for ‘‘Offices of Other alternatives for Atka mackerel, Pacific will be managed as a separate stock Holding Companies’’ (NAICS code cod, and pollock fisheries. from the Bering Sea Pacific cod, which 551112). As noted, in Table 8–39 of The elements of Alternative 5 that limits the amount of catch from the Chapter 8 of the EIS, Aleut Corporation regulate the Atka mackerel fishery are Aleutian Islands relative to the baseline revenues exceed this threshold (gross slightly more restrictive than those in harvests analyzed. revenues were about $159 million in Alternatives 3 and 4, and are less The elements of Alternative 5 that 2010), and the Aleut Corporation is restrictive than those in Alternatives 1, regulate the Aleutian Islands pollock considered to be a large entity for 2, and 6. fishery are slightly more restrictive than purposes of this analysis. For the Atka mackerel fishery, those in Alternatives 3 and 4 Alternative 5 is most comparable to (Alternatives 3 and 4 are identical in Recordkeeping and Reporting Alternative 3. Alternatives 3 and 5 are their management of the pollock Requirements the same in Areas 541 and 542. They fishery). Alternative 5 differs from This action would implement new differ in Area 543 in that Alternative 3 Alternatives 3 and 4 only in that it recordkeeping and reporting closes certain waters around Buldir includes management area specific A requirements by requiring an increase in Island explicitly, while Alternative 5 season catch limits, and increases VMS polling rates for all trawl vessels does not. However, Alternative 5 sets an critical habitat closures in Area 542. The named on a Federal Fishing Permit Area 543 TAC limit equal to 65 percent A season catch limits are 5 percent of under § 679.4(b) and fishing for of ABC and that limit is not included in the ABC in Area 543, 15 percent of the groundfish that is deducted or required Alternative 3. On balance, from ABC in Area 542, and 30 percent of the to be deducted from a Federal information during the baseline years, ABC in Area 543. Alternative 5 is less groundfish TAC in the Aleutian Islands Alternative 5 may be somewhat more restrictive than Alternatives 1, 2, and 6. subarea. Some operations may have to restrictive in Area 543 than Alternative The area constraints on pollock upgrade existing VMS equipment, and 3. However, the Alternative 5 TAC limit fishing contained in Alternative 5 are all will have to increase transmission in Area 543 is included to prevent not present in Alternatives 3 and 4. rates. The owner of the trawl vessel excessive harvest of Atka mackerel prey Thus, those alternatives may be must ensure NMFS receives the resources near Steller sea lion haulouts somewhat less restrictive than transmission from the VMS unit at least and rookeries. Alternative 5. Management area limits 10 times per hour. This measure does For the Atka mackerel fishery, were introduced to provide control over not apply to fixed gear vessels, thus, Alternative 4 is also less restrictive than potential harvests in a new pollock from the discussion above, it may affect Alternative 5. However, the Council did fishery of unknown potential and, thus, as many as 11 small trawl catcher vessel not recommend and NMFS did not to provide more protection for Steller entities. The costs of this requirement select Alternative 4 as its preferred sea lions. These restrictions are more are discussed in the Collection-of- alternative. Alternative 4 measures were stringent in the western areas, where Information section of this final rule, found to result in jeopardy and adverse Steller sea lions are not doing as well as and are incorporated by reference here. modification of critical habitat for the in the east (this is consistent with the In summary, all trawl catcher vessels Steller sea lions in the 2010 FMP BiOp. performance standards in the 2010 FMP will incur additional transmission costs Alternative 5 provides more protection BiOp). The extension of the 542 closure estimated to be about $400 a year, and for Steller sea lions in Area 543, where areas, west of 178° W longitude, to 20 some may be required to upgrade their population declines have been larger nm under Alternative 5, may also VMS equipment at a cost estimated to than in Areas 541 and 542. Alternative contribute to making this alternative be about $3,500. 5 was selected over other less restrictive more restrictive than Alternatives 3 and alternatives to insure that Atka mackerel 4. The extension was also included in Description of Significant Alternatives fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to Alternative 5 to provide more protection to the Final Action That Minimize jeopardize the continued existence of to Steller sea lion prey species occurring Adverse Impacts on Small Entities endangered Steller sea lions or destroy near rookeries and haul-outs that have A FRFA must describe the steps the or adversely modify their designated experienced relatively greater declines agency has taken to minimize the critical habitat. in populations. Alternative 5 was significant economic impact on small The elements of Alternative 5 that selected over other less restrictive entities consistent with the stated regulate the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod alternatives to insure that pollock objectives of applicable statutes, fishery are slightly more restrictive than fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to including a statement of the factual, those in Alternative 4, and are less jeopardize the continued existence of policy, and legal reasons for selecting restrictive than those in Alternatives 1, endangered Steller sea lions or destroy the alternative adopted in the final rule 2, 3, and 6. For Pacific cod, Alternative or adversely modify their designated and why each one of the other 5 is most closely comparable to critical habitat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Small Entity Compliance Guide VMS, some of the impacted vessels may § 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. NMFS has posted a small entity have to replace existing VMS units to compliance guide on the NMFS Alaska meet the polling rate and reliability * * * * * Region Web site (http://alaskafisheries. requirements. While NMFS is unable to (b) * * * noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/sslpm/) to estimate the number of entities that may satisfy the Small Business Regulatory be required to replace VMS units to CFR part or section Current OMB control provide the required unit reliability, the where the information Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, collection requirement number (all numbers which requires a plain language guide to estimated cost for an additional unit is is located begin with 0648–) assist small entities in complying with about $3,500 (including installation). this rule. Contact NMFS to request a Estimates of burden include the time hard copy of the guide (see ADDRESSES). for reviewing instructions, searching ***** existing data sources, gathering and 50 CFR: Collection-of-Information Requirements maintaining the data needed, and This rule contains collection-of- ***** completing and reviewing the collection 679.22(a) ...... –0206 information requirements subject to the of information. Send comments on these Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and or any other aspects of the collection of ***** which have been approved by the Office information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES 679.28(f) ...... –0206, –0445 of Management and Budget (OMB). The above, and email to OIRA Submission@ collections of information are listed omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202–395–5806. ***** below by OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision OMB Control No. 0648–0206 of the law, no person is required to Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries The Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) is respond to, nor shall any person be PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE mentioned in the regulatory text of this subject to a penalty for failure to comply EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF rule, but no changes are made to the with, a collection of information subject ALASKA application form. to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a ■ 3. The authority citation for part 679 OMB Control No. 0648–0445 currently valid OMB control number. continues to read as follows: Public reporting burden is estimated All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et to average 4 hours per response for the seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447. Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/ operation (includes installation, services_programs/prasubs.html. ■ 4. In § 679.7: ■ a. Remove paragraphs (a)(19), (a)(23), transmission, and maintenance). List of Subjects Estimates of burden include the time for and (a)(25); reviewing instructions, searching 15 CFR Part 902 ■ b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(24) as existing data sources, gathering and paragraph (a)(19); and maintaining the data needed, and Reporting and recordkeeping ■ c. Revise the newly redesignated completing and reviewing the collection requirements. paragraph (a)(19). of information. Send comments on these 50 CFR Part 679 The revisions read as follows: or any other aspects of the collection of § 679.7 Prohibitions. information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and above, and email to OIRA Submission@ recordkeeping requirements. (a) * * * omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202–395–5806. Dated: November 18, 2014. (19) Atka mackerel directed fishing in This rule increases the number of Eileen Sobeck, the Bering Sea reporting areas. Conduct directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the transmissions or VMS polling rate, from Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 2 per hour to 10 per hour when a vessel National Marine Fisheries Service. Bering Sea subarea and adjacent State is using trawl gear to fish in the waters with a vessel required to be Aleutian Islands; however, VMS For the reasons set out in the Federally permitted. transmissions are not counted as preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part * * * * * burden, because they are automatic. 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows: ■ 5. In § 679.20: Some vessels may incur additional ■ Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade a. Add paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(B)(6), and operating costs due to the increase in (a)(7)(v); the VMS polling rate, or they may have PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION ■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(C); and to replace existing VMS units to meet COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER ■ c. Add paragraphs (a)(8)(ii)(D) and the polling rate and reliability THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: (e)(3)(v). requirements. NMFS estimates that the OMB CONTROL NUMBERS The additions and revisions read as increase in the polling rate will increase follows: VMS costs by about $400 per year for ■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 § 679.20 General limitations. trawl catcher vessels and catcher/ continues to read as follows: processors operating in the Aleutian (a) * * * Islands, except for trawl catcher/ Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (5) * * * processors targeting Atka mackerel. ■ 2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph (iii) * * * Trawl catcher/processors targeting Atka (b), under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’: (B) * * * (6) Pollock harvest limitations. mackerel are expected to incur costs of ■ about $1,200 per year; however, these a. Add an entry in alphanumeric order Pollock harvests during the A season as are all large entities. Although all for ‘‘679.22(a)’’; and defined at § 679.23(e)(2) are limited to: vessels are required to have an FFP, and ■ b. Revise the entry for 679.28(f). (i) No more than 5 percent of the all vessels fishing in the Aleutian The addition and revision read as Aleutian Islands pollock ABC in Area Islands are required to have and operate follows: 543.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70311

