Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Amendment Action Summaries
April 2019 The fishery management program in the North Pacific is widely considered to be among the best in the world, and has resulted in over 40 years of sustainable and profitable fisheries off Alaska. Program policies and measures are developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council through the preparation and maintenance of fishery management plans (FMPs) for groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, as well as for all future fisheries in the Arctic Ocean. The FMPs are frequently amended by the Council to respond to new scientific information, changes in the environment, changes in policy, and operational changes in the fisheries. The plan amendments, together with regulatory amendments, are developed through the Council’s open and transparent regulatory process and implemented by the NMFS Alaska Regional Office.
The existing management program has evolved greatly over time, with the FMPs being built and modified meeting by meeting, amendment by amendment. To fully appreciate and understand this evolution, Council staff has prepared summaries of each amendment to the FMPs. These summaries provide an overview of the purpose and need, analysis, regulation, and results of each action, and are meant as a resource for anyone interested in understanding the development of a successful federal fishery management program in the North Pacific. The first volume of amendment summaries was completed for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands in May 2016. In this volume, we provide summaries of amendments to the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Groundfish FMP. Other volumes containing amendment action summaries for other FMPs are forthcoming. We hope you find them useful.
For more information about the GOA Groundfish FMP or the Council process, I encourage you to visit the NPFMC website at www.npfmc.org.
Sara Cleaver Fishery Analyst, NPFMC
Diana Evans Deputy Director, NPFMC
This report was prepared by Sara Cleaver and Diana Evans, with contributions from other Council staff including David Witherell, Jim Armstrong, Sam Cun- ningham, Elizabeth Figus, Steve MacLean, Sarah Marrinan, Jon McCracken, and Diana Stram. Maria Davis and Sarah LaBelle assisted with the layout and design. Printed April 2019.
Front and back cover photos courtesy of Karla Bush Inside cover photo courtesy of Mark Fina Introduction Fishery Management Councils Each council was charged with preparing Magnuson-Stevens Act, the councils are Fishery Management Plans and the Management Process and maintaining Fishery Management Plans authorized to prepare and submit to the (FMPs) that reflect both the National Secretary of Commerce for approval, The FMPs are amended to respond to The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Standards and determine the management disapproval or partial approval, a FMP and changes in fishery participation and Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and conservation objectives and any necessary amendments, for each ecological concerns, and are continuously (MSA) assigned Federal fisheries specifications for each region. FMPs fishery under its authority that requires updated to reflect the best available management authority to eight regional delineate regional management priorities conservation and management. The science. FMPs are also amended to ensure councils: North Pacific, Western Pacific, and are responsive to unique challenges Council conducts public hearings so as to consistency with changes in federal policy Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, New England, Mid- and concerns of each region while fulfilling allow all interested persons an opportunity such as the Sustainable Fisheries Act in Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Caribbean. the goals defined in the MSA. Under the to be heard in the development of FMPs 1996 and the Magnuson-Stevens and amendments, Reauthorization Act of 2007. To fulfill the and reviews and intent of regional fishery management revises, as plans, Councils may further refine regions appropriate, the into smaller management areas which assessments and represent unique geographical areas within specifications with the region. Management areas are respect to the characterized by unique biodiversity, optimum yield physical characteristics, and fishery from each participation and dependence. fishery. Within the North Pacific there are three distinct Management Areas: Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands (BSAI), Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and Arctic, and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) manages fisheries relative to the specific management area. While there are similar management objectives, different FMPs for given management areas provide the NPFMC the flexibility to tailor fishery management and conservation strategies to address area-specific challenges. As such, the FMPs prepared and maintained by the NPFMC include BSAI and GOA groundfish, BSAI king and tanner crab, and an Arctic FMP. Additionally, joint management authority with the State of Alaska is provided through an Alaska Salmon FMP and Scallop FMP.
Regional Fishery Management Councils as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 1 Gulf of Alaska Groundfish fishery. After the foreign fleet was -alone document to understand a particular amendment level, they are also compiled to Fishery Management Plan adequately addressed, the Council’s focus issue, or the development of a subject over demonstrate the prominent role the FMPs changed from the regulation of mainly the course of multiple FMP amendments. play in the national fisheries policy foreign fisheries to the management of fully discussion. Each amendment to the GOA The GOA Groundfish FMP was adopted by The GOA Groundfish FMP amendment domestic groundfish fisheries. In more FMP, while addressing a seemingly isolated the Council in and implemented in 1978. summaries consist of five main parts: 1) the recent years, the Council has adopted problem, has national – sometimes The FMP management area is the United date when the action was adopted by the amendments to streamline catch share international – implications; each serves as States (U.S.) exclusive economic zone Council, the proposed rule, final rule, and programs and address other science and a case study to inform policy change at the (EEZ) of the North Pacific Ocean, exclusive effective date(s) of implementation; 2) management challenges. macro level. The amendments should not of the Bering Sea, between the eastern purpose and need, a brief background of be interpreted as linear change over time, Aleutian Islands at 170° W longitude and the reason the action was initiated; 3) To illustrate the evolution of the GOA but a complex web of management action. Dixon Entrance at 132° W 40' longitude. regulation summary, which summarizes the Groundfish FMP, summaries of each Each amendment influenced, and was The FMP covers fisheries for all stocks of regulation as it appears in the FMP; 4) amendment were prepared and compiled influenced by, a number of other finfish except salmon, steelhead, Pacific analysis summary; and 5) results, which into a comprehensive reference document. amendments within the FMP. No change halibut, Pacific herring, and tuna. describes quantified changes that resulted This volume is meant to serve as a research happened in isolation, and drawing those from the amendment, and later FMP Over time, the FMP has been amended tool for a general audience and to illustrate connections is critical to understanding the amendments that resulted from the action. many times to meet the changing fishery how fisheries management adapts and complexity of fisheries management. management needs. The first several changes over time. Each amendment The GOA Amendments are presented amendments implemented in the GOA summary serves as a guide for sequentially to show how the FMP has Groundfish FMP specifically dealt with understanding the GOA Groundfish FMP. changed over time. While these summaries foreign fishing fleet participation in the Each summary can also be used as a stand are meant to be informative at the
Alaska EEZ has management areas in two oceans: the Pacific and the Arctic. Gulf of Alaska Management Area 2 Amendments by Council Action Date Am. Title Page Am. Title Page Am. Title Page 1978 1983 August June December 22 Authorize EFPs, Rescind GOA 30 Statistical Area 68, Define Groundfish 3 Foreign Apportionment of Pacific Cod in 11 13 Increase Pollock OY, Adjust Pollock 21 Pot Chirikof Area Management Areas September August 25 Establish Sea Lion Buffer Zones, 33 1 Extend OY, TALFF, and U.S. Capacity 9 1985 Modify Pollock Management Districts Estimates December 2 Joint Venture Reserve: Increase Pollock 10 May Reserve 14 Sablefish Gear, Area and Seasonal 22 20 Establish Sablefish IFQs 28 Allocation 24 Delay Fisheries Start Date, Expand 32 1979 Vessel Incentive Program April 1986 4 Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions, 12 September 1992 Adjust OY 15 Revise FMP Policy, Kodiak Bottom Trawl 23 January June Closures 27 Establish Trawl Gear Test Zones 35 5 Establish Species Category for 13 June Grenadiers 1987 26 Permanent Kodiak Crab Protection 34 6 Reduction of Domestic Annual Harvest 14 September Zones August 30 Development of an Observer Program 38 16 CP Reporting Requirements 24 7 Extend the FMP, Adjust OY for Pacific 15 Research Plan (not fully implemented) Cod, 1980 1988 1993 1980 June April May 17 Federal Permit and Reporting 25 33 Kodiak Pelagic Trawl Closures 41 (withdrawn) 8 Establish OY and Species Categories, 16 Requirements Sablefish Areas June July 1989 31 Establish Separate Target Category for 39 Atka Mackerel 9 Close Kodiak Gear Area to Foreign Trawl 17 June 18 Domestic Observer Program, Renew 26 September Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures 32 Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan 40 1981 35 Sablefish IFQ Share Blocks 43 February 1990 10 Reduce POP Catch, Foreign Trawl 18 June Closures in Southeast 1994 19 Pollock: Prohibit Roe Stripping, Seasonal 27 April Allowance 34 Remove Reference to CDQ Program 42 1982 21 Interim Harvest Levels, Fishing Gear 29 Restrictions June July 37 Limited Processing of Non-IFQ Species 45 11 Adjust Pollock and Sablefish OY 19 September 12 Pot Gear Prohibition for Sablefish 20 1991 June 29 Salmon Retention for Food Banks 37 (withdrawn) December 23 Inshore/Offshore Allocations for Pollock 31 28 Vessel Moratorium 36 3 Amendments by Council Action Date
Am. Title Page Am. Title Page Am. Title Page 1995 55 Define Essential Fish Habitat 63 April January 56 Revise Overfishing Definitions 64 74 Revise Management Policy 81 57 Moratorium Extensions 65 36 Transfer of Sablefish Community 44 December Development Quota Compensation 59 Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve 67 67 Amend Limitations on Use of Quota 75 Quota Shares October Share and IFQ: Modify IFQ Program for June Halibut and Sablefish 54 IFQ Indirect Ownership and Use Caps 62 75 Housekeeping Amendments: Updated 82 Extend Inshore/Offshore Pollock and 40 48 58 Adjustments to the License Limitation 66 Harvest, Ecosystem, and Socioeconomic Pacific Cod Allocations Program Information 41 Establish License Limitation Program 49 December 1999 2005 38 Revise Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding 46 June Plan February 61 American Fisheries Act Sideboards 69 65 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern: 73 Harvest Control Measures 1996 73 Revisions to Essential Fish Habitat, 80 January 2000 Harvest Control Measures 42 IFQ Vessel Fish Down 50 September June 45 Pollock Trimester Allowances 43 60 Prohibition of Non-pelagic Trawl Gear in 68 69 Change TAC Specification for ‘Other 77 Species’ Category April Cook Inlet 43 IFQ Sweep Up 51 47 Authorize an Interim North Pacific 45 2001 2006 Groundfish and Halibut Observer October June Program 70 Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 78 82 Rescind Latent Trawl Gear Licenses 87 June 44 Overfishing Definitions 52 2002 2007 1997 April April April 64 Prior Notice of Landings Requirements 72 77 Remove Dark Rockfish from the FMP 84 39 Establish Forage Fish Category 47 66 Community Quota Share Purchase 74 50 Halibut Donation Program 2008 June 2003 February 46 Remove Black and Blue Rockfish from 44 February 78 Allow Post-Delivery Transfers of 85 FMP 53 Full Retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish 61 Cooperative Quota in the Central GOA 49 Improved Retention / Improved Utilization 57 October Program Rockfish Pilot Program and Amendment 48 Establish Procedure for TAC Setting 56 80 Program December 63 Classify Skates as Target Species 71 April 52 Vessel Registration Program 60 62 Single Geographic Location and Inshore/ 70 2004 Offshore Extension 1998 Set ABC and OFL Specifications for the February 79 86 June ‘Other Species’ Category 68 Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot 76 51 Inshore/Offshore III 59 Program
4 Amendments by Council Action Date
Am. Title Page Am. Title Page May 2014 72 Annual Review of Shallow-water Flatfish 79 February Discards/Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program Flatfish Requirement 91 Adding Grenadiers to the FMP 95 December June 100 Correct Vessel Length Exemptions to the 101 93 Chinook PSC limits 96 License Limitation Program October 85 Remove BSAI Stand Down Provision for 89 Catcher Processors Participating in GOA 2015 Rockfish Program April 89 Establish Crab Protection Area in Marmot 93 Bay, Elevating Devices on Trawl Sweeps 101 Authorize GOA Sablefish Longline Pots 102 June 102 Observer Coverage for Small Catcher/ 103 2009 Processors December December 83 Pacific Cod Allocation 88 103 GOA Chinook PSC Reapportionment 104 86 Add Pacific Cod Endorsement on LLP 90
2010 2016 April December 87 Revise FMPs to Establish Annual Catch 91 104 Electronic Monitoring Integration 105 Limits and Accountability Measures June 2017 88 Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program 92 April 105 EFH Omnibus Amendments 106
2011 June
April 106 Reclassifying Squid to Ecosystem 107 90 Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus 94 Component Amendments September 95 Halibut PSC Limit Reduction 98 October 94 Revise Vessel Use Caps Held by CQEs 97
2012 February 97 Limit Chinook PSC in Non-Pollock Trawl 100 December 96 Allow CQEs to Hold and Transfer Small 99 Blocks of Sablefish Quota Share
5 Amendments by Issue
Am. Title Page Am. Title Page Am. Title Page Administrative Catch Limits FMP Species Categories 4 Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions, Adjust 12 1 Extend OY, TALFF, and US Capacity Estimate 9 5 Species Category for Grenadiers 13 OY, Reduce Regulatory Areas 2 Joint Venture Reserve: Increase Pollock 10 7 Extend the FMP, New Category for Thornyhead 15 8 Change Plan Management Year 16 Reserve Rockfish 15 Revise FMP Policy 23 3 Foreign Apportionment of Pacific Cod in Chirikof 11 8 Establish Four Species Categories 16 16 Minor Regulatory Changes 24 Area 14 Demersal Shelf Rockfish Management 22 22 Authorize Experimental Fishing Permits, Rescind 30 4 Adjust Optimum Yield for Atka Mackerel and 12 16 Redefine Species Management Categories 24 GOA Statistical Area 68 Squid, Foreign Fishing Exemptions 31 Separate Target Category for Atka Mackerel 39 34 Remove Reference to CDQ Program 42 6 Reduction of Domestic Annual Harvest 14 39 Forage Fish Category 47 46 Remove Black and Blue Rockfish from FMP 54 7 Extend the FMP, Adjust Optimum Yield 15 46 Remove Black and Blue Rockfish from FMP 54 52 Vessel Registration Program 60 8 Establish OY: Rockfish, Squid, Other Species 16 63 Classify Skates as Target Species 71 62 Single Geographic Location and Inshore/Offshore 70 10 Reduce POP Catch 18 69 Change TAC Specification for ‘Other Species’ 77 Extension 11 Adjust Pollock and Sablefish OY 19 Category 74 Revise Management Policy 81 13 Increase Pollock OY, Adjust Pollock 21 77 Remove Dark Rockfish from the FMP 84 75 Housekeeping Amendments-Updated Harvest, 82 Management Areas 79 ABC and OFL Specifications for the ‘Other 86 Ecosystem, and Socioeconomic information 14 OY Reductions and DSR Management 22 Species’ Category 77 Remove Dark Rockfish from the FMP 84 15 OY and TAC/PSC Catch Framework 23 87 Revise FMPs to Establish ACLs and AMs 91 91 Adding Grenadiers to the FMP 95 16 Removal of Reserve Category for Some 24 91 Adding Grenadiers to the FMP 95 100 Correct Vessel Length Exemptions to the License 101 Groundfish 106 Squid to Ecosystem Component 107 Limitation Program 18 TACs for Target Species, Delete Fishing 26 105 EFH Omnibus Amendments 106 Season Dates in FMP 19 Seasonal Allowance for Pollock 27 Gear Restrictions 21 Interim Harvest Levels, Define Overfishing 29 4 Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions 12 Allocation 24 Delay Fisheries Start Date 32 8 Require Biodegradable Panels 16 14 Sablefish Gear, Area, and Seasonal Allocation 22 25 Divide TAC Amongst Modify Pollock 33 9 Close Kodiak Gear Area to Foreign Trawl 17 23 Inshore/Offshore Allocations for Pollock 31 Management Districts 10 Foreign Trawl Closures in Southeast Alaska 18 Extend Inshore/Offshore Pollock and Pacific Cod 40 48 32 Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan 40 12 Pot Gear Prohibition for Sablefish (withdrawn) 20 Allocations 38 Revise Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan 46 21 Fishing Gear Restrictions 29 51 Inshore/Offshore III 59 44 Overfishing Definitions 52 22 Define Groundfish Pot 30 61 American Fisheries Act Sideboards 69 45 Pollock Trimester Allowances 53 89 Elevating Devices on Trawl Sweeps 93 Establish Procedure for Total Allowable Catch 62 Single Geographic Location and Inshore/Offshore 70 48 56 101 Authorize GOA Sablefish Longline Pots 102 Language Changes Setting 68 Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program 77 56 Revise Overfishing Definitions 64 69 Change TAC Specification for ‘Other Species’ 77 78 Post-Delivery Transfers in CGOA Rockfish Pilot 85 Habitat Conservation Program and Amendment 80 Program Category 70 Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 78 14 Habitat Policy 22 83 Pacific Cod Sector Allocations 88 75 Housekeeping Amendments-Updated Harvest, 82 15 Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures 23 85 Remove BSAI Stand Down Provision in Rockfish 89 Ecosystem, and Socioeconomic information 18 Renew Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures 26 Pilot Program 26 Permanent Kodiak Crab Protection Zones 34 88 Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program 92 79 Set ABC and OFL Specifications for the ‘Other 86 Species’ Category 55 Define Essential Fish Habitat 63 87 Revise FMPs to Establish ACLs and Ams 91 59 Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve 67 60 Prohibition of Non-pelagic Trawl Gear in Cook 68 Inlet 65 HAPC: Harvest Control Measures 73
6 Amendments by Issue
Am. Title Page Am. Title Page Am. Title Page 73 Revisions to Essential Fish Habitat 80 Monitoring Reporting Requirements 89 Crab Protection Area in Marmot Bay, Elevating 93 18 Domestic Observer Program 26 4 Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions, Adjust 12 Devices on Trawl Sweeps 30 Observer Program Research Plan (Not Fully 38 OY, Reduce Regulatory Areas 90 EFH Omnibus Amendments 94 Implemented) 7 Domestic Reporting Requirements 15 105 EFH Updates 106 47 Interim North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut 55 11 Imposed Radio/Telephone Catch Reporting 19 Observer Program Requirements 70 Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 78 14 Establish CP Reporting Requirements 22 IFQ / CQE Programs 76 Restructuring the Program for Observer 83 15 Weekly CP Reporting Requirements 23 20 Sablefish IFQs 28 Procurement and Deployment 16 CP Reporting Requirements: At Sea-Transfers 24 35 Sablefish IFQ Share Blocks 43 102 Observer Coverage for Small CPs 103 64 Prior Notice of Landings Requirements 72 36 Transfer of Sablefish CDQ Compensation Quota 44 104 Electronic Monitoring Integration 105 91 Recordkeeping and Reporting of Grenadiers 95 Shares 37 Limited Processing of Non-IFQ Species 45 42 IFQ Vessel Buy Down 50 Spatial Management 43 IFQ Vessel Sweep Up 51 PSC/Bycatch/Discards 3 Foreign Apportionment of Pacific Cod in Chirikof 11 54 IFQ Indirect Ownership and Use Caps 62 4 Removal of Halibut Provisions 12 Area 64 Prior Notice of Landings Requirements 72 8 Require Biodegradable Panels 16 4 Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions, Reduce 12 66 Community Quota Share Purchase 74 10 Reduce POP Catch 18 Regulatory Areas 67 Amend Limitations on Use of Quota Share and 75 14 Halibut PSC Framework 22 8 Establish Sablefish Areas 16 IFQ: Modify IFQ Program for Halibut and 15 Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures (King Crab) 23 Sablefish 16 Public Comment Period for Prohibited Species 24 9 Close Kodiak Gear Area to Foreign Trawl 17 94 Revise Vessel Use Caps Held by CQEs 97 Catch Limits 10 Foreign Trawl Closures in Southeast Alaska 18 18 Interim Halibut PSC Limits for Fixed and Trawl 26 11 Adjust Sablefish Management Districts, Time- 19 Gear Area Closures for Foreign Nations Limited Entry 19 Prohibit Pollock Roe Stripping 27 13 Increase Pollock OY, Adjust Pollock 21 28 Vessel Moratorium 36 21 Apportionment of Halibut PSC to Gear Types, 29 Management Areas 41 License Limitation Program 49 Seasonal Allocation of Halibut 14 Sablefish Gear, Area, and Seasonal Allocation 22 52 Vessel Registration Program 60 24 Expand Vessel Incentive Program 32 15 Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures 23 57 Moratorium Extensions 65 26 Permanent Kodiak Crab Protection Zones 34 18 Renew Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures, Establish 26 Shelikof District 58 Adjustments to the License Limitation Program 66 29 Salmon Retention for Food Banks 37 Authorize Experimental Fishing Permits, Rescind 82 Rescind Latent Trawl Gear Licenses 87 33 Kodiak Pelagic Trawl Closures (Withdrawn) 41 22 30 GOA Statistical Area 68 86 Add Pacific Cod endorsement on LLP 90 50 Halibut Donation Program 58 25 Sea Lion Buffer Zones, Modify Pollock 33 96 CQE Sablefish Small Blocks 99 53 Full Retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish 61 Management Districts 100 Correct Vessel Length Exemptions to the LLP 101 60 Prohibition of Non-Pelagic Trawl in Cook Inlet 68 26 Permanent Kodiak Crab Protection Zones 34 72 Rescind Retention Requirement for Shallow 79 27 Trawl Gear Test Zones 35 Water Flatfish Fishery 33 Kodiak Pelagic Trawl Closures (Withdrawn) 41
Marine Mammals 89 Crab Protection Area in Marmot Bay 93 59 Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve 67 25 Sea Lion Buffer Zones, Modify Pollock 33 93 Chinook PSC Limits 96 60 Prohibition of Non-Pelagic Trawl in Cook Inlet 68 Management Districts 95 Halibut PSC Limit Reduction 98 70 Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 78 45 Pollock Trimester Allowances 53 97 Limit Chinook PSC in Non-Pollock Trawl 100 73 Revisions to Essential Fish Habitat 80 70 Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 78 103 GOA Chinook PSC Reapportionment 104 89 Crab Protection Area in Marmot Bay 93
7 Acronyms
ABC Acceptable Biological Catch LLP License Limitation Program ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game LOA Length Overall AFA American Fisheries Act m Meter or Meters AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center MRA Maximum Retainable Amount AI Aleutian Islands MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and BSAI Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Act CAS Catch Accounting System MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act CDQ Community Development Quota mt or t Metric Ton CFR Code of Federal Regulations NEPA National Environmental Policy Act CP Catcher/Processor NMFS National Marine Fishery Service CQE Community Quota Entity NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration CV Catcher Vessel NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council E East OY Optimum Yield E.O. Executive Order PSC Prohibited Species Catch EA Environmental Assessment PSEIS Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone Statement EFH essential fish habitat QS Quota Share EIS Environmental Impact Statement RIR Regulatory Impact Review EM Electronic Monitoring RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ESA Endangered Species Act SAFE Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation FMP fishery management plan SSL Steller sea lion FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact TAC Total Allowable Catch FR Federal Register TALFF Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis U.S. United States ft Foot or Feet VMS vessel monitoring system GOA Gulf of Alaska W West HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HCR Harvest control rule IFQ Individual Fishing Quota IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis lb(s) pound(s)
8 Catch Limits
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Regulations Effective Extend OY, TALFF, and U.S. 1 August 7, 1978 August 7, 1978 November 14, 1978 December 31, 1978 Capacity Estimates through 1979 43 FR 34825 43 FR 52709
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
On April 21, 1978, a Fishery Management The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries In addition to extending the OY, TALFF, and The OY, statement of U.S. capacity, and Plan (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific determined that this action did not constitute U.S. capacity, the language in the FMP was TALFF were extended from December 31, Fishery Management Council (Council) was a major Federal action requiring the modified to reflect November as the start of 1978 to October 31, 1979. published by the Secretary of Commerce. preparation of an Environmental Impact the fishing year. As such, the extension A later amendment, Amendment 7, That FMP established conservation and Statement (EIS). However, a 3-page went until October 31, 1979, instead of extended the FMP through 1980. In 1980, management measures for both the foreign environmental assessment (EA) was December 31, 1979. Amendment 8 changed the plan and domestic groundfish fisheries in the prepared for this amendment. Specifically, the amended implementation management year to January 1- December Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the authority of regulations were to: 31 and removed the plan expiration date. the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Proposed regulations to implement the 1) Extend the time frame of the FMP so plan were also published on April 21, 1978 that conservation and management (43 FR 17242). measures would be in effect through October 31, 1979. At the July 1978 Council meeting, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2) Conform the phrasing of the regulations had drafted a letter to the Council asking to be consistent with a fishing year them to consider an amendment that beginning on November 1. extended optimum yield (OY), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), and U.S. capacity estimates through 1979.
The FMP was designed to conserve and manage groundfish resources. The purpose of Amendment 1 was to extend the already- established management strategies described in the FMP with some slight language modification.
9 Catch Limits
Joint Venture Reserve: Increase Pollock Council Action Proposed Rule Final Regulations Effective 2 August 28, 1978 October 6, 1978 December 1, 1978 December 1, 1978 Reserve to 133,800 Metric Tons; TALFF 43 FR 46349 43 FR 56238 Adjustment Purpose and Need With such a large piece of the fishery held the initial U.S. harvest capacity was Results in reserve, the Council also wanted to underestimated, a relatively high TALFF The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska ensure that the fishery was apportioned could result in overfishing or disruption of The amendment allowed for sufficient (GOA) was prepared by the Council and effectively so that optimum yield (OY) could the foreign fishery if an abrupt closure was flexibility to apportion the reserve and published by the Secretary on April 21, be reached and the fishery fully utilized. deemed necessary. The preferred maintain a TALFF that would achieve the 1978 (43 FR 17242). Among other things, Amendment 2 provided that 25% of the alternative allowed more flexibility to reach OY, prevent overfishing, allow for joint the FMP established the amount of fish set initial reserve would be allocated to the the optimum yield and prevent overfishing, ventures to continue, and provide for an aside as reserve, to ensure that an TALFF every two months, unless it was depending on anticipated and reported U.S. expanding domestic fleet. adequate supply of fish was available for determined by NMFS that the U.S. fleet harvest levels. Over the next several years, multiple potential harvest by U.S. vessels in joint could harvest all of the remaining reserve in amendments adjusted the domestic annual venture operations (the sale of U.S. caught the fishing year. This amendment stemmed Regulation Summary harvest (DAH) and the TALFF. Amendment fish to foreign processors). The original from the difficulty of accurately predicting The regulation increased the amount of 6 adjusted the domestic annual harvest and FMP also established a procedure for U.S. harvesting capacity when new joint pollock held in reserve to 133,800 mt, with corresponding TALFF to reflect the best apportioning amounts of fish from the ventures continued to be initiated. By appropriate increases in the reserves of information available from the observers reserve to the total allowable levels for establishing reserve amounts of fish for species taken incidental to fishing for and domestic processors; Amendment 7 foreign fishing (TALFFs) during the fishing domestic harvest that could eventually be pollock, and established the special joint established a mechanism to periodically year. available to the foreign fleet, the possibility reserve and stipulated the method for review and reassess the domestic annual of overfishing or disrupting the foreign Amendment 2 was proposed to: calculating the foreign allowance, wherein: harvest and the reserve to TALFF; fisheries mid-season would be diminished, TALFF = (0.8 OY) - domestic annual Amendment 8 allowed the transfer of 1) Increase the amount of pollock held in providing greater assurance that optimum harvest - special joint venture reserve. The domestic allocations to foreign TALFF; reserve to 133,800 mt, with appropriate yield would be achieved. regulation also provided for 25% of the Amendment 11 increased the flexibility of increases in the reserves of species initial reserve to be allocated to the TALFF the Regional Administrator to reapportion taken incidental to fishing for pollock. Analysis every two months, unless it was determined reserves and surplus DAH to foreign fishing. 2) Modify the method used to determine A 2-page environmental assessment (dated that the U.S. fleet could harvest all of the Lastly, Amendment 17 required all vessels the portion of each species’ optimum September 13, 1978) was prepared for this remaining reserve in the fishing year. That receiving groundfish harvested in the EEZ yield (OY) set aside as reserve. The amendment. Two alternative solutions to determination would be based on: 1) to hold a federal permit and comply with action established a special joint the 25% bimonthly apportionment of the reported U.S. catch and effort by species federal reporting requirements. Ultimately, venture reserve wherein: TALFF = (0.8 reserve to the TALFF were considered: 1) and area; 2) projected U.S. catch and effort some of these amendments led to the OY) - domestic annual harvest - special establishing a high, initial U.S. capacity by species and area; and 3) projected and complete Americanization of Gulf of Alaska joint venture reserve. The intent was to estimate with lower TALFFs; or 2) utilized processing capacity of U.S. fish fisheries; no foreign vessels caught or re-evaluate the remaining 20% of the establishing a low U.S. capacity with higher processors. The regulation also stipulated processed fish in the Gulf of Alaska after OY and the joint venture reserves TALFFs. The first alternative was rejected that if part of the scheduled 25% 1988. beginning January 2, 1979 and on the basis that if the initial U.S. harvest apportionment to the TALFFs was withheld reallocate to the domestic or foreign capacity was greatly overestimated, there and the U.S. fleet failed to achieve the fisheries following reassessment of would not be adequate time to amend the anticipated harvest levels in the next period, U.S. development, both in terms of joint FMP to increase the TALFF in order to the amount of fish previously withheld would venture operations and delivery to U.S. achieve optimum yield. The second be made available to the TALFFs on the shore-based processors. alternative was rejected on the basis that if next bimonthly date.
10 Catch Limits Spatial Management
Foreign Apportionment of Pacific Cod in Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 3 June 29, 1978 October 13, 1978 December 1, 1978 January 1, 1979 Chirikof Area 43 FR 47222 43 FR 56238
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The original FMP subdivided the Chirikof A 3-page environmental assessment was The implementing regulations allowed for The amendment allowed for a greater statistical area into two segments at 157° prepared (dated August 25, 1978) for this the foreign longline fleet to take the entire portion of the foreign Chirikof Pacific cod W. The total allowable level for foreign amendment. Three alternative actions to the Chirikof TALFF for Pacific cod (1,500 mt), quota to be taken by the foreign longline fishing (TALFF) for Pacific cod in the entire preferred alternative were considered, and any apportioned reserves in that fishing fleet. Chirikof area was established at 1,500 mt, including no action. The other two area, in the Chirikof fishing area west of which was further split to 600 mt and 900 mt alternatives not chosen entailed: 157° W. longitude. for the western and eastern subdivisions, 1) Moving the subdividing line east of respectively. The foreign quota split 157° W to enlarge the western between segments of the Chirikof area was segment. based on the proportion of the area in each segment. For example, 40% of the total 2) Allocating allowable catches and Chirikof area is west of the subdividing line, percentage of reserves to the eastern therefore 40% of the total quota for the area and western segments of the Chirikof was allocated to that segment (40% of area on other than a proportional basis. 1,500 mt = 600 mt). The division was Moving the subdividing line was originally established to limit the amount of rejected because it would increase the Pacific cod taken by foreign longliners, longline quota and produce potential since longline fishing was not allowed in the gear conflicts with domestic and foreign eastern segment of the Chirikof area. trawlers. Changing the allowable catch Amendment 3 was proposed to remove the percentages was rejected because subdivision quotas but maintain the 1,500 there was no supporting evidence to mt total quota, thereby allowing the foreign refute an assumption of a uniform longline fleet to take the entire Chirikof distribution of Pacific cod throughout TALFF for Pacific cod west of 157° W the Chirikof area. The preferred longitude. alternative was chosen because it decreased bycatch of other species Amendment 3 was intended to allow an and because no information existed to increase in the amount of Pacific cod taken indicate that the Pacific cod distribution by foreign longliners, within the confines of was so localized that this action would the overall quota for Chirikof. Since longline deplete the stock west of 157° W gear is more selective than trawl gear, longitude. allowing an increase in longline harvest was Gulf of Alaska Regulatory Areas expected to reduce the amount taken by trawlers, and thus reduce the incidental catch of other species including halibut and shellfish.