(ii) No more than 15 percent of the process, the Regional Administrator will (8) Steller sea lion protection areas, Aleutian Islands pollock ABC in Area establish an Area 543 Pacific cod Aleutian Islands reporting areas. 542. harvest limit based on Pacific cod * * * * * (iii) No more than 30 percent of the abundance in Area 543 as determined (iv) Pacific cod closures. Directed Aleutian Islands pollock ABC in Area by the annual stock assessment process. fishing for Pacific cod required to be 541. NMFS will first subtract the State GHL deducted from the Federal TAC * * * * * Pacific cod amount from the AI Pacific specified at § 679.20 by vessels named (7) * * * cod ABC. Then NMFS will determine on a Federal Fisheries Permit under (v) ITAC allocation to the Amendment the harvest limit in Area 543 by § 679.4(b) using trawl, hook-and-line, or 80 sector. A percentage of the Pacific multiplying the percentage of Pacific pot gear is prohibited within Pacific cod cod TAC, after subtraction of the CDQ cod estimated in Area 543 by the no-fishing zones around selected sites. reserve, will be allocated as ITAC to the remaining ABC for AI Pacific cod. These sites and gear types are described Amendment 80 sector as described in (8) * * * in Table 5 of this part and its footnotes Table 33 to this part. Separate (ii) * * * and are identified by ‘‘AI’’ in column 2. allocations for each Amendment 80 (C) Atka mackerel harvest limitations. cooperative and the Amendment 80 * * * * * (1) Atka mackerel catch within waters 0 limited access fishery are described ■ 7. In § 679.23, revise paragraphs nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites under § 679.91. The allocation of Pacific (e)(3)(ii) and (e)(5)(ii)(C) to read as listed in Table 6 to this part and located cod to the Amendment 80 sector will be follows: west of 178° W longitude is: further divided into seasonal § 679.23 Seasons. apportionments as described under (i) Limited to no more than 60 percent paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) of this of the annual TACs in Areas 542 and * * * * * section. 543; and (e) * * * (A) Use of seasonal apportionments (ii) Equally divided between the A (3) * * * by Amendment 80 cooperatives. (1) The and B seasons as defined at (ii) B season. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ § 679.23(e)(3). June 10 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., permit that is assigned for use in the A (2) The annual TAC in Area 543 will December 31. season may be used in the B or C be no more than 65 percent of the ABC * * * * * season. in Area 543. (5) * * * (2) The amount of Pacific cod that is (D) Any unharvested Atka mackerel A (ii) * * * listed on a CQ permit that is assigned season allowance that is added to the B (C) C season— (1) Catcher vessels and for use in the B season may not be used season is prohibited from being AFA catcher/processors. From 1200 in the A season. harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm hours, A.l.t., June 10 through 1200 (3) The amount of Pacific cod listed of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table hours, A.l.t., November 1. on a CQ permit that is assigned for use 6 to this part and located in Areas 541, (2) Amendment 80 and CDQ. From in the C season may not be used in the 542, and 543. 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10 through 1200 A or B seasons. * * * * * hours, A.l.t., December 31. (B) Harvest of seasonal (e) * * * * * * * * apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. (1) Pacific cod (3) * * * ■ 8. In § 679.28, revise paragraph ITAC assigned for harvest by the (v) For all vessels not listed in subpart (f)(3)(i) and add paragraph (f)(7) to read Amendment 80 limited access fishery in F of this section, the maximum as follows: the A season may be harvested in the B retainable amount for Atka mackerel harvested in the Bering Sea subarea is § 679.28 Equipment and operational or C seasons. requirements. (2) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for calculated at the end of each offload and * * * * * harvest by the Amendment 80 limited is based on the basis species harvested (f) * * * access fishery in the B season may not since the previous offload. For purposes (3) * * * be harvested in the A season. of this paragraph, offload means the (3) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for removal of any fish or fish product from (i) Obtain a NMFS-approved VMS harvest by the Amendment 80 limited the vessel that harvested the fish or fish transmitter with transmission access fishery in the C season may not product to any other vessel or to shore. capabilities required for the areas of be harvested in the A or B seasons. * * * * * vessel operation and have it installed onboard your vessel in accordance with (vi) ITAC rollover to Amendment 80 ■ 6. In § 679.22, revise paragraphs (a)(7) cooperatives. If during a fishing year, the instructions provided by NMFS. heading, (a)(7)(vi), (a)(8) heading, and You may get a copy of the VMS the Regional Administrator determines (a)(8)(iv) to read as follows: that a portion of the Pacific cod TAC is installation and operation instructions unlikely to be harvested and is made § 679.22 Closures. from the Regional Administrator upon request. available for reallocation to the (a) * * * * * * * * Amendment 80 sector according to the (7) Steller sea lion protection areas, (7) What additional requirements provisions under paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of Bering Sea reporting areas. this section, the Regional Administrator does an operator have if trawling in the may issue inseason notification in the * * * * * Aleutian Islands reporting areas? Federal Register that reallocates that (vi) Atka mackerel closures. Directed Operators of vessels named on a Federal remaining amount of Pacific cod to fishing for Atka mackerel by vessels Fisheries Permit under § 679.4(b), and Amendment 80 cooperatives, according named on a Federal Fisheries Permit that are using trawl gear in the Aleutian to the procedures established under under § 679.4(b) and using trawl gear is Islands reporting areas to harvest § 679.91(f). prohibited within the Bering Sea groundfish that is required to be (vii) Pacific cod harvest limitations. reporting areas. deducted from a Federal TAC specified During the annual harvest specifications * * * * * at § 679.20, must set their VMS to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 70312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