11 Administrative Catch Limits Gear Restrictions PSC/Bycatch Reporting Spatial Management
Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions, Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 4 April 4, 1979 July 9, 1979 August 27, 1979 August 22, 1979 Adjust Optimum Yield, Reduce Regulatory 44 FR 40099 44 FR 50042 Areas Purpose and Need Analysis to be taken from December 1 to May yield to 26,800 mt (from 24,800 mt), 31. The restriction was proved based on new data indicating higher The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska was An 8-page environmental assessment was unnecessary since foreign trawl historical catches. effective April 21, 1978 (43 FR 17242). After prepared for this amendment. Two operations use pelagic trawls in the 9) Remove the domestic one-hour tow a year of practical experience implementing alternative actions to the preferred winter. the management measures in the plan, the alternative were considered, including no restriction. This was deemed Council identified several omissions and action. The other alternative not chosen 4) Allow foreign longlining for sablefish unnecessary protection for halibut superfluous provisions in the plan. The would have imposed more restrictions on seaward of 400 meters (instead of 500 given the separate incidental catch purpose of Amendment 4 was to fix these the foreign and domestic fleets and retained meters) from May 1 to September 30 in quota on halibut for domestic fisheries. the area between 140° and 170° W small omissions and to correct excessive or regulations that were unnecessary. Based 10) Remove the domestic requirement for longitude. Because incidental halibut redundant provisions that were originally on revised stock assessments, new the use of off-bottom trawls from catch by longliners is low during the included to protect the halibut fishery but observer information, and new foreign and December 1- May 1. This measure was summer, this change increased areas were later found to be unnecessary. domestic fishery data, the proposed actions also considered unnecessary for for foreign nations to catch sablefish were considered the best overall balance halibut protection. between biological considerations and while adequately protecting halibut social and economic impacts. stocks. 11) Require domestic permits to be renewed annually and domestic 5) Permit a directed longline fishery for Regulation Summary reporting (fish tickets) to be submitted Pacific cod between 140° and 157° W within 7 days (instead of 3 days). This longitude seaward of 12 miles, except The regulations implemented the following would make the Federal and State during the U.S. halibut season. By provisions: regulations consistent. encouraging longlining instead of 1) Reduce the number of fishing areas in trawling for Pacific cod, the incidental Results the GOA from five to three (Western, mortality of halibut would be reduced. Central, Eastern), to Many of the management measures reduce the regulatory 6) Exempt foreign vessels from the provided for in the original FMP were burden on the fisheries requirement that fishing by all vessels designed to protect the halibut resource and of a nation in a fishing area cease while still preventing fishery. After experiencing how the fisheries when the allocation for any species has localized depletion. operated under the plan for a year, it was been taken. The exemption does not evident that several provisions could be 2) Allow foreign apply if the allocation reached is for a removed without compromising halibut fishing within the 3-12- target species of the longliners. This conservation goals. New data and practical mile zone between was to prevent the foreign longline experience indicated that instituting the 169° and 170° W fishery from being closed by the foreign above changes would allow for a less longitude to correct an trawl fishery. omission in the FMP. burdensome regulatory environment for 7) Increase the squid optimum yield to fishermen. 3) Remove the 5,000 mt (from 2,000 mt) to allow a restriction which sufficient incidental catch for foreign allowed only 25% of the nations. total allowable level of Reporting areas of the Gulf of Alaska foreign fishing (TALFF) 8) Increase the Atka mackerel optimum 12 FMP Species Categories
Establish Species Category for Grenadiers Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 5 June 1979 July 20, 1979 September 18, 1979 September 12,1979 44 FR 42738 44 FR 54064
Purpose and Need grenadiers, as well as about 20 other Regulation Summary Results vertebrate and invertebrate species of no Amendment 5 was prompted by a commercial value. However, because the Amendment 5 created a new species Amendment 5 removed grenadier catches previously unrealized bycatch of grenadiers viability of the foreign fisheries was category specifically for grenadiers with a from the accumulated total of “other in the longline fishery for sablefish. immediately threatened, the Council viewed separate domestic annual harvest, total species” to a separate category of ‘rattails, Grenadiers, otherwise known as rattails for Amendment 5 as a timely, short-term allowable level of foreign fishing, and MSY/ grenadiers’ with a separate MSY/OY, thus their slim, pointed appearance, are an solution that could be implemented while a OY of 13,200 mt. The MSY/OY was based allowing a reasonable effort on allocations abundant, deepwater fish caught incidental fourth category was being developed. on the recorded average grenadier catch for of sablefish and other valuable target to other deepwater roundfish. Although the previous twelve years. Since the species with the threat of a premature grenadiers are not a commercially valuable Analysis grenadier population was not considered in closure by exceeding the allocation for species, by 1979 they had comprised as the development of the OY for the “other “other species”. This reduced the threat of A 5-page environmental assessment (dated high as 66% of the total foreign sablefish species” category, that category’s OY an early closure in the foreign longline and 1979) was prepared for this amendment. catch in the Gulf of Alaska and were remained the same. The deletion of trawl fisheries. Three alternatives were considered, recognized as a significant bycatch grenadiers from the “other species” including no action. The action alternative In 1980, grenadiers were placed in the “non problem. category was published in a separate rule not chosen would have created a new -specified species” category under on June 29, 1979 (44 FR 37937). The original FMP identified three separate species category comprised of fish for which Amendment 8. Amendment 87 (effective in species categories: 1) prohibited; 2) specific there is no commercial value, and which are 2010) eliminated the “non-specified species or species complexes; and 3) other discarded at sea. This alternative was species” category and removed grenadiers species. The FMP would place grenadiers rejected primarily because of the time from the FMP. In 2015 grenadiers were in the “other species” category, which had a constraints imposed; the foreign fisheries included in the “ecosystem component” Maximum Sustainable Yield/Optimum Yield demanded immediate relief were they to category under Amendment 91 (BSAI (MSY/OY) of 16,200 mt as a whole. continue to prosecute the target fisheries Amendment 100). Including the grenadier catch in the total without the threat of an early closure due to catch assessed for “other species” that are incidental grenadier catch. This alternative also taken incidentally in the longline and remained favorable as a long-term solution, trawl fisheries would cause the fisheries to while the preferred action would remedy the quickly exceed the “other species” MSY/OY current situation. and potentially close the directed fisheries before the allocation for the target species was reached. Amendment 5 would establish a new, distinct category for grenadiers with a separate MSY/OY. The Council, noting the need for a long-term solution, also began developing a fourth FMP species category that would include all fish caught incidental to other species and not used commercially for any purpose. Eventually this category would include Grenadier tow. Photo courtesy of Sarah Gaichas. 13 Catch Limits
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Reduction of Domestic Annual Harvest 6 June 28, 1979 August 9, 1979 November 7, 1979 November 1, 1979 44 FR 46904 44 FR 64410
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska (43 The FMP and implementing regulations The regulations lowered the estimates of The regulations adjusted the domestic FR 17242; April 21, 1978) set domestic would expire on November 1, 1979, and it domestic annual harvest and reallocated annual harvest and corresponding TALFF to annual harvest (DAH) estimates, optimum was necessary to prepare a Secretarial the surplus to the TALFF, increasing the reflect the best information available from yields (OY), and the total allowable level of amendment to the FMP to avoid social and 1978 TALFF by 27,700 mt for all species of the observers and domestic processors, foreign fishing (TALFF) in order to balance economic disruption which would result from groundfish combined. Specifications by and allowed for a fully utilized groundfish fishing effort between domestic and foreign cessation of foreign fishing and joint venture species are provided in the table below. fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. fleets, including joint venture operations. operations; and to help assure full utilization After the FMP had been in place a full year, of available fishery resources. new data was available from NMFS on 1) A negative assessment of environmental the total domestic harvest through April impact for this action went on file with the Total Allowable Level of Foreign 1979, and 2) the processors’ intentions to Environmental Protection Agency. A Fishing in GOA Groundfish (mt) process during the remainder of the fishing preliminary determination of non- year. This information made it possible to Pacific cod 29,300 significance under Executive Order 12044 adjust downward the domestic annual had been made by the Assistant Flounders 32,025 harvests, by species and regulatory area in Administrator for Fisheries. Atka mackerel 26,775 the GOA, and commensurately increase the TALFFs for all groundfish species, so that Pacific ocean perch 22,750 the fishery could be fully utilized. Pollock 157,200
Rockfishes 6,675 Grenadiers 11,868
Sablefish 8,805
Squid 4,975
Other species 15,570
14 Catch Limits FMP Species Categories Reporting Requirements
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Extend the FMP, Adjust Optimum Yield 7 August 1979 September 7, 1979 November 7, 1979 November 1, 1979 for Pacific Cod, Establish Species 44 FR 52284 44 FR 64410 Category for Thornyhead Rockfish, Domestic Reporting Requirements Purpose and Need providing for both domestic expansion and Results the needs of foreign fisheries. The original GOA FMP (43 FR 17242; April Industry had recommended the Council The amendment extended the management 21, 1978) set domestic annual harvest establish a Gulf-wide OY for thornyhead Regulation Summary actions in the FMP and increased the (DAH) estimates, optimum yields (OY), and rockfish (genus Sebastolobus), a species optimum yields for two species, allowing for The regulations implemented the following the total allowable level of foreign fishing historically taken incidental to the foreign a larger harvest but also remaining provisions: (TALFF) in order to balance fishing effort sablefish longline fishery. The species was biologically conservative. The Council also between domestic and foreign fleets. During not previously reported as thornyhead 1) Extend the FMP through October 31, adopted provisions that would better the first year of implementation, reporting rockfish (a.k.a. “idiot” rockfish) or assessed 1980; safeguard the expanding domestic accuracy improved and new catch data was against the “other rockfish” category, so harvesters and processors, and started 2) Implement the provisions of the available from NMFS on the total domestic new reporting of the substantial bycatch of considering additional closures to joint Processor Preference Amendment (PL harvest and processing capabilities. idiot rockfish meant foreign harvesters were ventures so that new domestic processors 95-354), which would establish a Because implementing regulations for quickly meeting the relatively small “other could be fully utilized. These were Amendment 1 stipulated that the FMP was rockfish” quota and were threatened with mechanism to periodically review and incremental changes that would begin to reassess the domestic annual harvest only effective through November 1979, early closure. The final concern addressed replace foreign effort with domestic effort. and the reserve to TALFF; another amendment was needed to extend in Amendment 7 dealt with joint venture the FMP for the next fishing year. Certain operations and the need to improve the 3) Increase the Pacific cod OY from stock assessment data was not available equitable distribution of the catch between 34,800 mt to 60,000 mt and increase prior to the expiration of the current plan, so foreign and domestic processors. the Atka mackerel OY from 26,800 mt the amendment would simply rollover the to 28,700 mt; optimum yields in the original plan (as Analysis amended), with a few minor exceptions. 4) Create a new category and a Gulf-wide An 11-page environmental assessment OY of 3,750 mt for thornyhead rockfish; New data from the 1977 and 1978 trawl (final draft dated September 19, 1979) was and surveys and 1979 Soviet surveys indicated prepared. Four alternatives were increasingly abundant stocks of Pacific cod, considered, including no action. Taking no 5) Create new domestic reporting much higher than the estimates used to set action would have ceased all fishing, as the requirements to facilitate better the 1978 OY. The domestic trawl surveys current plan expired October 31, 1979. The estimates of domestic annual estimated maximum sustainable yield second alternative (the status quo) would harvesting and processing capabilities. (MSY) at 88,000 mt, and the Soviet surveys have maintained the current optimum A sixth measure would have established estimated 67,600 mt. On that basis, the yields, an option deemed unacceptable in that the Council would consider, on a case- Council recommended an increase in the light of new biological information. The third by-case basis, the possibility of time and Pacific cod OY from the current 34,800 mt. alternative not chosen would have imposed area closures to joint venture operations to Previous estimates for Atka mackerel, more restrictive regulations on the foreign allow a domestic processor to process the Thornyhead rockfish (genus Sebastolobus) based on Soviet hydroacoustic surveys, and domestic fleets, without appreciable catch. This provision was disapproved by were also low compared to new data from benefit to the resource or the U.S. fishery. the Secretary. Soviet trawl surveys. Thus, the Council The preferred actions would remove recommended that the Atka mackerel OY unnecessary regulations while maintaining also be increased. a conservative management regime and
15 Administrative Bycatch Catch Limits FMP Species Categories Gear Restrictions Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 8 Establish OY and Species Categories, May 1980 September 11, 1980 November 5, 1980 November 1, 1980 Sablefish Areas, and Biodegradable Panels 45 FR 59114 45 FR 73486
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
This omnibus amendment was designed to An 8-page environmental assessment The amendment included six measures: Parts 1 and 2 mainly were administrative (undated) was prepared for this plan changes that facilitated management of the conform the Gulf of Alaska groundfish plan 1) Change plan management year to amendment. Each of the alternatives was fisheries. Part 3 replaced three categories to the newly adopted Bering Sea plan, January 1- December 31 and remove briefly compared to the status quo at the with four to alleviate operational problems enhance management, and protect plan expiration date; incidentally caught species. The time. Very little was done in the way of with fishermen having to report non-target establishment of four species categories economic analysis of the alternatives. 2) Set Gulf-wide OY for squid, thornyhead species in the “other species” category. was designed to allow more flexible rockfish, other rockfish, and other Under that system, there was a threat of treatment of species caught incidentally to species; closure of the groundfish fishery when one the target species. Information on squid, of those species of no commercial value 3) Establish four species categories: rockfish, and several other species was was present in high abundance. This target species, other species, found insufficient to warrant optimum yields replaced Amendment 5, which had created unallocated species, and non-specified for the three main regulatory areas in the a new species category of ‘rattails, species; Gulf, so their management was changed to grenadiers’. The term “unallocated species” Gulf-wide. Sablefish management also 4) Establish three regulatory districts for replaced the term “prohibited species”. In needed changes because the growing U.S. sablefish management: Yakutat, 1988, this category was changed back to fishery tended to fish in too localized an Southeast Outside, and Southeast “prohibited species’ under Amendment 16, area off Southeast. The Eastern area thus Inside; and included crab, herring, salmon and was divided into three smaller areas to other species that must be avoided, and if 5) Adjust reserve release schedule to spread the fishery out. Requiring caught, must be returned to the sea 40% in April, 40% in June, 20% in biodegradable panels was intended to immediately. August; allow transfer of domestic reduce ghost fishing by lost sablefish pots. allocations to foreign Total Allowable The sablefish management areas The purpose of modifying the timing of Level of Foreign Fishing (TALFF); and subsequently were revised to further divide reserve releases was to allow for increased the Yakutat area, but other than that remain 6) Require biodegradable panels on catches by domestic fisheries. The 20% of mostly intact. The schedule for the release sablefish pots. OY reserve for each species of groundfish of the 20% reserve was used until the mid- enabled managers to provide fish to A seventh measure which would have 1980s. With the withdrawal of foreign fleets Districts of the Eastern Regulatory Area domestic fishermen if they needed it, or authorized the Regional Director to issue from 1986 on, the reserves were released release it to the foreigners if the domestic field orders to resolve gear conflicts mainly at the first of the season when the fisheries did not need it. The new schedule between foreign and domestic fishermen, final groundfish specifications are set. The of releases was designed to give domestic was disapproved by NMFS for lack of Council banned the use of sablefish pots in fishermen more time to demonstrate their specificity on January 11, 1982. the GOA in 1985. In 2017, under needs. Amendment 101, sablefish longline pots were reauthorized in the GOA. At present, biodegradable panels are required in all groundfish and crab pot gear.
16 Gear Restrictions Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 9 Close Kodiak Gear Area to Foreign Trawl July 1980 July 9, 1981 October 6, 1981 October 2, 1981 46 FR 35536 46 FR 49128
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Although there were six small areas around A 6-page environmental assessment was The amendment replaced six small fixed This closure, also known as the “Lechner Kodiak Island (the “Kodiak Gear Areas”) prepared for this plan amendment. Two gear areas around Kodiak with a larger, Line” for the biologist that proposed its closed to foreign trawling from August 10 to alternatives to the status quo were single closed area to prevent gear conflicts boundary, remained in place while foreign June 1, domestic crab fishermen testified at considered. A modification of the Kodiak between foreign trawlers and U.S. crab trawlers still worked the grounds off Kodiak. numerous hearings that the loss of gear to Gear Area to permit unrestricted foreign fishermen and to prevent preemption of Foreign trawling ceased in the Gulf of foreign trawlers and the fear of future losses trawling in two areas east and south of crab grounds during the crab season by Alaska after 1985. on the crab fishing grounds outside the Trinity Island was rejected because the area foreign trawlers. It remained closed from 2 New amendments imposed trawl closures small closed areas were still problems. contained significant numbers of king crab. days ahead of the Kodiak king crab season, around Kodiak to protect crab habitat. These were problems only with the foreign normally September 15th through February Amendment 15 created special bottom trawl fleets because the domestic trawlers 15th. restrictions to protect king crab, which were avoided domestic crab gear by coordinating The Kodiak Gear Area (a.k.a. Lechener renewed by Amendment 18. Amendment 26 their activities with the crab fleet. Line) is bounded as indicated below. permanently closed these areas. Amendment 60, effective in 2002, prohibit the use of non-pelagic trawl gear in the EEZ of Cook Inlet. In 2014, a Tanner crab protection area was created in Marmot Bay under Amendment 89.
The Kodiak Gear Area (a.k.a. Lechener Line) 17 Catch Limits Gear Restrictions PSC Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Reduce Pacific Ocean Perch Catch, 10 February 26, 1981 December 7, 1981 June 2, 1982 June 1, 1982 Foreign Trawl Closures in Southeast 46 FR 59565 47 FR 23936 Alaska Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Pacific ocean perch (POP) stocks were A 10-page environmental assessment The amendment included two main parts. These closures and adjustments to the POP subject to intense foreign fishing that began (undated) was prepared for this plan First, it reduced the acceptable biological harvest specifications reduced incidental in 1962 and 1963, peaking with harvests of amendment. The analysis included four catch for POP from 29,000 mt in the bycatch of halibut and helped set the stage over 340,000 mt in 1965. In the late 1970s, alternatives, including the no action Eastern Regulatory Area, to 875 mt, the OY for later rebuilding of the POP stock. The foreign harvests of POP were under 15,000 alternative. One alternative was to adopt from 14,400 mt to 875 mt, and allowed rebuilding plan was established under mt and the stocks remained severely only one of the two changes proposed in domestic and foreign fisheries 500 mt and Amendment 32 in 1994, and the stock was overfished. Foreign trawlers fishing in Amendment 10, but this alternative would 200 mt, respectively, for bycatch purposes. considered rebuilt in 1996. The trawling Southeast Alaska waters were also taking have failed to address all of the purposes Second, Federal waters east of 140° W restrictions on foreign vessels off Southeast incidental catches of halibut, a prohibited described. Another alternative included were closed to all foreign fishing, and only were very significant at the time and species for trawlers, but a major target several associated options which would pelagic trawling with recording netsonde represented one more step along the way to fishery for domestic longline fishermen. The have modified the proposed changes in a devices was allowed in waters between complete Americanization of Gulf of Alaska 1978-79 average incidental halibut catch by number of ways, however each of these 140° and 147° W all year. All domestic fisheries. No foreign vessels caught or foreign fleets was 967 mt, or about 24% of options was considered unacceptable. fishing sanctuaries east of 140°W were processed fish in the Gulf of Alaska after the domestic directed harvest, with an ex- consequently deleted as they were no 1988. Amendment 41 banned domestic vessel value of nearly $4 million in the longer necessary. trawling in Southeast Alaska, starting in the Eastern Regulatory Area. year 2000. There were also recorded incidents of conflicts between foreign trawlers and domestic longline fishermen that needed to be resolved. The Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association estimated that in 1980 alone, gear conflicts with foreign trawlers resulted in losses between $2,500 and $20,000 each. The purpose of Amendment 10 was to rebuild the POP stock and protect domestic halibut fisheries in southeast Alaska by reducing the incidental catch of unallocated species in the Eastern Regulatory Area. Additionally, this action sought to prevent gear conflicts between foreign trawlers and domestic fishermen by closing certain areas to foreign fishing.