transmit the vessel location at least 10 ■ 9. Revise Table 4 to Part 679 to read times per hour. as follows: * * * * * BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70313 for No- Gear 7 3 3 3 3 Zones 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2,s(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing E E E E 6 53.85 27.20 56.50 41.40 1 to 175° 172° 173° 173° N N N N Boundaries 5 55.40 45.00 20.38 21.80 52° 52° 52° 52° E E E E E E E w w w w w 4 21.31 08.70 54.03 51.50 43.30 27.90 26.00 10.50 17.50 06.50 oo.oow 56.00W 51.00 58.00 46.00W 40.00W 26.00W 175° 173° 172° 173° 173° 174° 173° from 170° 169° 162° 169° 168° 173° 171° 159° 169° 170° Restrictions N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 15.00 18.00 11.00 04.00 36.00 39.00 33.50 37.00 36.00 06.00 54.60 49.75 46.50 44.00N 20.25 24.13 22.50N Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 63° 60° 63° 57° 52° 56° 52° 58° 52° 52° 52° 52° 56° 52° 58° 57° 57o Fisheries Pollock I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea 16 Areas 2 Area Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Protection Lion Sea I I. Number Name Pt. Cape Rock 13 Punuk 679-Steller Site Pt. Pt. Islands) Rookery Sabak Lion Pt. I./SW LIS Wrangell Column Part LIS 1./Dalnoi 13 (Pribilofs) to 1. I./Sea 1./NE I. 13 I./Gillon I./Cape (Walrus I. 4 1. Newenham I./Chirikof I./Cape I. George George Paul Paul Lawrence Lawrence St. St. St. St. St. St. Shemya Cape Agattu Attu Alaid Attu Walrus Hall Round Buldir Table

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.000 70314 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations for No- Gear 7 Zones 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing E E E E E E w w w 6 12.00 20.50 20.53 08.80 39.00 27.00 59.60 49.50 03.66 1 Longitude to 177° 179° 178° 179° 177° 177° 179° 178° 178° N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 5 18.70 35.09 34.50 03.06 01.50 53.50 57.24 48.50 22.00 Latitude 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° 52° E E E E E E E E E E E E E E w w w w 4 19.00 12.35 12.70 20.41 27.93 29.80 05.80 36.90 36.50 49.28 46.80 24.30 24.21 46.00 04.25 07.80 51.73 58.90 Longitude 177° 178° 178° 178° 179° 179° 177° 177° 177° 179° 177° 178° 178° 179° from 179° 178° 178° 179° N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 13.00 32.32 33.67 34.50 52.50N 56.80 59.90 59.30 57.30 45.36 49.98 49.50 24.46 22.26 01.40 08.50N o o Latitude 51 51 51° 51° 51°57.16N 52° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° 51° 51° 51°18.90N 51° I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. 16 2 Area Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian 1 Pt. Pt. Rocks 14 Number Name Pt. Rocks Vega 14 Ivakin Pt. Stephen Cape Site & 14 1./Pochnoi Pt. Pt. St. 14 Nitrof Cove Column 1. I. () Point I./Cape I./East I./Column Dinkum I.!Krysi I. 14 I. & 1. I./Lief I./Sirius I./Cape 1./Sobaka Sitkin 1./Hasgox Semisopochnoi/Petrel Semisopochnoi Segula Unalga Ulak Kiska Amchitka Amchitka Amatignak Kiska Kiska Kavalga Kiska Hawadax Little Tanadak Ayugadak

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.001 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70315 for No- 3 Gear 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 Zones 10 20 20 20 10, 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing w w w w 6 57.50 57.10 59.60 07.00 1 Longitude to 176° 172° 177° 176° N N N N Boundaries 5 06.60 05.75 37.40 55.00 o Latitude 51 51° 52° 52° --- w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 34.50 30.45 58.50 20.58 27.00W 10.50 13.90 17.80W 20.72 09.30 09.00W 31.00 57.10 57.60 54.23 53.00 59.00W 23.90 Longitude 176° 177° 174° 173° 177° 176° 173° 172° 172° 172° 175° 175° 176° from 178° 178° 178° 177° 177° N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 11.11 33.50 34.95 35.50N 56.50N 55.00 54.00 50.86 46.70 49.09 28.87 24.20 00.50 06.00N 01.80N 05.70N 04.20N 06.09N o o Latitude 51 51 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° 51° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. 16 2 Area Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian 1 11 Number Name 15 ) 11 Pt. Harbor Cape Site Rock Cape Strait 11 I. Column 11 I. ( 1. I. 11 I. I./Ship I. I./North I. I./Bumpy I./Sviech. I./East Sitkin I. Tanaga I./North I. Sagigik Great GrampRock Ugidak Anagaksik Amlia Amlia Agligadak Bobrofl. Kanaga Kasatochi Kanaga Little Tag Tanadak Tanaga Atka Adak --

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.002 70316 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations for No- Gear 7 3 3 3 3 Zones 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 BA BA BA BA 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing w w w w 6 33.60 31.22 46.00 24.30 1 Longitude to 172° 172° 169° 172° N N N N Boundaries 5 15.55 05.00 21.02 23.25 Latitude 52° 52° 52° 53° w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 15.00 10.50 19.30W 17.90W 10.50W 57.99 51.50 24.24 02.05 34.40W 36.35 39.37 57.50 41.00 47.00W 41.90 24.50 27.70W Longitude 171° 170° 169° 169° 169° 167° 168° 167° 167° 172° 172° 171° 169° 168° 168° 166° 172° 169° from N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 13.64 15.96 17.50 04.00 02.10 34.00 55.69 58.40 59.71 54.70 41.40 46.00 46.70N 27.25 21.05 21.60 23.40N 25.00 Latitude 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 53o 53o 53o 53o 53o 52° 52° 53° 53° 53° 52° I. I. I. I. I. I. Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea 16 Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska 2 of of of of of of Area Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf 1 11 Pt. 3 Number Name 9 3 Pt. Side Pt. Site I. Aslik Izigan Rocks Column & 3 I./Fire Rock I. I./Saddleridge I./Finch I. I./South 3 I. I./Cape 3 Seguam Seguam Samalga Seguam Chagu1akl. Ogchul Uliaga Unalaska/Bishop Unalaska/Cape Yunaskal. Adugakl. Kagamil Bogoslof Polivnoi Emerald Chuginadak