Catch of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus). Photo courtesy of AFSC. 18 Spatial Management Catch Limits Reporting Requirements
Adjust Pollock and Sablefish Optimum Yield, Create Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 11 July 22, 1982 July 1, 1983 September 21, 1983 October 16, 1983 Sablefish Management Districts in Eastern Gulf of 48 FR 30409 48 FR 43044 Alaska, DAP/JVP Framework Adjustments Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Domestic fisheries for pollock were A 21-page environmental assessment (EA) The amendment made the following This omnibus amendment provided for expanding rapidly in the Gulf of Alaska (dated May 1983) and 33-page regulatory changes: increased pollock catch to match the needs because of foreign joint venture impact review (RIR)/ initial regulatory of the growing domestic industry, and 1) Increased OY for pollock in the Central opportunities. Domestic harvest expanded flexibility analysis (IRFA) (dated April 1983) reduced sablefish harvests for conservation Area of the Gulf from 95,200 mt to from only 1,900 mt in 1980 to 17,000 mt in were completed for this amendment. The purposes. It increased the ability of the 143,000 mt; 1981, to more than 75,000 mt in 1982. OY for pollock was increased to 143,000 Regional Administrator to respond to needs Lengthy plan amendments were needed at mt, the midpoint of the MSY range of 2) Divided the Yakutat district into east of the domestic fisheries, while promoting the time to make changes in allocations of 95,200 mt to 191,000 mt for the Central Yakutat (137°-140° W) and West fuller use of OY. Additionally, it enhanced fish to domestic and joint venture fishermen, Regulatory area. The sablefish OY was Yakutat (140°-147° W) for sablefish the agency’s ability to monitor catch. and flexibility was needed for the Regional reduced and apportioned by smaller area to management; Administrator to reapportion reserves and respond to conservation concerns and 3) Reduced OY for sablefish from 12,300 domestic allocations to foreign fishermen if hasten rebuilding of the stocks. The it was projected that domestic fishermen introduction of the framework mechanism mt to a range of 7,730-8,900 mt and apportioned it among the regulatory could not harvest it. The Regional for changing DAP (Domestic Annual areas and districts; Administrator also needed some flexibility to Processed Catch) and JVP (Joint Venture impose closures for conservation reasons Processing) responded directly to the rapid 4) Established a framework procedure for on foreign fleets as had already been done pace of development in those domestic the Regional Administrator to annually for domestic fisheries. And finally, agencies fisheries. The use of plan amendments was determine domestic (DAP) and joint needed to have accurate catch reporting, too slow a process. Bait and personal venture (JVP) components of domestic particularly from large factory trawlers that consumption were not being monitored and annual harvest (DAH) for each species’ were capable of leaving the state to deliver were better included in DAP rather than OY; their processed product elsewhere. remaining a separate category. Authority for the Regional Administrator to 5) Eliminated the domestic non-processed reapportion unused domestic (bait and personal consumption) set-asides to foreign fisheries component of DAH, combining it within would ensure fuller use of OY. the purely domestic component, DAP; The Regional Administrator 6) Increased flexibility of Regional had authority to impose Administrator to reapportion reserves conservation closures on and surplus DAH to foreign fishing domestic fishermen. This (TALFF); amendment established similar consistent authority for 7) Authorized Regional Administrator to the foreign fisheries. This impose time-area closures on foreign amendment ensured that all nations to conserve resources; and catches were reported, even 8) Imposed radio/telephone catch those bound to leave the state reporting requirements on domestic for landings elsewhere. vessels leaving State waters to land Alaska (walleye) pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus). Photo courtesy of AFSC. fish outside Alaska. 19 Gear Restrictions
Council Action Proposed Rule 12 Pot Gear Prohibition for Sablefish (withdrawn) July 1982 Withdrawn– with adoption of Amendment 14
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Amendment 12 addressed two potential A 21-page RIR (draft dated April 1983) Amendment 12 was withdrawn. Significant new information in a report on problems in the Southeast sablefish fishery: analyzed three alternatives: the quality of pot-caught sablefish cast 1) conservation and restoration of the doubt on the argument that pot-caught 1) The status quo; depressed sablefish fishery; and 2) fishing sablefish are of inferior quality. For this grounds preemption and wastage of the 2) Make sablefish an exclusive hook and reason, additional information needed to be existing sablefish resource. line fishery between 140°W longitude included into the documentation for and Cape Addington (preferred action); Amendment 12, and the amendment was or withdrawn and reconsidered as part of Amendment 14. Amendment 14 prohibited 3) Do not include trawl gear in the the use of all pot gear in this fishery. Hook proposed management measure. Pot and line became the only allowed gear in gear was identified as less suitable for the directed sablefish fishery for the next 20 the area, given the bottom topography. years. An individual fishing quota (IFQ) Lost pot gear entangles hook and line program for sablefish was approved in 1988 gear, making both irretrievable and and implemented in 1995 in both the GOA leading to ghost fishing. Pot longline (Amendment 20) and BSAI (Amendment gear was used extensively in the mid- 15). Pot longline was never prohibited for 1970s but was used to harvest less sablefish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian than one percent of sablefish between Islands, and (with the adoption of GOA 1980-82. Since there was no existing or Amendment 101, effective 2017), is now anticipated trawl fishery for sablefish in once again permitted in the Gulf of Alaska. this area, a restriction on the use of trawl gear for sablefish was not adopted. However, later, trawl gear was limited to sablefish bycatch in other directed groundfish trawl fisheries (Amendment 14).
Sablefish pot gear on vessel. Photo courtesy of David Witherell. 20 Catch Limits Spatial Management
Increase Pollock Optimum Yield, Council Action Emergency Interim Rule Extended Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 13 December 1983 March 23, 1984 June 12, 1984 April 27, 1984 July 17, 1984 August 13, 1984 Adjust Pollock Management
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Amendment 13 was proposed to combine An emergency interim rule to implement The final regulations contained the following The pollock OY was increased to 400,000 the Western and Central GOA regulatory Amendment 13 and a 30-page two actions: mt for the Western/Central Gulf. Since the areas into one unit for pollock management supplemental EA/Initial Regulatory amendment was passed, the Western and 1) Adjusted the management of the pollock and increase the pollock optimum yield Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (draft dated Central regulatory areas have been resource by combining the Western and (OY) for the combined area. The separated and an allowable biological catch January 1984) were written. The emergency Central Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of amendment was based on new scientific (ABC) and total allowable catch (TAC) is set interim rule went into effect on March 23, Alaska for managing the pollock fisheries information and analysis which indicated for each area (Amendment 25). Exploitable 1984 (49 FR 10931) and was extended only; and that: 1) the pollock resource would be through September 18, 1984 (49 FR biomass and catches of Gulf pollock have managed more effectively and the 24142). In addition to the status quo, the 2) Increased the optimum yield for the varied over the years, and major exploitable possibility of over- or under-harvest would analysis evaluated the impacts of increasing combined area from 200,000 mt to 400,000 concentrations are found primarily in the be minimized if the Western and Central the pollock OY. Projections of exploitable mt. Western and Central areas. In 2019, the areas were combined, and 2) the biomass of pollock in the Western and Gulf-wide TAC was 141,227 mt with the exploitable biomass of pollock and therefore Western and Central areas apportioned Central Gulf were made for 1984-1986 for the amount available for harvest have 24,875 and 101,831 mt, respectively. five different levels of OY and four different increased substantially for those areas and recruitment scenarios. Through Amendments 25, 45, and 49, supports an increase in OY. management of pollock has considered the The amendment was necessary to allow the importance of pollock as a significant prey pollock resource in the Western and Central source for Steller sea lions. Amendment 70 Gulf to be managed as one stock. It was established a modified harvest control rule intended to provide optimum harvest of the that prohibited directed fishing if pollock falls pollock resource and to prevent undue below 20% of the unfished level. restriction and economic hardship to the domestic groundfish fishery, by allowing both the harvest of the increased surplus production of the pollock resource and the distribution of fishing effort according to pollock availability.
Pollock being hauled on deck. Photo courtesy of Karla Bush.
21 Allocation Catch Limits FMP Species Categories Habitat Conservation PSC Reporting Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Partial Implementation Sablefish Gear, Area and Seasonal Allocation, Demersal Shelf 14 May 1985 July 26, 1985 October 24, 1985 November 18, 1985 Rockfish Management, OY Reductions, Halibut PSC 50 FR 30481 50 FR 43193 Full Implementation Framework, Habitat Policy, CP Reporting Requirements April 21, 1986
Purpose and Need controlling halibut bycatch in the timely manner in 3) Changed OYs for pollock, Pacific Ocean anyone entering the fishery after that date would the face of rapidly changing joint venture and perch, other rockfish, Atka mackerel, and not be guaranteed future participation should the The sablefish fishery traditionally had been a domestic fisheries; 4) respond to a new NMFS other species; Council develop an effort control regime. As it foreign longline fishery off Alaska, but in the habitat conservation policy which required more turned out, it took the Council and NMFS another 4) Revised the reporting system for catcher/ eastern Gulf of Alaska in the early 1980s, emphasis on habitat concerns in developing ten years to develop and implement the individual processors; domestic longliners had increased their harvests fishery management plans and amendments; and fishing quota system by which the sablefish and rapidly as markets developed. With lastly, 5) delay the sablefish season opening to 5) Implemented framework procedure for halibut longline fisheries were managed starting improvements in the market for sablefish, two address resource allocation, fishermen safety and setting and revising halibut PSC limits; in 1995. The sablefish season start was changed new gear types, pots and sunken gillnets, entered fish quality concerns. from January 1 to April 1. The sablefish IFQ the fishery in 1984. In addition, trawling by foreign 6) Implemented NMFS habitat policy; and season is now tied to the start of the halibut IFQ season, which, since implementation in 1995, has joint ventures in the Central and Western Gulf Analysis 7) Set seasons for hook and longline and pot also took sablefish. All these gears created an been March 15- November. A 48-page EA, 75-page RIR for sablefish sablefish fisheries. overcapacity problem in the domestic sablefish management measures, and 65-page RIR for the Rockfish management was changed with the fishery, as well as gear conflicts between 8) Defined directed fishing separation of the demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) longliners and pot fishermen. During the remaining measures (drafts dated June 1985) were completed for this amendment. The most Also approved was language to be incorporated species from other rockfish. Additionally, a new development of Amendment 12, additional contentious issue was the allocation of sablefish into the FMP that recognizes the State of Central Southeast District was established for information needed to be included, and the Alaska’s management regime for demersal shelf managing DSR and the State of Alaska was amendment was withdrawn and reconsidered as to the longline fleet, one of the most heated decisions the Council had up until then. rockfish which is directed at managing rockfish placed in charge of managing the area. The State part of Amendment 14. Amendment 14 was Longliners had taken the vast majority of the stocks within smaller management units than are regulations applied only to vessels registered designed to address these excess capacity and sablefish harvest of all gear types, particularly in provided for by the FMP. This language under the laws of the State. grounds preemption problems. The Council the Eastern Gulf. The OY for sablefish was separated demersal shelf rockfish from the more decided that gear and area restrictions and Prohibited species catch limits for halibut in the expected to increase in coming years, and prices general “other rockfish” category in the FMP. apportionments to gear types would be most Gulf were placed in a framework procedure for and markets were good, so considerable effective. setting limits for domestic and joint venture trawl additional capacity was expected to enter the Results fisheries. Plan amendments would no longer be In the early 1980s, all Sebastes species other fishery. The alternative chosen slowed the growth This omnibus amendment provided for the first needed to change PSC limits and the limits would than Pacific Ocean perch and four associated in capacity and diminished the possibility of gear allocations of a species among domestic be by area and by specific trawl group (domestic, slope rockfish species were managed as “other conflicts and grounds preemption more than the fishermen, a management approach that would joint venture, and foreign), rather than domestic rockfish” on a Gulf-wide basis, and yet a domestic other alternatives analyzed. The other measures be used for other major species later on. and joint venture trawlers combined, so each fishery harvesting demersal shelf rockfish in the in the amendment allowed for more flexibility in Longliners were allocated 95% of the sablefish in fishery, not all, would suffer the consequences of southeastern area was expanding very rapidly by managing the groundfish fishery which was the Eastern Area and trawlers received 5% for taking too much bycatch. When the PSC limit is 1984. Yelloweye and quillback rockfish were the undergoing tremendous growth in domestic bycatch purposes. Pots were excluded the first reached, there would be a closure just to on- primary targets of this longline fishery. fisheries and displacement of foreign fleets in the year. In the Central Gulf, longliners were phased bottom trawling, not all trawling as under previous Gulf of Alaska. Other parts of Amendment 14 were designed to into an 80% allocation over two years, pots were regulations. The limits would apply all year, not address several different issues. These other Regulation Summary phased out by the second year, and trawlers just from December 1 through May 31. parts of the amendment were developed to do the ended up with 20%. In the Western Gulf, pots The new reporting requirements were applied to following: 1) establish revised optimum yields for were phased out over four years, and longliners The amendment made the following changes: catcher/processors and motherships that keep several species of groundfish; 2) establish a and trawlers split the harvest 80/20 after a 4-year their catch or fish received for 14 days or more. mechanism for timely reporting of catches by 1) Established gear/area restrictions and OY phase-in. Years later, GOA Amendment 101 Those vessels were required to report every domestic catcher-processors which could stay at apportionments to gear types for sablefish; reauthorized the use of sablefish pot gear in the week, and also to report their position 24 hours sea for long periods, and thus did not report as GOA in response to whale depredation issues. 2) Established a Central Southeast Outside before starting or stopping fishing in a regulatory frequently as catcher vessels that landed their District with 600 mt OY for demersal shelf In approving the sablefish allocations, NMFS area. A definition of “directed fishing” also was catch ashore and submitted fish tickets; 3) give rockfish; established. more flexibility to managers in offered to publish a control date of September 26, 1985, the day of final approval, announcing that
22 Administrative Catch Limits Habitat PSC Reporting Spatial Management
Revise FMP Policy, Kodiak Bottom Trawl Closures, Council Action Emergency Interim Rule Extended Proposed Rule Final Rule 15 September 1986 March 12, 1986 June 9, 1986 December 12, 1986 March 13, 1987 Optimum Yield and Total Allowable Catch/ PSC 50 FR 8502 51 FR 20832 51 FR 44812 52 FR 7868 Framework, Catcher/ Processor Reporting Requirements Corrected: April 15, 1987 52 FR 12183 Purpose and Need Analysis
Four problems were identified in the GOA A 44-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated only closed to non-pelagic gear from which of the Type III areas are closed groundfish fisheries: October 1986) was prepared for this February 15 through June 15. Type III and whether the closure is for an 1) Inability to efficiently adjust harvest amendment. Two alternatives (in addition to areas are adjacent to Type I and II entire year or only a portion of a year; guidelines; the status quo) were examined for actions areas and have been identified as 4) Authority to the Secretary of Commerce 1, 3 and 4. One alternative to the status quo important juvenile king crab rearing or 2) Inadequate reporting requirements; to make certain inseason changes to gear was examined for action 2. migratory areas. Type III areas become regulations, seasons, and harvest quotas. 3) Inadequate protection of king crab near operational following a determination Regulation Summary Kodiak Island; and that a "recruitment event" has occurred. Results The Regional Administrator will classify 4) Inadequate in-season management The Secretary of Commerce sent out an the expanded Type III area as either The OY for the Gulf has remained authority. emergency rule for immediate Type I or II, depending on the unchanged, but the TACs are adjusted implementation of certain parts of the annually based on updated information. In proposed amendment prior to information available. A "recruitment event" is defined as the appearance of the last several years, the sum of the GOA implementation of this final rule. female king crab in substantially groundfish TACs were 427,512 t (2018), Regulations designated the following: increased numbers (when the total 535,863 t (2017), and 590,809 t (2016). number of females estimated for a 1) A multispecies OY, as a Gulf-wide Recordkeeping and reporting requirements given district equals the number of range of 116,000-800,000 mt, set a have been further modified via GOA females established as a threshold framework procedure to set target Amendments 17 and 18, as well as criterion for opening that district to quotas for each species category, and regulatory amendments, however, weekly commercial crab fishing). A recruitment set administrative procedures for reporting by at-sea vessels is still required. event closure will continue until a setting PSC limits in the Gulf fishery; commercial crab fishery opens for that When the Kodiak red king crab trawl closure 2) Revised recordkeeping and reporting district or the number of crabs drops areas were first implemented, they included requirements such that at-sea catcher/ below the threshold level for that a three-year sunset. These closure areas processor and mothership vessels must district. were renewed in Amendment 18, which was submit weekly catch reports regardless in effect for 1990-92. Amendment 26 The Alitak Flats/Towers and Marmot of how long their catch was retained extended the closures permanently, and Flats areas are Type I areas, closed to before landing; Amendment 89 added other closures non-pelagic trawls all year. Chirikof intended to protect Tanner crabs and 3) Type I, Type II and Type III areas for Island and Barnabas are Type II benthic habitat in Marmot Bay. special bottom trawl restrictions to areas, closed to non-pelagic trawls Nonetheless, king crab stocks in the vicinity protect king crab. Type I areas have from February 15 to June 15. These of Kodiak Island remain depressed. very high king crab concentrations and, areas encompass 80% to 90% of the to promote rebuilding of the crab known female king crab stocks. When stocks, are closed all year to all trawling necessary, Type III areas will be except with pelagic gear. Type II areas closed by regulatory amendment; the have lower crab concentrations and are Regional Administrator will specify Areas closed to nonpelagic trawling under Amendment 15
23 Administrative Catch Limits FMP Species Categories PSC Reporting Requirements
Catcher/Processor Reporting Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 16 September 1987 December 21, 1987 March 10, 1988 April 7, 1988 Requirements, Redefine Species 52 FR 48303 53 FR 7756 Management Categories
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary • the term “target quotas” for groundfish was changed to “total allowable Amendments 16 for the GOA and 11a for A 50-page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for The regulations implemented the following catches”; the BSAI were proposed in response to a Amendment 16, which determined there provisions to both the GOA and BSAI need for better information from catcher/ was no significant environmental impact as FMPs: • general reorganization and editing; processors and mothership processor a result of this action, but small entities may vessels in order to sufficiently address be affected. 1) Revised the definition of prohibited • the addition of a vessel safety section; fishery management problems, enforce species to include Pacific salmonids, and current regulations, and meet the Pacific herring, Pacific halibut, king • removal of the reserve category for conservation goals identified in the FMPs. crab, Tanner crab, and steelhead trout. some species of groundfish. The amendment intended to add the Re-specified the other three categories: a) Target species–pollock, Pacific cod, following to the currently required weekly Results catch reports by catcher/processors and flounders, rockfish, and sablefish b) motherships: information on the number of Other species–Atka mackerel, squid, In 2010, Amendment 87 eliminated the cartons and unit net weight of a carton of sculpins, sharks, skates, eulachon, “other species” category and allowed for processed fish by species; a Product smelts, capelin, and octopus c) Non- squids, sculpins, sharks, and octopus in the Transfer Report; and a Cargo Transfer/ specified species–those species taken GOA to be managed separately in the Offloading Log. incidentally in the groundfish fisheries “target species” category, and as such, are but are not managed by the FMP. No considered “in the fishery”. Prohibited
catch records are required. species and forage fish were moved to the 2) Required the public comment period for “ecosystem component” category. Non- specified species were removed from the proposed annual specifications and PSC limits to be 30 days following the FMPs. Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) were date of filing of the notice for public established for all stocks ‘in the fishery’ and inspection with the Office of the Federal set equal to ABC levels that are already
Register annually specified under both FMPs.