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.003 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70317 for No- Gear 7 3 Zones 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing w w w w w w 6 03.68 57.18 47.50W 29.50 08.50 05.50 31.71 1 Longitude to 165° 164° 163° 166° 166° 164° 165° N N N N N Boundaries 5 17.57N 12.80 09.12 03.70 09.10 02.90N 26.15 Latitude 54o 54° 54o 54o 54o 54° 55° w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 17.2 41.3 26.7 12.10 19.40 59.65 59.00W 51.15 21.30 05.00W 04.90W 09.60 06.19 31.90 32.06 56.80 47.50W 46.60W Longitude 162° 163° 162° 163° 162° 165° 164° 166° 165° 165° 164° 166° 166° 164° 164° 163° 164° 165° from N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 12.00 12.05 18.14 10.99 13.50 17.62 22.70N 03.39 09.60 08.10 03.90 34.30 50.50 52.20 41.98 40.00N 27.82 24.20N Latitude 54o 54° 54° 54° 54o 54o 54o 55o 54o 53° 53° 54° 54° 54° 54° 54° 55° 54° Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea 16 Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska 2 of of of of of of of of of of of of of Area Bering Bering Bering Bering Bering Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf 1 6 6 9 9 Number Name 9 9 6 Sedanka Head Site (S) Morgan 6 (Amak) NE Sarichefl 6 rocks Column 6 6 I. I./Cape Rocks Rocks Rock I. And I./Reef-lava I./Cape 6 (GOA) 6 I. I. Rocks I./Billings I. Man Lion Sea South Caton Clubbing Akun Unalaska Ugamak Unimak/Cape Aiktak Amak Akutan Round Rootok Bird Tigalda!Rocks Tanginak Old Akutan

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.004 70318 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations for No- Gear 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 10 Zones 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing w w w w w 6 15.00 35.74 30.89 41.60 21.00 1 Longitude to 157° 159° 156° 160° 161° N N N N N Boundaries 5 56.00 00.30 32.00 59.09 45.87 Latitude 54° 54° 54° 56° 55o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 26.7 15.40 53.90 50.10 20.47 24.89 29.77 29.81 06.27 05.04 32.99 31.04 47.50 42.73 41.90 45.85 41.42 Longitude 162° 157° 161° 157° 155° 158° 158° 161° 160° 161° 159° 159° 160° 161° 157° 156° 160° 159°17.40W from N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 15.75 16.47 16.82 17.30 00.45 03.20 00.54 04.70 31.05 54.20N 50.20 49.30 46.79 49.80 42.75 46.60 45.18 46.06N Latitude 54o 54° 55° 55° 56° 54o 55o 55o 55o 54° 54° 55° 55° 55° 56° 55° 56° 55° 16 Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska 2 of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of Area Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf 1 Number Name Pt. Site (N) (Shumagins) Column I. Rocks Rocks Rocks Rocks Rock I. I. I. Rock Rocks I./Mountain I. Rocks I. Whaleback Lion Sea Spitz Sutwik Sushilnoi Olga Clubbing Castle Chowiet Atkins Pinnacle Mitrofania K.ak Lighthouse Jude The Chemabura Nagai Nagai

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.005 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70319 for No- Gear 7 3 3 Zones 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10,3 10,3 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing w w w w 6 10.50 17.40 33.74 43.46 1 Longitude to 152° 155° 153° 154° N N N N Boundaries 5 12.50 53.90 21.90 46.44 Latitude 56° 57° 55o 58° w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 12.90 17.50 12.50 13.30 36.30 50.96 50.97 53.05 23.10 22.50 22.20 09.60W 31.25 31.30 39.50 32.75 41.50 Longitude 154°47.50W 155° 154° 154° 153° 153° 153° 152° 152° 152° 155° 153° 152° 154° 153° 152° 152° 152° from N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 17.20N 10.20 11.50 54.50 21.45 23.60 01.75 08.00 00.00 34.30 32.80 31.15 52.41 54.75 40.60 40.10 46.82 46.50 Latitude 55o 57o 57o 57° 57° 58° 58° 58° 56° 58° 56° 59° 57° 58° 58° 58° 57° 57° 16 Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska 2 of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of Area Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf 1 12 1.) Number Name 4 Site Sitkinak (Shaw Barnabas Ikolik Ugat Point Column I. I. 1./SW 4 Rocks I. I. Gull Kuliak Douglas Otter Sitkinak/Cape ShakunRock Sea Chirikofl. Cape Cape Cape Ushagat Ugakl. Kodiak/Gull PualeBay Kodiak/Cape Kodiak/Cape Kodiak/Cape Latax Long Twoheaded Takli

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.006 70320 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations for No- Gear 7 10 10 10 Zones 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 15,20 2,&(nm) Trawl Pollock fishing w w 6 52.06 24.70W 24.50 1 Longitude to 151° 150° 149° N N N Boundaries 5 51.00 21.00 09.90 Latitude 59o 58° 59° w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 15.20 12.50 15.40 54.60W 58.00 47.75 23.10 20.65 23.00 08.25 34.00W 34.00W 02.40 37.50 39.75 46.30 48.83 Longitude 147° 147°36.17W 152° 149° 151° 151° 149° 148° 149° 152° 151° 147° 150° 150° 150° 152° 151° 147° from N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 12.00 13.65 50.00 20.53 20.50 29.05 06.64 06.00 05.75 37.90 31.20 36.00 35.00 56.00 54.00 52.90 53.25 44.00N Latitude 59o 58° 60° 60° 60° 59o 59o 59o 59o 58° 57° 58° 58° 59° 59° 59° 59° 59° 16 Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska 2 of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of Area Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf 1 Number Name 10 I.) Site (Marmot) • 7 Chiniak 7 Column I. (Kenai) 7 (Fish I. 5 Rocks Islands Rocks I. 1. Island (Pye) Point Eleanor Elrington Point Rocks Needle I. Lion Sea Steep Sud Sugarloaf Seal Gore Outer Chiswell Wooded Kodiak/Cape Marmot Perl Rugged Point PerryC Point The Nagahut