3) Augmented the current catcher/ processor and mothership reporting requirements with at-sea transfer
information, specifically, a Cargo Transfer/Off-Loading Log and Product Transfer Report.
In addition, several minor regulatory
changes were included that apply only to the GOA FMP:
Life ring. Photo courtesy of Herman Savikko.
24 Reporting Requirements
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 17 Federal Permit and Reporting Requirements June 1988 September 6, 1988 May 1, 1989 May 26, 1989 53 FR 34322 54 FR 18519
Purpose and Need recognized this loophole and approved Regulation Summary Results Amendment 17 (BSAI Amendment 12), Under regulations implementing the FMPs which re-worded the weekly reporting Amendment 17 required all vessels Weekly reporting from the offshore for the BSAI and GOA, vessels that are requirement to capture all vessels receiving groundfish harvested in the EEZ processors enhanced monitoring of quotas harvesting or processing in the EEZ are harvesting and receiving EEZ-caught fish. to hold a federal permit and comply with and overall fishery performance. required to have Federal permits and are federal reporting requirements; subject to Federal regulations. One of the Analysis regulations states that catcher/processor A 133-page EA/RIR/IRFA (dated May 18, and mothership processor vessels must 1988) analyzed the proposal and the status submit weekly weight reports of groundfish quo for both the BSAI and GOA FMPs. A caught and processed at sea. Regulations draft assessment specific to GOA also require all catcher vessels, including Amendment 17 also analyzed an action that catcher/processors, to submit fish ticket would both change the date of or establish reports of groundfish catches to the Alaska an additional sablefish longline season. This Dept. of Fish & Game. NMFS was using action was eventually separated into GOA these reports to determine the ongoing Amendment 17a and not approved by the reapportionments of surplus groundfish to Council. joint venture processors and to the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF). Vessels not fishing in the EEZ (but may have been fishing in State waters or beyond the 200-mile limit), were not required to have a Federal permit and are thus not subject to the Federal reporting requirements. The regulatory loophole inherent in the language of the regulations is that vessels outside the EEZ could receive and process fish that were caught in the EEZ and would not be required to report them to NMFS. The intent of the weekly reporting regulation was to receive information from all vessels harvesting or processing fish from the EEZ so that inseason management actions, such as time/area closures and reapportionments of surplus groundfish, could be done efficiently and effectively without surpassing the quota for each species. The Council Photo courtesy of Sea Alliance.
25 Catch Limits Habitat Monitoring PSC Reporting Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Domestic Observer Program, Renew Kodiak Bottom 18 June 1989 *September 1, 1989 December 6, 1989 January 1, 1990 Trawl Closures, Establish Shelikof District, Reporting 54 FR 36333 54 FR 50386 Corrected: September 22, 1989 February 7,1990 Requirements 54 FR 39022
Purpose and Need Analysis 3) Established for one year, interim Pacific Results halibut PSC limits for fixed gear (750 Since foreign fishing had been curtailed, A 193-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated mt) and trawl gear (2,000 mt); The domestic observer program provides Amendment 18 for the GOA (Amendment July 21, 1989) included six actions that information for stock assessment and in- 13 for the BSAI) were proposed because affected GOA groundfish management. In 4) Deleted fishing season dates from the season management, including the ability to NMFS needed to augment the foreign approving its action to delete fishing FMPs but retained them in regulation; accurately assess catch and bycatch in the fisheries observer program to cover the seasons from the FMPs, the Council also and fisheries. Three problems were later domestic fishery. The purpose of a considered a framework procedure for 5) Clarified authority to recommend TACs identified with the system of payment for comprehensive data collection program for annually setting fishing seasons. for additional or fewer target species observer coverage. It was not an equitable the domestic groundfish fishery is to provide within the “target species” category. system in that some operations paid for adequate and reliable data on which to: Regulation Summary 100% coverage and others did not pay *At the time the proposed regulations were anything; it limited the ability of NMFS to 1) Base in-season and inter-season Amendment 18 to the GOA groundfish FMP published, the Observer Plan was still being effectively manage the observer program; management decisions; authorized a comprehensive domestic developed and the dates of corresponding fishery observer program. The 1990 and and it could result in a conflict of interest 2) Efficiently carry out resource rules were different: The proposed rule (54 that could reduce the credibility of observer 1991 Observer Plans required specific FR 51042) was published on December 12, management; and levels of observer coverage which varied data. The research plan, under Amendment 1989. The final rule (55 FR 4839) 30, was designed to address these 3) Measure fishery performance against with size of fishing vessel and quantity of implementing the Observer Program was problems, which were eventually resolved existing and proposed management fish processed. published on February 12, 1990, effective when the restructured Observer Program measures. The Observer Plans required that owners on February 7, 1990. was implemented in the GOA under Additionally, the Shelikof Strait was and operators of vessels and shoreside Amendment 76 (which superseded the identified to contain spawning populations processing facilities participating in the interim North Pacific Groundfish Observer of pollock, and the Kodiak crab trawl closure groundfish fishery arrange for and pay for Program under Amendment 47). areas established in Amendment 15 were the cost of placing observers aboard their The Kodiak closures became permanent vessels and at their shoreside processing scheduled to sunset on December 31, with the implementation of Amendment 26, 1989. Pacific halibut PSC limits were also facilities beginning in January 1990. Each and were additionally revised under set to expire in 1989. vessel or processor required to have Amendment 89. Fixed and trawl gear observer coverage is responsible for the halibut PSC limits were reduced most cost of obtaining the required observers recently under Amendment 95. The Shelikof from a certified contractor. The cost averaged between $5,800 and $7,100 per Strait management district was rescinded in observer month in 1991. GOA Amendment 25, when pollock management in the Western/Central Area Amendment 18 also: was divided into three districts.
1) Established Shelikof Strait area as a management district; 2) Closed areas around Kodiak Island to bottom trawl gear;
26 Catch Limits Discards
Prohibit Pollock Roe Stripping, Seasonal Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 19 June 1990 September 14, 1990 January 7, 1991 January 1, 1991 Allowance Schedule for Pollock 55 FR 37907 56 FR 492
Purpose and Need population declines with declines in prey Regulation Summary Results availability.” However, it also noted that Growth of the domestic harvesting and “shifting fishing effort to later quarters may The amendment implemented rules that Since the amendment was approved, the processing capacity in the pollock fishery reduce competition for pollock between the regulated the practice of stripping roe practice of roe stripping has stopped. In had created competition for the pollock TAC fishery and SSL whose populations have (eggs) from female pollock and discarding 1993, regulations were further tightened to by 1990. Amendment 19 for the GOA and been declining in recent years”, and that female and male pollock carcasses without close loopholes that could have potentially BSAI Amendment 14 were developed in limiting the amount of pollock that may be further processing, and seasonally allocated undermined the intent of the roe stripping response. Competition for pollock during the harvested during the roe season is a the TAC of pollock. Season opening dates regulations (58 FR 57752). ‘Fishing trip’ and roe season is intensified due to the high conservative, and prudent course of action. were established as follows for the GOA: ‘pollock roe’ were better defined as were value of the roe relative to other products. In January 1, April, July, and October, and for pollock products that could be used to addition, extraction of roe can be done Analysis the BSAI: January 1 and June 1. To get at calculate retainable amounts of pollock roe. faster than production of other pollock the issue of roe stripping, product recovery Full retention and utilization of pollock was A 138-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated products. By roe stripping, fishermen can rate standards were established, which, if required under Amendment 49, and July 20, 1990) was prepared for this increase their share of the pollock TAC by exceeded, would constitute a violation. The Amendment 72 addressed requirements for amendment. Five primary alternatives quickly producing the most valuable product recovery rate standard established was revisions to the IR/IU program. including the status quo were considered. at the least cost. This amendment was 10% of the total round-weight equivalent of The other alternatives that were not chosen Several additional amendments focused on intended to address the following problems pollock and other pollock products onboard would have just prohibited pollock roe- protections for Steller sea lions relating to identified as being associated with roe a vessel at any time during a fishing trip. To stripping, required full utilization of all pollock as a significant prey source. stripping: extrapolate round weight equivalents, the pollock in pollock fisheries, or implemented Amendment 25 afforded SSLs additional rule established product recovery rates as seasonal allowances for pollock to reduce protections by modifying the pollock • wasteful use of the pollock resource; follows: fillet (18%), surimi (15%), mince the amount harvested in the winter-early management districts. Amendment 45 and (17%), meal (17%), and head & gut (50%). • caused unintended allocation of pollock spring. Options for these alternatives further regulatory amendments subdivided TAC among seasons and industry included applying the regulations only to and modified these management areas. sectors; certain areas, and restricting the GOA Amendment 70, which was implemented as pollock fishery to midwater gear only. The a regulatory amendment, established a • adversely affected the ecosystem; alternative adopted combined the elements modified harvest control rule that prohibited of roe-stripping and seasonal allowances for directed fishing if pollock falls below 20% of • adversely affected the future all areas. the unfished level. productivity of the stock; and
• increased the difficulty of accurately monitoring the pollock TAC for inseason management. Regarding impacts on Steller sea lions
(SSL), the Final Rule noted that “a hypothesis that pollock roe fisheries and other pollock fisheries may be contributing to these declines has not been tested, and current data are insufficient to link sea lion
27 IFQ Program
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 20 Establish Sablefish Individual Fishing Quotas December 1991 December 3, 1992 November 9, 1993 March 15, 1995 57 FR 57130 58 FR 59375 December 29, 1992 57 FR 61870 Purpose and Need fisheries. The rights given to each person participation in the fisheries were supposed based on the vessel used for a person’s are proportional to their fixed-gear halibut to receive relatively small amounts of quota most recent fixed-gear landings of By the late 1980s, the Council recognized a and sablefish landings during the qualifying share. groundfish or halibut. Various restrictions on need to take management action with period determined by the Council and are transfer and ownership are designed to regard to the sablefish fishery in both the represented as quota shares. Under this Regulation Summary maintain the owner/operator characteristics GOA and the BSAI (Amendment 15) program, only persons holding quota shares The IFQ Program was approved for the of the fleet, and to prevent consolidation of because it was exhibiting significant are allowed to make fixed-gear landings of Pacific halibut and sablefish fixed-gear QS in the hands of a few participants. problems created by a short-season, derby- halibut and sablefish in the regulatory areas fisheries in the Federal waters of the BSAI style fishery. Over time, with the constant identified. Despite different regulatory Results and GOA, and these fisheries have been increase of new entrants in the fishery, the authorities (Magnuson-Stevens Act/GOA managed under the program since 1995. The fixed-gear halibut and sablefish IFQ sablefish fixed-gear fishing seasons had Groundfish FMP for sablefish and Halibut The regulations outline several key programs are considered successful market degenerated to several short seasons each Act for halibut), the IFQ Program manages provisions of the program: initial allocation -based management programs to address year. Typical problems included allocation sablefish and halibut together. of quota shares; vessel categories; transfer overcapitalization. The number of quota conflicts, gear conflict, deadloss from lost provisions; use and ownership provisions; shareholders has decreased over time. The gear, increased bycatch and discard Analysis the annual process for allocating quota fishing season was converted from several mortality, excess harvesting capacity, A SEIS/EIS (final draft dated September shares (QS); and the establishment of 24-hour period openers each year to an decrease in product wholesomeness, safety 1992) and several appendices were Community Development Quotas. The eight-month season from mid-March to concerns, and economic instability in the prepared for the initial review of GOA regulations state that legal landings of November 15. This has improved safety of fisheries and fishing communities. In Amendment 20 (BSAI Amendment 15). Two halibut or sablefish harvested with fixed- fishermen; instead of having to fish December 1988, the Council evaluated alternatives were considered: 1) the status gear had to occur at any time during 1988- intensely under any weather conditions, alternative limited access options of license quo open access system characterized by 1990 to qualify for an initial allocation of fishermen can choose when and where they limitation, Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), fixed quotas for each regulatory area, and quota share. Generally, if a vessel owner or fish considering the seasons, grounds, and and annual fishing allotments in a draft EIS. 2) IFQs. The Council rejected license leasee is qualified, their initial quota share size and sea worthiness of their vessel. The After review, the Council decided that the limitation on the basis that it may not be would be based on their highest total longer season also increased product IFQ approach was preferable in that it possible to reduce the fleet size in an landing of halibut for any 5 years of the 7- quality and price, as fishermen have more addressed the problems created by a derby equitable manner, and because of the year base period 1984-1990. For sablefish, time to cater to the fresh fish market. -style fishery. In addition, in early 1991, the significant potential for the reduction in the initial quota share would be based on Council found that the management Subsequent changes to the program since vessel number to be offset by an increase in the highest total landing of sablefish for any problems in the fixed-gear sablefish fishery implementation have added new provisions fishing power per vessel. Annual fishing 5 years of the 6-year base period 1985- also afflicted the halibut fishery, and designed to make the program more allotments that were also considered 1990. Each person eligible to receive quota therefore decided to consider a similar IFQ effective. The program continues to be previously were deemed a more share would have it assigned to one of four system for the halibut fishery. The intent modified over time, and the 20-year complicated management program that vessel categories: “A”-freezer vessels of was that a single IFQ program would apply comprehensive review of the IFQ program would not solve the race for fish. With the any length; “B”- catcher vessels greater to both fisheries. was completed in December 2016. preferred IFQ alternative, the Council than 60’; “C”- catcher vessels less than or The IFQ Program essentially assigns the intended to acknowledge and reward long- equal to 60’ for sablefish, or between 35'-60' privilege of harvesting a percentage of the term and consistent participation in the for halibut; “D”- catcher vessels less than or sablefish and halibut quota to specific fisheries; those whose catch histories equal to 35’ for halibut. Initial quota share individuals with a history of harvest in the showed less dependence on and would be assigned to a vessel category
28 Catch Limits Gear Restrictions Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 21 Interim Harvest Levels, Fishing Gear Restrictions, Apportion June 1990 September 18, 1990 January 24, 1991 January 18, 1991 Halibut PSC by Gear and Season, Modify Demersal Shelf 55 FR 38347 56 FR 2700 Corrected: October 25, 1990 Rockfish Authorization Language, Define Overfishing 55 FR 43063
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary In 2018, 71% of all trawl groundfish catch (retained and discarded) in the GOA was A number of management measures were A 213-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated The amendment contained the following caught using pelagic trawls. compiled together in Amendment 21 (BSAI July 31, 1990) was prepared for this management measures pertaining to the Amendment 16), including PSC bycatch amendment. In the original draft, two GOA: Under Amendment 53 (implemented as a management, procedures for specifying measures were specific to the GOA: One to 1) Allow separate apportionment of halibut regulatory amendment in 2004), full TAC, and gear restrictions. The main modify language for demersal shelf rockfish PSC to hook and line and pot gear in retention of demersal shelf rockfish was purpose of this amendment was to better management (two alternatives considered) the GOA required. manage PSC bycatch in non-directed and one to expand halibut bycatch 2) Allow seasonal allocation of halibut The overfishing definition changed under fisheries. management measures (three alternatives 3) Establish procedures for interim TAC Amendment 44, which provided for more considered). The analysis was revised specifications Because of insufficient time to modify conservative definitions of ABC and OFL. several times to address other issues, 4) Establish fishing gear restrictions regulations between the end of the The maximum allowable fishing rates were including the vessel incentive program. (definition of pelagic trawl, December Council meeting and January 1 prescribed through a tier system, which biodegradable panels & halibut of a new fishing year, this amendment was corresponding to availability of information excluders on pot gear) developed to establish interim TACs so that on the stock. In 1999, Amendment 56 5) Modify authorization language that the fishery would open on January 1. Prior revised the ABC and overfishing definitions allows demersal shelf rockfish in SE to this amendment, changes to gear set under Amendment 44 to be more Alaska to be managed by the State definitions or other restrictions required an precautionary. To further minimize the 6) Establish definitions of overfishing. FMP amendment to change. The purpose possibility of catches jeopardizing a stock’s Later revisions to the amendment included of this action was to allow gear restrictions long-term productivity, a buffer between addition of a vessel incentive program, to be accomplished through a regulatory ABC and OFL was established. The which would issue civil penalties (fines) to amendment, in order to respond more definitions under Amendment 56 are vessels that exceeded seasonal fixed rapidly to changes in the fishery. An currently used in the annual catch limit bycatch rate standards for halibut and crab overfished definition was added to the FMP specifications process. taken in specified target fisheries. because revised “Guidelines for Fishery A proposed vessel incentive program to Management Plans” (the "602 Guidelines") Results address halibut bycatch rates in all trawl required each FMP to include an objective fisheries was disapproved by the Secretary. and measurable definition of overfishing for Halibut PSC apportionment was revised In response, revisions to this amendment each stock or stock complex under under Amendment 95, which reduced the were made in GOA Amendment 24. management. halibut PSC limit in the groundfish CV hook and line gear sector.
Interim harvest levels were used to start the fishery in January while rulemaking proceeded for implementing the new December- approved TACs. These were superseded by the procedure outlined in Yelloweye rockfish. Amendment 48. Photo courtesy of David Witherell.
29 Administrative Gear Restrictions Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Authorize Experimental Fishing Permits, 22 August 1991 December 4, 1991 March 26, 1992 April 24, 1992 Rescind GOA Statistical Area 68, Define 56 FR 63487 57 FR 10430 Groundfish Pot
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The purpose of GOA Amendment 22 (BSAI A 71-page EA/RIR/IRFA (draft dated May This amendment allows the NMFS Regional Since the amendment was approved, Amendment 17) was to address several 14, 1991) was prepared for this Director, after consulting with the Director of numerous experimental fishing permits (now conservation issues in one package: amendment. The five management actions the AFSC and with the Council, to authorize called “exempted fishing permits”) have were evaluated under this amendment for limited experimental purposes, the target been issued to test gear modifications, 1) Authorize experimental fishing permits package. One action alternative was or incidental harvest of groundfish that observer sampling, methodology, bycatch (BSAI and GOA): A FMP amendment is analyzed for each the EFP action and the would otherwise be prohibited. The mortality reduction techniques, etc. Links to proposed whereby the Regional GOA statistical area. Regarding the amendment also combined Statistical Area recent EFPs can be found at: https:// Director, in consultation with the groundfish pot gear restrictions, the three 68 (East Yakutat District) with Statistical alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/efp . Council and Alaska Fishery Science alternatives not chosen would have Area 65 (Southeast Outside District). Center (AFSC), may issue conflicted with State regulations or would experimental fishing permits to persons have required fishermen to have separate for purposes of obtaining information pots for groundfish and crabs. necessary to promote fishery conservation and management of the fisheries.
2) Rescind GOA Statistical Area 68: A FMP amendment is proposed to delete Statistical Area 68 (East Yakutat District), because it is not needed for fishery conservation and management and is therefore imposing unnecessary recordkeeping and reporting costs.
3) Define a groundfish pot (BSAI and GOA): A regulatory amendment is proposed that would define a groundfish pot to differentiate it from king crab and Tanner crab pots. The intent of this action was to address potential enforcement problems of potential crab fishing under the guise of groundfish fishing.
Salmon excluder net on pollock vessel. Photo courtesy of John Gauvin. 30 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 23 Inshore/Offshore Allocations for Pollock June 1991 December 20, 1991 June 3, 1992 June 1, 1992 56 FR 66009 57 FR 23321
Purpose and Need economic stability. While the amendments Regulation Summary Results did not directly address overcapitalization in Amendment 23 (BSAI Amendment 18) the fisheries, the approval by the Council The preferred alternative, when it was GOA Amendment 23 resulted in 100% of developed out of a concern to prevent specifically expressed intent to develop and approved, defined the inshore and offshore the pollock quota and 90% of the Pacific preemption of resources by one industry implement a more comprehensive, long- components of the fisheries. The GOA cod quota (less bycatch amounts in other sector over another. Substantial processing term limited access program. inshore component was allocated 90% of fisheries) being reserved for harvest by of pollock by several catcher/processor the Pacific cod TAC and 100% of the vessels delivering to onshore processors. vessels contributed to an early closure of Analysis pollock TAC for each fishing year. While This amendment was approved for a three- the pollock fishery in the Shelikof Strait area catcher/processors from the offshore year period, through the end of 1995 (see An extensive final EIS, EA/RIR/IRFA and a in 1989, effectively preventing inshore component would not be able to conduct Amendments 40, 51, and 61 which 265-page appendix containing community components from realizing their anticipated directed pollock fishing in the GOA, they extended these measures). The allocation profiles were prepared for these economic benefit from processing pollock. would be allowed appropriate bycatch implemented by this amendment provided amendments (Secretarial review draft dated Upon industry request, the Council amounts. protection and operational stability for September 1992). Eight alternatives considered the issues of coastal community harvesters and processors and the coastal including the status quo were considered. development and shoreside preference at communities in which they operated. The alternatives not chosen would have its June 1989 meeting and adopted the implemented traditional management tools Fishery Planning Committee’s suggested or formed an allocation system with a management alternatives for analysis. The different basis, such as vessel class, problem statement adopted by the Council species, or at the individual vessel level. identified the issue as a resource allocation The alternative chosen was broadened to problem and stated that specific processing include development of a Comprehensive allocations for the inshore and offshore Fishery Rationalization Program, of which sectors established at the beginning of a inshore/offshore allocations would be a part. fishing year would resolve the preemption problem and allow operators to better plan their harvesting and processing activities for the year.
To address this problem, the Council determined the need to establish inshore/ offshore allocations of pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA, and pollock in the BSAI. The primary purpose of GOA Amendment 23 was to protect the inshore component of the fishery from preemption by the offshore fleet. The amendments provided an interim solution for the inshore component, which includes small coastal communities that are highly dependent on fishing to maintain
31 Catch Limits Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Delay Fisheries Start Date, Expand 24 December 1991 May 29, 1992 September 23, 1992 September 30, 1992 Vessel Incentive Program 57 FR 22695 57 FR 43926
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Amendment 24 (BSAI Amendment 19) was A 111-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated Amendments 24/19 established three Since the amendment was approved, initiated to further address bycatch issues April 10, 1992) was prepared for this management measures. The one pertaining halibut bycatch has been controlled to stay that were raised under Amendments 21 to amendment. The analysis was broken down to the GOA FMP was to establish FMP within the PSC limits. Catch of groundfish the GOA FMP and 16 to the BSAI FMP. The into different management actions, and authority to develop and implement (particularly flatfish) has been foregone due purpose of this amendment was to control alternatives for each were evaluated regulatory amendments that allow for time/ to these restrictions. Few vessels have and reduce halibut bycatch mortality in the separately. The number of alternatives area closures to reduce prohibited species been cited for violations of the vessel Alaska groundfish fisheries in response to (including the status quo) considered varied bycatch rates (revised “hotspot authority”). incentive program. PSC management was the international, social, and economic for each management measure. In addition to the above FMP amendment, most recently revisited in Amendment 95 in conflicts between U.S. and Canadian the following amendments to existing 2014, and halibut PSC limits for the trawl halibut fishermen and U.S. groundfish regulations were adopted: and hook-and-line sectors have not been fishermen that take halibut as bycatch. exceeded since implementation. 1) Delay the season opening date of the groundfish trawl fisheries to January 20 In 2006, the implementation of the Central of each fishing year to reduce salmon GOA Rockfish Program under Amendment and halibut bycatch rates; 68 changed the management of that fishery, which was further revised by Amendment 2) Further delay the season opening date 88 in 2011. of the GOA trawl rockfish fishery to the Monday closest to July 1 to reduce halibut and chinook salmon bycatch rates; 3) Change directed fishing standards to further limit halibut bycatch associated with bottom trawl fisheries; and
4) Expand the vessel incentive program to address halibut bycatch rates in all trawl fisheries.
Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Photo courtesy of A. Hitschfeld 32 Catch Limits Marine Mammals Spatial Management Establish Sea Lion Buffer Zones, Modify Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 25 September 1991 November 18, 1991 January 23, 1992 January 20, 1992 Pollock Management Districts 56 FR 58214 57 FR 2683
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Amendment 25 (BSAI Amendment 20) was A 29-page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for Regulations authorized by Amendment Many subsequent actions have been taken proposed to allow regulations to be the trawl closure area section and a 10- 25/20 implemented the following measures: to minimize the impacts of fisheries on SSL implemented to afford marine mammals, page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for the 1) Areas are closed year-round to fishing in the GOA and the AI. On March 12, 1993, particularly Steller sea lions (SSL), section revising GOA districts (final drafts by vessels using trawl gear within 10 NMFS extended the no-trawl zone around additional protection. Steller sea lions were undated, but near October 30, 1991). Five nautical miles of key SSL rookeries Ugamak Island (GOA) out to 20 nm during listed as threatened under the Endangered alternatives including the status quo were located in the GOA and BSAI the pollock roe fishery (58 FR 13561). Species Act on November 26, 1990 (55 FR considered for the trawl closure section and management areas. Critical habitat for SSL was designated on 49204). Although the ultimate cause of the two alternatives were considered for the August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). GOA 2) Areas are closed within 20 nm of five SSL decline remains unknown, SSL had GOA districts section of the Amendment. Amendment 45 further subdivided the areas sea lion rookeries to directed pollock been incidentally taken in fishing gear, The alternatives not chosen would have for pollock fishing; these were further fisheries during the “A” season. These intentionally killed and harassed by established larger time/area closures (20 modified by regulatory amendment in June rookeries are Sea Lion Rocks, Akun fishermen, and may have competed with nm year-round, 10 nm in summer with 20 1998 (63 FR 31939). Island, Akutan Island, Seguam Island, commercial fisheries for food resources. nm winter extensions, 20 nm summer with and Agligadak Island. In 1997, the western population (west of The purpose of this amendment was to 60 nm winter extensions). The preferred 144o longitude) of SSL was listed as alternative (10 nm year-round rookery reduce the likelihood that commercial 3) In the GOA, the specified total endangered under the Endangered Species closures) represented an approximation of groundfish removals would deplete SSL allowable catch for pollock in the Act. In April 1998, plaintiffs (Greenpeace, the average summer foraging range prey abundance in key habitats, as well as combined western/central area is the American Oceans Campaign, and the (average was 8 miles; maximum of 21 to reduce incidental take of SSL. further divided among three pollock Sierra Club) filed suit against NMFS miles) for the six female management districts: Area 61 (170°- challenging the FMPs under both the SSL with pups tagged 159° W. longitudes), Area 62 (159°- Endangered Species Act and the National and tracked. 154° W. longitudes), and Area 63 (154° Environmental Protection Act. In December -147° W. longitudes). The Shelikof 1998, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion Strait district was eliminated. To that the Alaska pollock fisheries proposed prevent excessive accumulation of for the years 1999 to 2002 were likely to unharvested portions in any quarterly jeopardize the continued existence of SSL allowance of the pollock TAC, a limit of and likely to modify critical habitat. As a 150% of the initial quarterly allowance result, numerous management actions were in each pollock management district taken via emergency rule and standard was established. rulemaking to temporally and spatially disperse the pollock fisheries, and establish numerous no-trawl zones around rookeries and haulouts. Amendment 70 implemented a package of protection measures specific to SSL, including establishing critical habitat areas where fishing for pollock (and Pacific cod and Atka mackerel) is prohibited. Steller sea lions diving off a rock haulout. Photo taken by Vladimir Burkanov, NOAA. 33 Habitat Conservation Prohibited Species Catch Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 26 Permanent Kodiak Crab Protection Zones June 1992 October 15, 1992 January 6, 1993 January 1, 1993 57 FR 47321 58 FR 503
Purpose and Need Analysis closed all year to all trawling except with Type II areas, closed to non-pelagic trawls pelagic gear. Type II areas have lower crab from February 15 to June 15. These areas The red king crab stock around Kodiak An 18-page EA/RIR (final draft dated concentrations and are only closed to non- encompass 80% to 90% of the known Island peaked in 1965, with landings of 94 September 14, 1992) was prepared for this pelagic gear from February 15 through June female king crab stocks. million pounds, and then declined and amendment. Three alternatives including 15. Type III areas are adjacent to Type I When Type III areas are closed by remained at moderately low levels though the status quo were considered. Under the and II areas and have been identified as regulatory amendment, the Regional the 1970's. No fishery has been allowed status quo alternative, the time/area important juvenile king crab rearing or Administrator will specify which of the Type since 1982 in an attempt to rebuild the closures would have expired at the end of migratory areas. Type III areas become III areas are closed and whether the closure stock. While the cause for the decline of red 1992. The other alternative not chosen operational following a determination that a is for an entire year or only a portion of a king crab is not known, most researchers would have extended the closures for "recruitment event" has occurred. The year. believe the decline can be attributed to a another three years. The alternative Regional Administrator will classify the variety factors including overfishing, fish adopted made these closures permanent. expanded Type III area as either Type I or Results predation on king crab, and a warmer ocean II, depending on the information available. A environment. Fishery managers have Regulation Summary "recruitment event" is defined as the Since the amendment was approved, GOA enacted measures to provide an The regulation made the provisions of appearance of female king crab in king crab stocks in the vicinity of Kodiak environment conducive to the recovery of Amendment 18 permanent. The Council substantially increased numbers (when the Island remain depressed. The last strong the red king crab stock by minimizing designated Type I, Type II and Type III total number of females estimated for a year class produced was in 1973-74. impacts from other fisheries. areas for special bottom trawl restrictions to given district equals the number of females Recent surveys have failed to detect signs established as a threshold criterion for of rebuilding. In 2002, Amendment 60 Designed to protect Kodiak red king crab, protect king crab. Type I areas have very opening that district to commercial crab implemented bottom trawl closures to trawl closure areas were implemented as high king crab concentrations and, to fishing). A recruitment event closure will protect red king and Tanner crab stocks in Amendment 15 in 1997 with a 3-year promote rebuilding of the crab stocks, are continue until a Cook Inlet, and in 2014, Amendment 89 sunset. These closure areas were renewed commercial crab implemented a bottom trawl closure to as Amendment 18, which became effective fishery opens for provide additional protection to Tanner crab in 1990. These restrictions were considered that district or the and benthic habitat around Kodiak Island. necessary because of the poor condition of number of crabs the king crab resource off Kodiak and drops below the because trawl bycatch and mortality rates threshold level for are highest during the spring months when that district. king crab migrate inshore for reproduction. The molting period off Kodiak begins The Alitak Flats/ around February 15 and ends by June 15. Towers and Because Amendment 18 also had a 3-year Marmot Flats sunset, the management measure was areas are Type I scheduled to expire at the end of 1992. The areas, closed to purpose of this amendment was to renew non-pelagic trawls these closure areas to protect red king crab. all year. Chirikof Island and Barnabas are
Map of special bottom trawl restriction areas by type. 34 Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 27 Establish Trawl Gear Test Zones January 1992 December 14, 1992 January 23, 1993 January 15, 1993 57 FR 59702 58 FR 5660
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary onboard, and that the time used to test gear would not contribute to observer coverage The purpose of the Amendment 27 (BSAI A 13-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated Amendment 27 allows the Secretary to requirements. Amendment 22) was to provide trawl September 1, 1992) was prepared for this promulgate regulations establishing areas fishermen an opportunity to test their trawl amendment. The status quo and one action where specific types of fishing gear may be Results fishing gear when the GOA or BSAI is alternative were analyzed. The analysis tested, to be available for use when the Since the amendment was approved, otherwise closed to trawling. Until 1992, the noted that the action alternative would have fishing grounds are closed to that gear type. fishermen have been able to test their gear GOA and BSAI were open to trawling for some physical and biological impacts due to Specific gear test areas contained in when trawl fishing is otherwise prohibited most of the year, and fishermen were able the establishment of trawl test areas. The regulations that implement the FMP were and no subsequent changes to the areas to test gear in preparation for a season physical effects would be primarily due to allowed by regulatory amendment. These have been made. opening. However, in 1992, new regulations increased bottom trawl activity in the trawl gear test areas would be established in delayed the opening of the trawl season test areas when they are in use. Trawl order to provide fishermen the opportunity from January 1 to January 20 to reduce the testing would disturb the sea floor sediment, to ensure that their gear is in proper working bycatch rates of Chinook salmon and creating some turbidity. Biological effects order prior to a directed fishery opening. Pacific halibut. The purpose of this included disruption of benthic communities The test areas must conform to the amendment was to allow fishermen to test and incidental catch. following conditions: their gear and begin fishing efficiently at the 1) depth and bottom type must be suitable beginning of a season, reducing lost fishing for testing the particular gear type; time that might result from gear problems. 2) must be outside State waters; 3) must be in areas not normally closed to fishing with that gear type; 4) must be in areas that are not usually fished heavily by that gear type; and 5) must not be within a designated Steller sea lion protection area at any time of the year. The rule implementing this amendment established three trawl test areas: Dutch Harbor (54° 40' to 55° 00'N; 166° 00' to 167° 00'W), Sand Point (54° 35' to 54° 50'N; 160° 30' to 161° 00'W), and Kodiak (57° 23' to 57° 37'N; 151° 25' to 152° 02'W). The regulation further required that the trawl cod end must be left unzipped so as not to retain fish, that groundfish may not be
Location of trawl test zones in the Alaska EEZ. 35 Limited Entry
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 28 Vessel Moratorium December 1994 June 3 1994 August 10, 1995 September 11, 1995 60 FR 28827 60 FR 40763