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.007 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70321 for 3 20 No- Gear and and 7 Zones 10 area 20 20 20 20 around the January January 2.s(nm) point. nm nm straight Trawl Pollock 0 0 a This fishing table along base of from from this the nm nm is season. of south between between 10 15 7 A 6 part gear gear and and coordinates the 1 Longitude to location this nm nm column trawl trawl 0 0 of in that during 1 with with geographic Boundaries listed, between between of Figure 5 is specified in set prohibited Latitude pollock pollock gear gear nm is for for the trawl trawl the first described and coordinates w w w w w w pollock fishing fishing with with as of from nm for 4 15.60 18.80 14.50 36.20 50.30 38.50 0 set 518 sites. Longitude 144° 146° 146° 147° 146° 146° from pollock pollock directed directed one fishing Area direction for for these between of only from from at N N N N N Boundaries directed fishing fishing points waters 3 waters Where 14.00 09.78 51.30 47.50 28.30 20.00N clockwise W. Latitude all the the a 60° 60° 60° 60° 59° 59o prohibited prohibited where of 75" in restrictions are (b)(2)(ii). directed directed are are '4. Area. 11 Area, and from from fishery coordinates. consists extends Permit connecting Permit Permit Alaska of for 16 BA of N/168° line Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska set 2 (a)(8)(ii) a of of of of of of 00' Area Restriction The baseline of Game Fisheries Gulf prohibited prohibited Fisheries Fisheries Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf Gulf 55° the the second are are and (BA). 1. south of and Pollock the Federal Federal Federal given, a Sea area to W, a a Sea Permit Permit 1. ofFish long., are waters long., 00' 679.22(a)(7)(iv), W with with with water W November Bering Bering only I CFR Bogoslof BA. the N/170° 00'00" the November vessels 50 the 08'00" of Department Vessels Vessels the in through to 00' in coordinates for 10 Number lower-low Name includes /163° of 25 25 10 31. 31. Federal Fisheries Federal Fisheries Federal 55° within a a Site waters Alaska lat. stated within area sets zones located 7 lat./165° mean May May Column all N lies as (Cordova) 10 is the N I. at with with and August August of two Elias Island site site Point St. Hinchinbrook site Rocks connecting 46'30" 42'9" from from through through This Contact Closures Vessels Vessels Restriction No-fishing Where This Seal Cape Hook Middleton Glacier Cape 1 55° 54° shoreline 20 20 3 7 9 6 consists 5 line each 8 nm nm 4 2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.008 70322 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations run all 0 31. 1., as This May waters state November waters located outs. in Tanadak except haul through established through adjacent waters from is 20 pollock 25 all from Rock, for 3run of SFA run Sound. of 3 January including points: The August I./Ship of fishing consists outside William types. Alaska, effective area outside effective following of directed ofKanaga gear are long. Prince are pollock the open I. all run I. W of Gulf from pollock to for 10 30' This and for waters Pt. 172° closed fishing within connecting is prohibited Islands, fishing and by Alaska Douglas/Shaw are of which Ayugadak pollock directed long. Cape Douglas/Shaw drawn to Cape directed for W Aleutian and State vessels points: to I. 30' (SFA), lines of open Sea, around around is fishing open those area 173° Sitkin is straight outside Bering following closure which closure where by Little directed the the which W between Foraging of waters trawl Area, trawl from from and 12.0' Area, run run bounded run areas Open lat. 20 Seguam 10 Federal 10 connecting 177° N area Open in the of the the by N, an 53° prohibited in Islands and reporting and are and 47.5' to Rat Shemya drawn outside o Bay within effective and Bay lat. located 51 the the is and N apply lines Permit to Puale site long., Pt. Puale W located 52° area is long. long. long. long. long. long., W long. long. long. long. this long. contains contains long. E E E E W E E E E straight 37.0' E closures E around Fisheries around .0' waters I./Krysi site site by 12'00" 40'00" between 17 12.0' 17.0' 51.5' 30.0' 42.0' 42.0' 42.0' 0'00" all 177° around 51.0' restricted 30.0' this this of closure N, site. area at at Federal closure 178° 178° 177° 178° the 177° /174° I I I I a bounded I of Hawadax the this lat./165° lat./166° closure 47.5' lat./167° trawl lat. lat. lat./174° lat./174° lat./173° lat. lat. lat. trawl all o N N lat./173° lat. with consists habitat and habitat area N run N N N N N N N N otherwise noted, otherwise 51 nm or from N N run 1., within an 3 20 of area .0' 10 run 18'40" 56.0' 52.0' 56.0' 52.0' 56.0' 8'50" 0.0' 36.0' 3 45.0' 45.0' 26'30" 3 o o Some The Critical Vessels Critical The Unless 1. 11 13 Segula 15 10 12 14 16 52° 51° 54° 51 51 52° 52° 53° 52° 54° 52° 54° 51° The open waters. within north waters to

■ 10. Revise Table 5 to Part 679 to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.009 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70323 Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 20 20 20 20 No-fishing Pacific Gea?· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Gea?· 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gea?· 3 7 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl E 6 27.20 1 to Longitude 172° N Boundaries Restrictions 5 55.40 Latitude 52° Fisheries E E E w w w w w w Cod 4 27.90 21.31 26.00 17.50W 10.50 58.00 51.00 56.00 46.00W 40.00W 26.00W 00.00 06.50 Longitude from 173° 173° 172° 168° 170° 169° 171° 170° 169° 173° 159° 162° 169° Pacific N N N N N N N N N N Areas Boundaries 3 18.00 15.00 11.00 04.00N 06.00 33.50 37.00N 36.00N 36.00 39.00 54.60 49.75 24.13 Latitude 63° 57o 63° 56° 57° 52° 52° 52° 56° 57° 58° 58° 60° Protection 16 Lion 2 AI AI AI BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS Area Sea I. 1 11 Pt. Cape Rock 11 11 Punuk 679-Steller Pt. Rookery Islands) Lion Number Name Pt. I./S I./SW Wrangell Part LIS. I./Dalnoi Site (Pribilofs) I./Sea to 1./NE I. I./Gillon (Walrus 5 Column Newenham I./ChirikofPt. I./Cape I. Paul Paul Lawrence Lawrence George George alms St. St. St. St. St. St. Agattu Attu Attu W Hall Round Cape Table

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.010 70324 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 Gear· 10 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl E E 3 E E E E E E 3 6 12.00 53.85 56.50 20.53 20.50 27.00 08.80 4L40 1 to Longitude 175° 173° 173° 177° 177° 177° 179° 178° N N N N Boundaries 5 53.50N 57.24N 45.00N 48.50 22.00 2L80N 03.06 2038 0 o o Latitude 52 51 51 51° 52° 52° 52° 5l E E E E E E E E E E E E 4 12.70 19.00E 1235 05.80 36.50 54.03 49.28 46.80 20.41 29.80 24,30 27.93 4330 Longitude from 177° 177° 174°08.70E 177° 177° 178° 178° 178° 173° 175° 178° 178° 179° 177° 173°5L50E N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 08,50 32.32 52.50N 57.16N 56.80 59.30N 46.50 44.00N 49.50 45.36 22,50 20.25 22.26 0 o o o o o Latitude 51 51 51 51 51 51°59.90N 51°49.98N 52° 52° 52° 52° 51° 52° 51° 5l 16 2 AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI Area I 11 Vega Pt. Stephen Cape & Sabak Pt. Number Name St. Cove I. (Kiska) Point L/Column L/East 11 Site I.IK.rysi L Sobaka 11 L/Cape IY L/Cape L L/Sirius L/Lief Sitkin Column ShemyaL Segu1aL AlaidL Amchitka Agattu Ayugadak Kiska Kiska Kiska Hawadax Buldir Kiska Little Tanadak Amchitka

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.011 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70325 Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Gear· (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl E w w w w 6 39.00 59.60 03.66 59.60 49.50 1 to Longitude 179° l77°57.10W 179° 178° 178° 176° N N Boundaries 5 18.70N 35.09 34.50N 37.40N 55.00 Ol.50N Latitude 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° E E E w w w w w w w w w w w W 4 2421 36.90 46.00 58.50 57.10 58.90 5L73 20.72 20.58 27.00 09.00 07.80 04.25 34.50 30,45 Longitude from 179° 179° 179° 177° 177° 178° 178° 176° 177° 177° 179° 179° 178° 178° 178° N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 13.00 OL40N 33.67N 34.50N 33.50 34.95 35.50 55.00 54.00 56.50 57.30 46.70 24A6N 28.87 o o o o Latitude 51 51 51 51 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51°18.90N 51° 51° 52° 16 2 AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI Area Pt. I Pt. Rocks Ivakin Pt. Cape 1./Pochnoi Pt. Rock Number Name orth I./NitrofPt. IJCape Dinkum Site I. LIN IJShip I./Bumpy & I. Column 1./Hasgox I. Semisopochnoi Semisopochnoi/Petrel Ugidaki. Amchitka Ulak Adak Amatignak Kanaga Kavalga Kanaga Bobrofl. Tanaga Tag GrampRock Unalga

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.012 70326 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 9 3 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 Gear· 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 20 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w w w w w 6 57.50 24.30 07.00 33.60 31.22 1 to Longitude 172° 172° 172° 176° 172° N N N Boundaries 5 15.55 21.02 23.25 N 05.75 06.60N Latitude 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° w w w w w w w w w w 4 l0.50W 10.50 17.80W 19.30W 17.90W 59.00 54.23 53.00 57.60 23.90 27.70 09.30 34.40 31.00 Longitude from 173° 173° 172° 172° 172° 171° 171° 176° 175° 175° 174° 172° 172° 172° 176°1HOW N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 11.11 01.80 00.50 05.70 06.09 06.00 04.20N 34.00 21.05 27.25 24.20N 23.40N 21.60N Latitude 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 51°49.09N 51°50.86N 52° 16 2 AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI Area 13 ' 4 • 4 I Pt. 13 13 ' 13 13 4 Side Pt. Harbor 13 Number Name 13 • Strait Rocks • 4 L 4 13 I. (Amlia) L & Cape L ' I. Site 4 L L 1./Saddleridge L/Finch I./South L I./Sviech. I./East Sitkin Tanaga Column LIN. Seguam Sagigik Seguam Seguam Anagaksik Atka Amlia Amlia Amukta Kasatochi Little Tanadak Great Chagulak Agligadak

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.013 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70327 Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 9 3 3 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 BA BA BA No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 10 8 Gear· 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 BA BA BA (nm) 20, Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 BA BA (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w w 6 05.50 46.00 1 to Longitude 166° 169° N Boundaries 5 09.10 05.00N Latitude 53° 54° w w w w w w w w w w w w W 4 10.50 15.00 51.50 57.50 24.50 24.24 06.19 05.00 02.05 39.37 36,35 57.99 4LOO 47.00W 4L90W Longitude from 169° 169° 168° 166° 167° 170° 169° 167° 166° 169° 167° 169° 168° 168° 166° N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 13.64 15.96 17.50N 04.00 02.10 08.10 54.70N 50.50N 59.71 55.69 58.40 46.00 46.70 4L40N 25.00 Latitude 52° 52° 52° 53° 53° 53° 52° 53° 53° 53° 54° 53° 53° 52° 53o 16 2 AI BS BS BS BS BS BS BS GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Area 9 I 12 9 5 • 6 6 5 Sedanka Pt. L Aslik Izigan 15 Number Name 9 • 9 ' 14 13 12 14 Site 5 I./Cape L Rock I. 14 I./Reef-lava I./Cape • 5 Column Samalga Uliaga Akutan Unalaska/Cape Unalaska/Bishop AdugakL Umnak Yunaska Kagamils, Bogoslofi./Fire Polivnoi Emerald OgchulL Chuginadak Unalaska

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.014 70328 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 7 9 3 3 3 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 7 3 3 3 3 Gear· 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w w w w w w 6 57.18 08.50 03.68 31.71 47.50 29.50 1 to Longitude 164° 164° 163° 166° 165° 165° N N N Boundaries 5 12.80 26.15 02.90N 09.12 Latitude 55° 54°03.70N 54°17.57N 54° 54o 54° w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 19.40 12.10 56.80 59.65 59.00 51.15 21.30 09.60 32.06 04.90 31.90 46.60 47.50 17.15 41.25 Longitude from 165° 165° 164° 164° 162° 163° 165° 165° 164° 163° 166° 164° 164° 163° 162° N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 12.00 17.62 12.05 10.99 13.50 18.14 27.82 34.30 52,20 40.00 24.20N 22.70 09.60N 03,39 03.90 Latitude 54o 55o 54° 54° 53° 54° 54° 54° 54° 54° 55° 54° 54° 54° 54° 16 2 BS BS BS BS GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Area 9 I 9 Head 9 (Amak) NE Sarichef Number Name 9 rocks 9 Site 1. Rocks Rock And L/Cape Morgan 9 (GOA) 9 I. I. Rocks I./Billings Column I. Man Lion Sea South Caton Old UgamakC Amak Aiktak Round Rootok Bird Tanginak Tigalda/Rocks Unimak/Cape Akutan Akun

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.015 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70329 Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Gear· 20 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w w w 6 15.00 35.74 1 to Longitude 161°30.89 160° 159° N Boundaries 5 59.09 56.00N 45.87N Latitude 54° 54o 54° w w w w w w w w w w w w w W W 4 17.40 15.40 50.10 53.90 29.81 42.73 29.77 3L04 05.04 06.27 32.99 45.85 4L90 26.72 26.74 Longitude from 160° 161° 161° 159° 159° 157° 159° 158° 161° 160° 158° 161° 160° 162° 162° N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 16.47N 16.82 15.75 17.30 04.70 00.45 03.20 50.20 54.20 42.75 46.06 4L98 46.60N 45.18 49.30 Latitude 54o 55° 54° 55° 55° 55° 55° 54° 55° 56° 54° 54° 55o 55o 54° 16 2 GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Area I Pt. (N) (S) (Shumagins) Number Name I. Site Rocks Rocks Rocks Rocks Rock I. Rock I./Mountain Column I. Rocks I. Whaleback Lion Spitz Sea Sushilnoi Castle Olga Atkins Pinnacle Mitrofania Jude The Clubbing Clubbing Chernabura Kak Nagai

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.016 70330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 3 9 20 20 20 20 20 No-fishing Pacific Gea~· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 Gea~· 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Hook-and- fishing Pacific Line No- 3 for for Cod Gea?· 7 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w w w w w 6 10.50 21.00 33.74 43.46 41.60 1 to Longitude 157° 155° 156° 154° 153° N N Boundaries 5 12.50N 32.00 53.90N 46.44 00.30N Latitude 55o 56° 56° 58° 56° w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 12.50W 09.60W 31.25 32.75 39.50 50.96 50.97 47.50 41.50W 41.42 24.89 47.50 23.10 22.50 20.47 Longitude from 157° 155° 154° 155° 153° 157° 153° 153° 154° 154° 153° 154° 156° 155° 153° N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 11.50 17.20 52.41 08.00 00.54N 01.75 00.00 32.80 34.30N 31.05 54.50N 46.79 49.80 40.60 46.50 Latitude 55° 57° 56° 58° 56° 58° 59° 55° 58° 55° 57o 57o 58° 56° 56° 16 2 GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Area 1 1.) gat Sitkinak (Shaw Number Name Ikolik U I. Rocks Site I. I. Rocks Bay Column I. Kuliak Douglas Gull Sitkinak/Cape ShakunRock Sutwik Cape Cape Cape Kodiak/Cape Kodiak/Cape Lighthouse Puale Twoheaded Takli Chirikofl. Chowiet Nagai