Purpose and Need anticipated short-term effects of the Regulation Summary Results amendment included increasing economic In 1987, concerned with excess harvesting benefits to fishermen and reducing the risk After several proposed moratoriums, the Since the amendment was approved, the capacity in the groundfish, crab, and halibut of overfishing. final rule required a moratorium permit for Council has implemented the License fisheries of the BSAI and GOA, the Council vessels within specific vessel categories Limitation Program (LLP) to limit entry into established a committee to examine the Analysis that harvest groundfish and BSAI crab the groundfish and crab fisheries off of problem of overcapitalization. Upon resources off Alaska. Generally, a vessel Alaska. As anticipated, the LLP A 22-page supplemental analysis (final draft concluding that allocation conflicts and qualified for a moratorium permit if it made a (Amendment 60 to the BSAI FMP/ dated February 1995) was prepared for the overcapitalization would worsen under the legal landing of any moratorium species Amendment 58 to the GOA FMP/ final resubmittal of the proposed moratorium current open access system, the committee during the qualifying period of January 1, Amendment 10 to the BSAI Crab FMP) for these amendments, which were recommended a limited access 1988 through February 9, 1992. In addition, replaced the vessel moratorium established originally approved by the Council in 1992. management approach for these three a vessel that made a legal landing during in these amendments starting in the 2000 The supplemental analysis outlined the fisheries. Concerned with the potential for the qualifying period, in either a groundfish fishing season. For general licenses, the changes from the original moratorium speculative entry into the fisheries during or crab fishery, but not both, can cross over base qualifying period established was proposal: revision of the qualification period, discussions of management alternatives, as a new vessel in the fishery in which it did January 1, 1988, through June 27, 1992, halibut and sablefish qualification, NMFS published a control date notice of not made a legal landing in the qualifying approximately four months longer than the consideration of current participation, February 9, 1992. Anyone not having period provided: moratorium qualification period, in order to crossovers, and the appeals process. The previously participated in the fisheries be consistent with the Council’s published analysis also indicated that the revised 1) it uses the same gear type in the new before that date would not be assured cutoff date for qualification under the moratorium would allow 4,144 unique fishery as it used to qualify for the future access to the fisheries should a Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. The vessels in the crab and groundfish fisheries, moratorium in the other fishery; or limited access system be adopted. LLP also required an area endorsement for about 1,800 more than the current 2) it made a legal landing in the crossover the BSAI or the GOA, to provide for present The purpose of Amendment 28 (BSAI participant fleet at the time, but significantly fishery during the qualifying period and participation in the fisheries (the qualifying Amendment 23) was to provide for an less than the 15,709 unique vessels that it uses only the same gear type it used period being January 1, 1992 through June interim measure to slow significant participated in the fisheries since 1978 that in that period. 17, 1995). The moratorium established by increases in the harvesting capacity of the had the potential to re-enter if no action was GOA Amendments 28 and BSAI groundfish and crab fishing fleets until a taken. Amendment 23 limited speculative entry Comprehensive Rationalization Plan (CRP) into the fisheries while the LLP was being could be implemented. The CRP was developed and approved, and kept the intended to resolve the overall issue of overcapitalization situation from worsening overcapitalization on a long-term basis and during development of the long-term transition the fisheries from an open access Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. In management system to a more market- addition, the moratorium qualifications could based, limited access system. Without the be transferred to other vessels (provided regulatory ability to institute a moratorium, that the length of the new vessel was the the Council feared that potentially unlimited same or less than the original), and thus new entry into the fishery would exacerbate helped provide a basis for the LLP transfer overcapitalization and hinder the ultimate process. development of a successful CRP. The
36 Discards Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Salmon Retention for Food Banks September 1994 May 16, 1996 July 24, 1996 July 19, 1996 29 61 FR 24750 61 FR 38358
Purpose and Need Amendment 29 authorized the voluntary retained until a NMFS-certified observer has the EEZ, this alternative was not developed retention and processing of salmon taken determined the number of salmon and further but instead provided a qualitative Amendment 29 (BSAI Amendment 26) was as bycatch in the Alaska trawl fisheries for collected any biological or scientific data. comparison with the other alternatives. adopted in response to the incidental fishing donation to needy individuals. The intent of Salmon could not be retained for reasons mortality of Pacific salmon in groundfish this action was to reduce bycatch and waste other than the collection of biological or Regulation Summary fisheries. Vessel operators participating in and potentially provide the opportunity to scientific data and ultimately must be The Salmon Donation Program authorizes these fisheries typically use trawl, hook-and collect additional data that would support a discarded in Federal waters as a prohibited the distribution of Pacific salmon taken as -line, or pot gear. Trawl gear operations more long-term solution to the salmon species. The other alternative not chosen bycatch in the groundfish trawl fisheries in account for most of the groundfish catch, bycatch problem. would have mandated that every salmon the groundfish fisheries off Alaska to harvesting 92% and 94% of the groundfish taken in the Alaska groundfish trawl economically disadvantaged individuals catch during 1992 and 1993, respectively. Analysis fisheries be retained, processed for human through NMFS authorized distributor Trawl gear fisheries for Alaska groundfish consumption, and donated to a nonprofit A 24-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March selected by the Regional Director in also account for more than 99% of the foodbank organization. Because NMFS's 1996) was prepared for this amendment. accordance with federal regulations salmon bycatch by the Alaska groundfish Three alternatives including the status quo authority under the Magnuson - Stevens Act implemented under the FMP. fisheries. These fish are dead when brought to directly regulate harvesting and were considered. Under the status quo on board a vessel and must be returned to processing fishery resources is limited to alternative, all salmon bycatch would be Results Federal waters as prohibited species once a NMFS-certified observer has determined The Salmon Donation Program was the number of salmon and completed the implemented in 1996 after two years of collection of any biological or scientific data. assessment under several experimental fishing permits. Most of the donations come The incidental salmon mortality experienced from the BSAI, as the salmon intercepted as in the groundfish fisheries is one of several bycatch in GOA fisheries tend to be small competing uses of the fully utilized salmon and unfit for human consumption. In 2017, resource. Salmon also are used as catch 324,459 pounds of PSC salmon and 39,037 and bycatch in directed commercial, pounds of PSC halibut were distributed. Of subsistence, and sport salmon fisheries and that, 63,601 pounds were donated to as bycatch in other non-salmon and non- Alaska. Between 2013-2018 SeaShare groundfish fisheries. Salmon used as donated just under 1 million pounds (4 bycatch in the groundfish fisheries and in million servings) of PSC and other seafood other fisheries can exacerbate the products in Alaska. Currently, SeaShare is management problem associated with the the only organization authorized by NMFS allocation of salmon among escapement to retain and distribute PSC fish for hunger goals set by Alaska State management relief. Under Amendment 50, the donation policy and the terminal salmon fisheries. program was expanded to include halibut. The groundfish fisheries may result in reduced escapement or harvest in the salmon fisheries, thereby imposing a cost on other salmon users.
Chinook salmon caught as bycatch. Photo courtesy of NMFS. 37 Monitoring
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 30 Development of an Observer Program June 1992 May 6, 1994 September 6, 1994 October 6, 1994 Research Plan (Not Fully Implemented) 59 FR 23664 59 FR 46126
Purpose and Need observer coverage levels on a simple Regulation Summary Results vessel length criterion, which likely does not Amendments 18 (GOA) and Amendment 13 result in the most efficient, appropriate The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized the Though the amendment was approved, it (BSAI) to the groundfish FMPs authorized a coverage across all fisheries. The Research Council and the Secretary to establish a was never fully implemented. Instead, comprehensive domestic fishery observer Plan was designed to address these North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan implementation was delayed one year, and program. The 1990 and 1991 observer problems. Industry support for such a which: then replaced with a modified pay-as-you- program required specific levels of observer go system adopted under Amendment 47 in change is demonstrated by the willingness 1) Requires that observers be stationed coverage which varied with size of fishing both the GOA and BSAI FMPs. Start-up and ability of the industry to convince on fishing vessels and at fish vessel and quantity of fish processed by Congress to amend the Act to allow the fees were collected by NMFS in the first processing facilities, and floating and shoreside processors. These North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan to be year of implementation, but the Council requirements were established because it established and paid for by a broad-based 2) Establishes a system of fees to pay for repealed the Research Plan due to various was recognized that living marine resources system of user fees. The proposed plan the cost of implementing the research concerns, including the possibility that the could not be effectively managed without was to be applicable to the groundfish, plan. The Research Plan, as adopted fee would not cover all necessary coverage the types of information that were either halibut, and BSAI crab fisheries. under this amendment, contained four levels. Fees were refunded following the available only or most efficiently through an objectives and elements that included repeal of the Plan. A restructured Observer observer program. Analysis observer employment and contracts, Program was implemented in 2013 by GOA observer duties, data collection and Amendment 76/ BSAI Amendment 86, The observer program required that owners A 39-page EA/RIR (Secretarial review draft transmission, annual determination of which addressed the problems identified in and operators of vessels and shoreside August 3, 1994), together with a lengthy coverage levels by fishery, in-season processing facilities participating in the (100+ pp.) appendix section, was prepared changes to coverage levels, groundfish fishery arrange for and pay for for this amendment (and BSAI Amendment establishment of an observer oversight the cost of placing observers aboard their 27). Three alternatives including the status committee, coordination between the vessels and at their shoreside processing quo were considered. Under the status quo NMFS groundfish and ADF&G shellfish facilities beginning in January 1990. Each alternative, the authority to establish a observer programs, a fee assessment vessel or processor required to have research plan would not be used, existing (up to 2% of ex-vessel value of observer coverage is responsible for the observer coverage requirements and harvested fish), and details on fee cost of obtaining the required observers contracting arrangements would be used, collection and contingency plans in from a certified contractor. The cost and no observer program would be case of funding shortfalls. averaged between $5,800 and $7,100 per implemented for the halibut fishery. The observer month in 1991. There were three alternative adopted provided for a research problems identified for this method of plan and attendant fee on landings, to paying for observer coverage. It was not an address problems identified with the equitable system in that some operations existing observer program. payed for 100% coverage and others did not pay anything, it limited the ability of the NMFS to effectively manage the observer program, and it may have resulted in a conflict of interest that could reduce the credibility of observer data. It also based Observer collecting data on rockfish catch. Photo courtesy of Mark Fina. 38 FMP Species Categories
Establish Separate Target Category for Council Action Notice of Availability Notice of Approval Effective 31 June 1993 July 26, 1993 October 22, 1993 October 18, 1993 Atka Mackerel 58 FR 39794 58 FR 54553 Corrected: August 11, 1993 58 FR 42758 Purpose and Need to allow separate management. Atka same, with the exception of Atka mackerel. Atka mackerel. For the most part, there has mackerel no longer met this definition. The TACs for other species in the GOA would been very little Atka mackerel retained by Atka mackerel was an important target purpose for the proposed amendment was increase to include 5% of the TAC for Atka fisheries, other than rockfish, since 2003. In species of the foreign fishery in the Gulf of to improve management of the Atka mackerel. 2007, the pollock and flatfish fisheries Alaska. The directed fishery for this species mackerel resource in the Gulf of Alaska. By retained Atka mackerel. The amount of Atka waned and through lack of interest by the establishing Atka mackerel as a target Results mackerel caught by the rockfish fisheries domestic fishery, was combined with "other species, harvest levels would be based on In the late 1980s, an Atka mackerel has declined since 2011, dropping species" in 1988. The "other species" biological stock assessments. The population existed in the GOA, primarily in significantly in 2014. However, catches of category was intended to allow for bycatch proposed amendment would not only Atka mackerel nearly doubled in the 2015 the Shumagin Islands area. By the late of species of minor commercial importance reduce the potential for overfishing Atka rockfish fishery. Reports of the fleet 1990s, the TAC was set at bycatch levels such as sculpins, skates, squid, smelts, etc. mackerel, but also allow for increased encountering more Atka mackerel on the (600 mt) because there is no reliable The "other species" category has been harvesting of the "other species" complex, fishing grounds in 2016 led the Council to estimate of current biomass and the species generally available as a Gulf-wide TAC and reduce user conflicts within the increase the 2017 TAC from 2,000 to 3,000 had exhibited vulnerability to fishing equal to 5% of the sum of TACs for all Western GOA. pressure in a foreign trawl fishery in the t. Catches of Atka mackerel in the rockfish target fisheries. fishery declined in 2016, but retained 1970s and early 1980s. Because Atka Analysis catches of Atka mackerel in the shallow In 1990, a directed fishery resumed when a mackerel is thought to be a common prey water flatfish fishery increased. Total closure of the Atka mackerel fishery in the A 45-page EA (final draft dated July 3, item for Steller sea lions, all directed fishing catches of Atka mackerel have not BSAI resulted in vessels moving into the 1993) was prepared for this amendment. for Atka mackerel was prohibited in the increased since 2012, and have remained Western GOA to continue targeting this Two alternatives including the status quo GOA beginning in 1996. Data from 2003 to species. The fishery expanded significantly were considered. The alternative chosen 2011 indicated that most of the Atka at about 1,100-1,200 t. in 1992 (13,835 mt) and accounted for was more conservative in establishing a mackerel bycatch in the GOA, which was almost the entire TAC of “other species” in biologically based acceptable biological coming out of the Shumagin and Chirikof the GOA. As a result, “other species” catch level for this species in the GOA, areas, was taken in the rockfish fisheries. became non-retainable early in the year rather than allowing for relatively There appears to have been some limited (May) in the entire GOA. This closure unrestricted catch. targeted fishing on Atka mackerel since preempted fishing for “other species” and 2003. In 2003, the flatfish and Pacific cod caused discarding of minor species such as Regulation Summary fisheries retained significant amounts of octopus. In 1993, Atka mackerel were again Amendment 31 created a separate target targeted in the GOA, accounting for almost category for Atka mackerel in the GOA the entire TAC of other species in the groundfish FMP. This meant that harvest Western GOA. As a result, “other species” levels of Atka mackerel would be based on was closed to directed fishing early in the biological stock assessments. Although the year (April 2) in the Western GOA. catch would primarily occur in the Western The GOA FMP defined “other species” as Gulf, TAC's for Atka mackerel would be set groundfish species and/or species groups, Gulf-wide to avoid waste and discarding of which are only of slight economic the small amount caught in the other importance or contain economically subareas. The species composition of the valuable species, but insufficient data exist other species category would remain the Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius). Photo courtesy of AFSC. 39 Catch Limits
Council Action Notice of Availability Notice of Approval Effective 32 Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan September 1993 January 4, 1994 April 15, 1994 March 31, 1994 59 FR 295 59 FR 18103
Purpose and Need Analysis Amendment 32 established the procedure Results for deriving the annual GOA TACs for POP. The purpose of this amendment was to An 86-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial Annual TACs will be established as follows: In 1996, two years after the rebuilding plan establish a plan to rebuild stocks of Pacific review draft dated November 8, 1993) was was established, Amendment 38 was ocean perch (POP) (Sebastes alutus), a prepared for this amendment. Four 1) Determine the current biomass, BMSY, implemented to allow the POP TAC to be type of rockfish, in the GOA. POP is a highly alternatives including the status quo were and the optimal fishing mortality rate; set at or below the amount dictated by the -valued groundfish. It was heavily exploited considered. The other alternatives would 2) Determine the fishing mortality rate rebuilding plan’s algorithm. Amendment 41, by a foreign trawl fleet from the early 1960's have established a slower rebuilding halfway between the optimal fishing which took effect in 2000, prohibited until the mid-1970's. Thereafter, a domestic schedule (11 years) via an optimal fishing mortality rate and the fishing mortality trawling in the Eastern area east of 140 at-sea processing fleet harvested POP at a mortality rate or a faster schedule (18 years) rate estimated to be sufficient to supply degrees W. longitude. Since 1994, the substantially lower rate. Catches of POP by prohibiting a directed fishery for POP. unavoidable bycatch of POP based on spawning stock biomass has increased due peaked in 1965 when an estimated 350,000 The alternative chosen was a fishing 1992 bycatch rates; to good recruitment and low fishing metric tons (mt) were harvested by the mortality rate that was intermediate mortality. The rebuilding plan required that foreign fleet; catches declined sharply in the between the optimal rate and a bycatch only 3) When the current biomass of mature female spawning biomass be greater than late 1960's. From 1961-1977, annual POP rate. females is less than BMSY, adjust the Bmsy, and the stock was considered rebuilt landings averaged over 40,000 mt; after resultant fishing mortality rate in (b) by in 1996. Amendment 68, which was 1977, landings averaged 6,000 mt. In the Regulation Summary the ratio of current biomass to BMSY. implemented in 2006, implemented the When BMSY is attained, the fishing domestic fishery, POP was managed as Amendment 32 established a rebuilding Central GOA Rockfish Pilot Program (RPP). part of a larger slope rockfish assemblage mortality rate will be the optimal fishing The intention of this program was to plan for POP. The alternative chosen was mortality rate; of about 20 species until 1991, when POP projected in modeling simulations to rebuild enhance resource conservation and was established as a separate target improve economic efficiency for harvesters POP biomass to a target level (BMSY) in 4) The GOA TAC of POP is the amount species category to prevent possible and processors in the rockfish fishery. The about 14 years by harvesting POP at a of fish resulting from the adjusted overfishing. Prior to Amendment 32, RPP was renewed in 2011 under fishing mortality rate lower than the optimum fishing mortality rate in (c); and overfishing levels had been defined GOA- Amendment 88. rate. The amendment stated that “stocks will wide. As a result of increased concern 5) The TAC is apportioned among be considered to be rebuilt when the total According to the 2017 stock assessment, about the status of POP stocks, biomass regulatory areas in proportion to POP biomass of mature females is equal to or the original rationale for area-specific OFLs assessment methodology has been biomass distribution. greater than BMSY”. Under Amendment 32, from the rebuilding plan no longer exists improved and domestic harvest levels have the overfishing level would be distributed because the overall population is above been reduced. The 1993 total allowable among the eastern, central, and western target levels and is less vulnerable to catch (TAC) of 2,560 mt was available only areas in the same proportions as POP occasional overages. Therefore, in terms of as incidental bycatch in other groundfish biomass occurs in those areas. This rebuilding the stock, management area fisheries. In recent years, POP has been measure would avoid localized depletion of OFLs are no longer a necessity for the GOA managed as a single species, harvest levels POP and would rebuild POP at equal rates POP stock. The projected female spawning have been reduced, and directed fisheries in all regulatory areas of the GOA. The biomass for 2019 = 176,934 mt, well above have been restricted or eliminated. The optimal fishing mortality rate is the rate that B35% (102,767 mt). intent of this amendment was to minimize maximizes expected biological and POP mortality necessary to maximize the economic yields over a range of plausible probability of rebuilding success in a stock-recruitment relationships. realistic time period.