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.017 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70331 Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 9 10 10 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 Gear· 10 10 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod 3 Gear· 7 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10, 10,3 (nm) 15,20 Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w w 6 17.40 52.06 1 to Longitude 151° 152° N Boundaries 5 2L90N 09.90 Latitude 57o 58° w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 13.30 12.90 17.50 12.50 53.05 58.00 22.20 08.25 02.40 36.30 39.75 31.30 48.83 46.30 47.75 Longitude from 151° 152° 152° 152° 152° 151° 152° 152° 152° 151° 152° 152° 150° 152° 151° N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 10,20 12.00 13.65 37.90 31.15 54.75 54.00 53.25 46.82 40.10N 20.53 2L45 23.60N 06.00N 05.75 Latitude 57o 57o 57o 58° 58° 57° 58° 58° 59° 59o 57° 58° 58° 58° 59° 16 2 GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Area I (Marmot) Number Name Barnabas Chiniak Poine I. Site 8 I. Rocks Rocks 1./SW 1. Rocks Column I. Point I. Otter Lion Sea Sea Sud Sugarloaf Gore UgakC Kodiak/Cape Kodiak/Cape Kodiak/Gull Marmot Perl Latax Long Nagahut Ushagat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.018 70332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Pot Cod (nm) 3 for 9 3 3 10 No-fishing Pacific Gear· Zone 3 Zone Cod 8 3 3 Gear· 10 (nm) Hook-and- Pacific Line No-fishing 3 for for Cod Gear· 7 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 (nm) Zones No-fishing Pacific Trawl w 6 24,50 24.70W 1 to Longitude 150° 149° Boundaries 5 5LOON 2LOON Latitude 59o 59o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 15.40 15.20 18.80 15.60 14.50 54.60 23.00 23.10 20.65 34.00W 37.50 34.00 38.50 36.17 50.30 Longitude from 150° 146° 149° 149° 148° 147° 147° 146° 146° 146° 150° 149° 147° 147° 147° N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 14.00N 36.00 35.00N 3L20N 50.00 56.00N 52.90 51.30 2050 44.00N 29.05 28.30N 20.00N 06.64 09.78 Latitude 59o 59° 59° 59° 60° 60° 60° 60° 60° 60° 60° 59° 59o 59° 59° 16 2 GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Area I 11 11 11 ' L) 10 Number Name 10 10 L (Kenai) (Cordova) 10 11 (Fish Site Islands L Island Island 10 (Pye) Point Point L Column Eleanor Elrington Hinchinbrook Rocks Rocks Needle Seal Seal Steep Glacier Cape Chiswell Wooded MiddletonL Point Hook Point Rugged Perry The Outer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.019 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70333 Pot Cod (nm) the 3 south for nm, 9 nm, the 15 10 No-fishing from Pacific part point. Gear· directed Zone Point around 9 the area and and along this base from 3 through nm of and nm Zone Bishop 1 0 the 0 Cod 8, within prohibited is 8 7, (nm) For A.l.t., Hook-and- are Pacific LineGe~· Figure coordinates prohibited waters No-fishing between between in long. location all hours, are columns 3 Permit W as in that waters for for Cod waters 1200 7 167° in 20 Permit in 1, geographic (nm) described of Zones of listed, No-fishing Pacific as Traw1Ge~· gear gear is specified set established east 518 is nm trawl trawl first A September Federal Fisheries area the a waters the 6 with of with in 1 from and coordinates Federal Fisheries to with The SF Longitude a cod cod of from nm LOA waters 0 set with types. all effective feet Vessels Pacific Pacific one Boundaries of direction 60 gear long. for nm, for 5 between (SFA). W. Vessels only 3 A.l.t. all W Latitude vessels. to 75" and consists Area fishing equal to equal fishing '4. A.l.t. waters jig hours, Where nm or clock-wise BA 172°30' 0 the closed a and is in 1200 The hours, and than (b)(2)(iii). are directed 4 directed Foraging 36.20W N/168°11 10, and Alaska Longitude from 1200 between long. which 144° types. from from of coordinates. extends Permit June W A, 10, 55°00' of Seguam gear SF hook-and-line Gulf waters N set and the all June (a)(8)(iv), all Boundaries vessels greater the in baseline 173°30' to to through 3 prohibited Fisheries to prohibited to in and 47.50 Latitude the gear GOA= are second are 59° only A.l.t., A.l.t., closed (BA) the applies Federal located between trawl is given, a to is 16 Permit Permit apply Islands, 2 hours, hours, and are with GOA 679.22(a)(7)(v), Area with area which water lat. 55°00'N/170°00'W, W.long. cod zones 1200 1200 A.l.t. CFR BA, Fisheries Fisheries Bogoslofarea Aleutian 20, 20, 53°N 167° vessels 50 = the 1 the of in coordinates restricted Pacific hours, for and AI lower-low of connecting Federal no-fishing for the Federal a January lat. January west a within 1200 of stated within Number Name Sea, sets zones line mean 1, as all lies with at Site with from from and 52°N Elias fishing two or closure site Column St. Bering site straight = nm a Vessels Some Closures No-fishing Cape This Vessels Where Hook-and-line 10 1 shoreline BS 3 7 6 directed 5 each of effective effective 8 between 4 2 November

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.020 70334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 0 0 1, waters. long. between between waters W state in between November 170° waters located only gear of in adjacent through side gears gear waters long. Sound. in pot pot W west A.l.t., including gear and and the hook-and-line William on or 172°59' hours, Alaska, jig of nm of 1200 Prince 20 east 1, of using Gulf hook-and-line hook-and-line hook-and-line and nm and nm 20 LOA with waters with with 0 m) and cod September cod cod Islands nm Alaska (18.3 0 from between sites. of Pacific Pacific Pacific feet for for for State Aleutian 60 these located between at effective the Sea, than of fishing fishing fishing nm, waters less located 20 in Bering restrictions outside long. and directed directed directed the waters vessels Area. W of nm in 0 from from from waters fishery prohibited 170° and in areas Alaska catcher of are of for only long. between and west prohibited Game for prohibited prohibited W Gulf reporting are are are sites long. and areas. the waters to effective W of in exemptions 172°59' is Fish these Permit apply Permit Permit of of for 170° gear closure of site waters of nm west this trawl Island 20 only side closures Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries with and east Department around noted, rookeries cod nm the Emerald includes Federal Federal Federal 0 a a a on 679.22(a)(7)(i)(C) Alaska from and closure area A.l.t. nm Pacific with the with with nm CFR nm otherwise 10 3 between Point for 20 50 hours, and and See Vessels Contact Vessels The Vessels Unless Restriction ° 1200 12 11 15 16 1 14 13 9 Bishop located fishing nm nm

■ 11. Revise Table 6 to Part 679 to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.021 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70335 for No- (nm) 3 ' 2 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 Zones 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 3,20 Gear mackerel fishing Trawl Atka E E E E E E E E E E 6 12.00 20.50 27.00 08.80 39.00 20.53 53.85 56.50 41.40 27.20 1 to Longitude 173 172 173 175 177° 177° 177° 178° 179° 179° N N N N N N N N Boundaries 5 22.00N 03.06 01.50 53.50 57.24 48.50 55.40 45.00N 21.80 20.38 o o o Latitude 52 52 52 52 51 51 51 52° 51° 52° E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Restrictions 4 19.00 12.35 12.70 05.80 36.50 36.90 46.80 49.28 29.80 27.93 24.21 20.41 24.30 51.50 54.03 08.70 43.30 27.90 26.00 21.31 Longitude from 172 173 173 174 175 173 173 177° 178° 178° 178° 178° 179° 179° 177° 177° 177° 177° 178° 179° Fisheries N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 Mackerel 32.32 57.16 52.50 56.80 59.90 59.30 22.26 24.46 08.50 01.40 49.98 49.50 54.60N 22.50N 46.50N 44.00N 49.75 20.25 24.13 Latitude 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 51° 51° 51° 52° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° 51°45.36N Atka Areas 8 Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands 2 Area Protection Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Lion Sea 6 1 Pt. Rocks 6 679-Steller Vega Pt. Ivakin Stephen Cape Pt. & Pt. 6 Sabak Number Name Pt. Part St. 6 Cove Wran2:ell I. to (Kiska) Site Point I./Column I./East I./Cape 6 1./Krysi I. 6 I./Cape 1./Gillon 1. I. Column I./Lief I./Sirius I./Cape 1./Sobaka I. Sitkin I./Cane 1./Chirikof Table Shemyal. Semisopochnoi/Petrel Segula Kiska Tanadak Agattu Attu Agattu Attu Alaid Ayugadak Amchitka Amchitka Amchitka Buldir Kiska Kiska Kiska Hawadax Little

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.022 70336 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations for No- (nm) 3 ' 2 7 3 3 3 Zones 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 3,20 3,20 Gear 10,20 10,20 mackerel fishing Trawl Atka w w w w w w w 6 07.00 59.60 57.10 59.60 57.50 03.66 49.50 1 to Longitude 178° 179° 178° 177° 176° 176° 172° N N Boundaries 5 05.75 06.60N 34.50 o Latitude 51 52° 52° 51°35.09N 51°18.70N 51°55.00N 51°37.40N E w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 4 46.00 10.50 13.90 04.25 07.80 34.50 58.50 51.73 53.00 31.00 58.90 57.10 59.00 20.72 23.90 20.58 27.00 09.00 09.30 Longitude from 179° 178°30.45 175° 176° 179° 178° 177° 178° 177° 177° 173° 173° 179° 178° 178° 177° 176° 176° 172° 174°17.80W 175° N N N N N N N N N N N N Boundaries 3 18.90N 11.11 06.00N 33.67 33.50 34.95 34.50 56.50 55.00 50.86 57.30N 54.00N 28.87N 01.80 00.50 05.70 46.70 Latitude 52°24.20N 52° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° 52° 51° 51° 51° 51° 52° 52° 51° 51°13.00N 51°35.50N 51°49.09N 8 Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands 2 Area Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian 6 Pt. 1 5 4 Rocks Pt. Harbor Cape I./Pochnoi Pt. Rock Number Name 7 ' Cape Strait NitrofPt. 5 4 I. I. 7 I. Site I. ' Dinkum 5 orth 4 I. I./Ship I./North 1. I./Bumpy 1. & Rock I./East I./Sviech. Column Sitkin I. Tanaga 4 I./Hasgox 1./N 1. Sagigik Semisopochnoi Tag Tanaga Gramp Great Amatignak Ugidak Unalga Ulak Adak Anagaksik Atka Amlia Amlia Kanaga Kanaga Kasatochi Kavalga Bobrofl. Little

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.023 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70337 all nm for No- (nm) the 3 as ' 20 the 2 site. in to point. 7 Zones 12 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 each Gear nm along mackerel base 0 established the fishing Trawl Atka around coordinates is is 7 A located located: long. coordinates SF open. w w w is location The waters waters column following 178°E 6 in in in 33.60 31.22 24.30 541 1 that the of to Longitude types. geographic by gear gear 172° 172° 172° Area west of listed, in gear long. specified is set trawl trawl all N N N W formed nm Island to Boundaries is first 30' 5 using using the 15.55 21.02 23.25 mackerel the 541 Latitude Segula 172° and closed coordinates 52° 52° 52° long. Atka is from Area of nm and W mackerel mackerel from 0 for in set w w w w w w w nm which long. 178° long. Atka Atka 3 Pass one W direction of 4 W A), fishing 17.90 10.50 19.30W 36.35 34.40 57.60 54.23 27.70 for for between and only 30' (SF Longitude 178° from west nm 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 171° 171° 170° Seguam of 0 fishing fishing 173° waters directed and Area of long. Where clock-wise Pt N N N N N N N west the a W when in located are Boundaries and directed directed 3 between 178° 34.00 21.05 23.40 21.60 06.09 04.20N Foraging 41.40 27.25 southeast open Latitude of I./Bumpy and from from Rock waters 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° 52° is the coordinates. Permit in to lat. of east Seguam N set and Tanaga and Gramp the baseline extends 53° SAMOA Fisheries prohibited prohibited in and and long. 8 sites the Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands I. and (SAMOA) second The are are 2 Area lat. 180° the Tag these Federal located Area given, N a to to of of is Permit Permit ofUgidak Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian are 52° direction. 679.22(a)(7)(vi). with Open area long. water seaward seaward CFR seaward Fisheries Fisheries 7 • 178°E vessels between 50 5 nm nm nm 1 Mackerel in coordinates restricted clock-wise Pt. 7 for 10 3 20 • lower-low a area 5 7 of 7 ' to to to the Federal Federal ' 5 7 in 5 Atka a a the between of stated Side Pt. sets zones nm nm nm mean Number Name 0 as 0 0 all 7 at site with with Rocks ' 5 two a) c) b) or (Amlia) I. within Site & Seguam specified I. this I. I./Finch I./South I. 1./Saddleridge Column Some The Closures No-fishing Vessels Vessels Where 1 shoreline 3 7 6 5 order from waters 4 2 Seguam Seguam Seguam Tanadak Chagulakl. Agligadak Amukta Yunaska

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.024 70338 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations adjacent state waters. including Islands, Aleutian the of areas reporting to apply N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N closures 18.000' 18.000' 18.000' 11.760' 7.080' 3.600' 57.000'N 57.000' 24.000' 24.000' 27.000' 27.000' 0.000' 0.000' 4.800' 12.000' 12.000' 14.820' 9.600' noted, o 52° 52° W/51 W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W W W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° W/52° otherwise 17.760'W/51° 13.200' 0.000' 0.000' 37.500' 30.000' 30.000' 6.600' 58.200' 58.200' 54.000' 54.000' 42.000' 42.000' 48.000' 48.000' 41.400' 20.400' 2.400' o o o o o o o o Unless 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° 172° From 8

[FR Doc. 2014–27658 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:39 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER25NO14.025