40 Prohibited Species Catch Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule 33 April 1993 Withdrawn Kodiak Pelagic Trawl Closures (Withdrawn)
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Under GOA Amendment 26, time/area A 25-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated The amendment was withdrawn. The Council noted that the analysis closures and crab protection zones around April 1993) was prepared for this indicated that closing these areas to pelagic Kodiak became permanent. These amendment. Two alternatives were trawling could reduce some important restrictions afforded protection to king crab considered: nearshore pollock fishing grounds, and that in some areas during their molting or soft- the existing closures have been closely shell period while in other areas it protected 1) Status quo monitored by the Kodiak fishing industry for crabs from trawls year-round. The closures several years. On the basis of effective self- 2) Closing the time/area crab protection applied to bottom trawling operations only. enforcement, the Council moved not to zones around Kodiak Island as In January 1993, the NOAA Office of send the analysis out for public review and specified under Amendment 26 to all Enforcement expressed concern about the the amendment was effectively withdrawn trawling, including pelagic trawling. The effectiveness of the amendment as adopted from further consideration. analysis indicated that the proposed by the Council. Most trawl vessels that alternative would make enforcement of operate around Kodiak do not have full-time crab closures by aerial surveillance observer coverage, and the only way NOAA more effective and less costly, as all can enforce closures is by aerial vessels observed fishing with trawls in surveillance. Air surveillance can rarely the closed areas would be in violation. distinguish between a pelagic and bottom The analysis also noted that bycatch trawl operation. The Council asked staff to rates of pelagic trawls in the Gulf of analyze a closure to all trawling in light of Alaska are very low. the enforcement difficulties. The purpose of this amendment was to fully meet the Council’s intent to protect crab habitat under Amendment 26.
Kodiak trawler. Photo courtesy of Herman Savikko.
41 Administrative
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 34 Remove Reference to CDQ Program April 1994 May 31, 1994 August 24, 1994 September 23, 1994 59 FR 28048 59 FR 43502
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Amendment 34 to the FMP for the GOA No analysis was necessary for the The alternative adopted removed the The result of the amendment was to correct corrected the inadvertent inclusion of the preparation of Amendment 34. The inadvertent inclusion of the CDQ program in the FMP for the Groundfish of the Gulf of CDQ program in the FMP by removing and amendment simply removed an inadvertent the FMP for the GOA. Alaska so that it does not include a section reserving section 4.4.1.1.8. It was adopted reference to the Community Development on the CDQ program. along with BSAI Amendment 30, which Quota Program from the FMP for the Gulf of raised the sablefish CDQ allocation limit. Alaska.
Juneau harbor. Photo courtesy of Herman Savikko.
42 IFQ Program
Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Share Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 35 September 1993 June 28, 1994 October 7, 1994 November 7, 1994 Blocks 59 FR 33272 59 FR 51135
Purpose and Need disappear because of potential excessive Regulation Summary Results consolidation under an IFQ program. The The IFQ program, implemented in 1995 amendment is intended to protect the The Modified Block Proposal provided that Amendment 35 created both blocked and under GOA Amendment 20 (BSAI 15), viability of these small entities without initial allocations of QS that represent less unblocked quota shares based on the 1994 assigned the privilege of harvesting a interfering with the opportunities currently than 20,000 lbs of IFQ in the quota. As anticipated, there has been some percentage of the sablefish and halibut available under the IFQ program for larger implementation year will be issued as a consolidation of quota share to fewer quota (in the form of quota shares) to operations. block, 2) QS that represents 20,000 lbs or persons than received quota share by initial specific individuals with a history of harvest more of IFQ in the implementation year will issuance, but significantly less so than if the in the fisheries. Quota shares (QS) could be Analysis be “unblocked”, and 3) QS in a block cannot block proposal had not been added. transferred, allowing people who did not be separated and must be transferred as a According to the 20-Year Review of the IFQ A 283-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated receive an initial allocation to buy into the block. Fishermen can own up to two blocks Program, the total number of initial issuees May 25, 1994) was prepared for this fishery. Concern over the potential for of halibut and two blocks of sablefish QS in (unique number of people) in the halibut amendment and adjoining BSAI excessive consolidation of quota shares, each area, but persons holding any amount fishery in 1995 was 4,534, reduced to 2,522 Amendment 31. The analysis reported that the projected reduction of the longline fleet, of unblocked QS are limited to one block of by 2014. The total number of issuees in the without a block amendment (no action), the and the social and economic effects on QS per area. A sweep-up provision allowed sablefish fishery was 1,054, reduced to 836 IFQ program could potentially reduce the coastal communities, shore-based fishermen to combine small amounts into by 2014. The number of unique vessels number of halibut and sablefish quota share processors, and fishermen, was the impetus fishable amounts: halibut blocks can be landing halibut and sablefish before the IFQ fishermen to 200 and 100, respectively. for Amendment 35 (BSAI Amendment 31). combined to a sum of less than 1,000 lbs program was 3,450 and 1,139 in 1994, and Three separate block proposals were Amendment 35 implemented the Modified and sablefish blocks can be combined until by 2014 the number of vessels was reduced considered to ameliorate this problem. The Block Proposal, which was intended to the sum reaches 3,000 lbs. The amendment to 920 and 315, respectively. two alternatives that were not chosen would reduce the maximum potential consolidation also clarified that blocked and unblocked have created unique, variable size blocks or In 1996, Amendment 43 increased the relative to the IFQ program by significantly quota share would be transferable subject partial blocks that could be transferred sweep-up levels for small QS blocks for increasing the theoretical minimum number to the approval of the NMFS Regional across catcher vessel classes, resulting in Pacific halibut and sablefish to 3,000 lbs of quota shareholders and thereby easing Director. Because the Modified Block increased search and transaction costs of and 5,000 lbs, respectively. These the transition from open access to IFQs. Proposal created the potential that some persons who want to sell or buy additional management measures were raised again QS would become non-transferable As halibut and sablefish fall under two quota share. The alternative chosen also in 2007 under Amendment 67. because the size would exceed the quota different management authority, (sablefish allows persons to purchase relatively small share use limits established in prior under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and amounts of unblocked quota share, but regulations (50 CFR 676.22 (e)(f)), the halibut under the authority of the Halibut lowers the transaction costs associated with alternative also allowed for the transfer of a Act), only sablefish are included in the blocked quota share. quota share block exceeding the use limits Groundfish FMP. The purpose of this by providing that one block could be divided amendment was to provide for the long- into two blocks. term productivity of the sablefish (and halibut) fisheries. In addition to sustaining the health of the fisheries, the Council needed to address the issue of protecting small producers, part-time participants, and entry-level participants who tend to
Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria). Image courtesy of NMFS. 43 IFQ Program
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 36 Transfer of Sablefish Community January 1995 October 13, 1995 January 24, 1996 February 23, 1996 Development Quota Compensation 60 FR 53331 61 FR 1844 Quota Shares Purpose and Need consolidation into large vessel operations. involving initially-issued large vessel QS in Results However, residents of CDQ areas CDQ areas and small vessel CDQ The BSAI Community Development Quota traditionally employed smaller vessels than compensation QS in non-CDQ areas. The Since the amendment was approved, (CDQ) program was proposed in non-residents who received initially issued alternative chosen is more flexible by not coastal communities that rely on the small conjunction with the IFQ program for QS in the CDQ areas, making it difficult for defining the type of transaction allowed. vessel fleet have benefitted by having IFQ sablefish and halibut management. The residents of CDQ areas to increase their in more accessible areas. The action did not CDQ program apportioned designated holdings as they must purchase larger Regulation Summary significantly change the overall character of percentages of the annual fixed gear total the fleet because CDQ compensation quota vessels as well as initially issued QS in the The amendment exempted some CDQ allowable catch (TAC) of sablefish and larger vessel categories. share accounted for only 3.5% of the total compensation QS from the block provision halibut to eligible Western Alaska amount of quota share issued in the non- and allowed for a one-year period of relief communities, intending to provide near- GOA Amendment 36 and BSAI Amendment CDQ areas of the Gulf of Alaska. A report (one-time transfer) from the restriction shore communities with long-term, stable 32 were proposed to relieve the unintended examining the distribution of all QS by block against transferring CDQ compensation QS employment and access to the fishery consequences of the IFQ transfer status showed that 69.2% of the QS in the across vessel length categories. resource. Apportioning part of the fixed gear restrictions, which are contrary to the BSAI was blocked at the end of 1998. In the Regulations state that if a person is issued TAC to communities reduced the amount of original purpose of providing CDQ Gulf of Alaska, percentage of blocked QS CDQ compensation QS for an area where that TAC available for harvest by persons compensation quota shares. Relieving ranged from 7.6% in the Central Gulf to the person already has regular QS, then receiving annual allocations of IFQ. As a transfer restrictions on initial recipients of 20.1% in the Western Gulf. In addition, the their CDQ compensation QS is combined result, CDQ compensation quota shares CDQ compensation QS effectively amount of swappable CDQ compensation with their existing QS and is either “blocked” (QS) were issued as partial compensation increases the remunerative value of those QS–catcher vessel QS that can be fished or “unblocked” depending on the sum total to persons who received (reduced) quota shares and facilitates the full utilization of on any size vessel until its first transfer– of their QS (this makes much of the CDQ shares in CDQ areas. the allocated resources managed under the declined sharply by year-end 1998, even compensation QS unidentifiable after IFQ program. though there were very few actual swaps of Two problems were identified that inhibited issuance). If a person is issued CDQ this type of QS to other vessel categories. the current transfer of CDQ compensation Analysis compensation QS for an area in which the Most of the decline came from regular quota shares. Firstly, most CDQ person doesn’t have other QS, the QS is left A 21-page RIR (final draft dated January transfers, where CDQ compensation QS compensation QS would be issued in unblocked. The exemption does not include 1995) was prepared for this amendment. also loses its swappable status. Over the allocations of less than 20,000 lbs and Category “A” vessels (vessels of any length Including the status quo, two alternatives 1995-98 time period there were only five therefore would be blocked under the non- authorized to process IFQ species). addressing the block provision and three swaps in Southeast area, four in West severable block provision (see GOA alternatives addressing the transfer across Yakutat, and three each in the Central and Amendment 35/BSAI Amendment 31). The vessel length classes were considered. The Western Gulf. block provision was added to the IFQ option that was not chosen would have program to prevent excessive consolidation allowed “pooling” of quota shares with other of fishing privileges. Blocked quota share, compensation shareholders, as opposed to especially small blocks such as the CDQ exempting CDQ compensation QS from the compensation QS, is difficult to market block provision in perpetuity. With regard to because of the two-block limit. The second transfer across vessel length classes, the problem is that the IFQ program allowed other alternative not chosen would have transfer of quota shares only within the allowed a one-time trade across vessel same vessel category, to prevent significant classes as defined by a transaction
44 IFQ Program
Limited Processing of Non-Individual Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 37 June 1994 April 2, 1996 June 27, 1996 July 26, 1996 Fishing Quota Species 61 FR 14547 61 FR 33382
Purpose and Need coastal communities of the revenue the bycatch of non-IFQ species would be Results generated by small vessel deliveries of IFQ discarded as the period of marketability of The IFQ program was designed to promote species. unprocessed product is typically exceeded. Allowing non-IFQ species caught the conservation and management Two alternatives including the status quo incidentally to IFQ sablefish to be frozen The combination of allowing catcher vessel objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act were considered. The alternative chosen onboard freezer longliners enhanced quota share to be used on freezer vessels and Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The allows for the freezing of non-IFQ species product quality and allowed for the recovery with the prohibition on processing non-IFQ program was implemented in 1995 and when catcher vessel quota share is used on of revenue otherwise lost to discards. species resulted in unanticipated waste of assigned the privilege of harvesting a freezer vessels. percentage of the sablefish and halibut non-IFQ species caught incidentally to quota to specific individuals with a history of sablefish. Persons are required to retain all Regulation Summary harvest in the fisheries. Persons receive an Pacific cod and rockfish caught incidentally This amendment approved the processing annual allocation of IFQ and are authorized to IFQ sablefish. Pacific cod and rockfish of fish other than IFQ halibut or IFQ to harvest IFQ species. have a shorter “shelf life” than sablefish, and a typical sablefish fishing trip is too long sablefish on board the harvesting vessel by Included in the IFQ program is a provision to maintain sufficient quality of incidentally persons authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish prohibiting the processing (freezing) of fish, caught non-IFQ fish. Without the ability to based on an annual allocation of IFQ other than IFQ halibut or sablefish, on board freeze the non-IFQ species, the fish was assigned to vessel categories B or C. This a harvesting freezer vessel if, along with often landed in poor condition, decreasing authorization is not extended to persons that fish, IFQ sablefish were harvested by a the market value of the fish significantly. authorized to harvest IFQ halibut, due to the person who has catcher vessel quota fact that halibut is characteristically shares of sablefish. The Council’s intent in The purpose of Amendment 37 (BSAI prosecuted by local vessels that do not allowing the use of catcher vessel quota Amendment 33) was to address the lost have onboard processing capabilities. share on freezer vessels was to increase revenue and waste that occurs because fish Several modifications were also made to the fishing opportunities of IFQs held by other than IFQ halibut and sablefish are the regulations implementing the IFQ crew members. The prohibition on freezing discarded, or if not discarded, become a low program in order to accommodate the new non-IFQ species came out of a Council -quality product, due to the prohibition on provision. In addition, while non-IFQ concern that, if the owners of large, processing fish other than IFQ halibut and species could be frozen onboard, the industrial-type processing vessels could sablefish. The amendments were necessary freezing of IFQ sablefish caught with harvest IFQ species with IFQ assigned to to allow fuller use of the fishery resources in catcher vessel quota share on a freezer vessel categories B, C, and D while and off of Alaska. vessel would continue to be prohibited. processed fish are on board, these Analysis operators could acquire the majority of the “catcher vessel” quota share that would A 14-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March normally be harvested by smaller boats 8, 1996) was prepared for these without processing capabilities. These amendments. The analysis determined that smaller vessels usually use shoreside local the proposal would not have a significant processors in coastal communities. The economic impact on a substantial number of Council did not want to dramatically change small entities, and would not adversely the character of the fisheries and deprive affect shore-based plants because most of
45 Catch Limits Revise Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Council Action Notice of Availability Notice of Approval Effective 38 December 1995 July 5, 1996 October 2, 1996 September 25, 1996 Plan 61 FR 35174 61 FR 51374
Purpose and Need The purpose of this amendment is to Regulation Summary Results improve conservation and management of The continued decline of the Pacific Ocean POP and to further the goals and objectives The alternative adopted and approved In the years immediately following the perch (POP) stock prompted the Council to of the fishery management plan by allowed the Council to recommend a POP approval of the amendment, the Council recommend a rebuilding plan for POP, providing the flexibility to lower the total allowable catch at or below the amount continued to approve conservative TACs for established in GOA Amendment 32 (59 FR calculated TAC for Pacific ocean perch dictated by the formula in the Rebuilding the POP stock in the Gulf of Alaska as it 18103; April 15, 1994). The POP Rebuilding based on biological or resource Plan. The regulations specify that any rebuilt. In 1995, the TAC for POP as Plan provides a specific strategy for POP conservation concerns. downward adjustments would be based on determined by the Rebuilding Plan was stocks, based on available biological and biological or resource conservation 5,630 mt, enough to support a directed economic information. The plan established Analysis concerns about the POP stock or fishery. The 1996 Stock Assessment and an algorithm, or formula, to determine the associated with the POP fishery that are not Fishery Evaluation report stated that the An 18-page EA (final draft dated June 1996) annual POP total allowable catch (TAC), accounted for in the Rebuilding Plan or the 1996 triennial trawl surveys indicated was prepared and an Interim Report on the which is then apportioned among the annual stock assessment reports. The substantially increased biomass estimates Status of the Pacific Ocean Perch regulatory areas in the Gulf of Alaska. amendment only gives the Council the since the 1993 survey. However, in order to Rebuilding Plan in the Gulf of Alaska However, the rebuilding plan neglected to alternative of recommending a lower POP ensure the stock was fully recovered, the (Heifetz et al. 1995) was submitted for this allow for any flexibility to reduce the TAC TAC based on resource conservation 1997 TAC was set at 80% of the Western amendment. Three alternatives including below the amount specified by the formula. concerns, and not socioeconomic concerns. and Central Gulf ABC and the TAC from the status quo were considered. The other Under Amendment 38, the formula in the 1996 was rolled over for the Eastern Gulf. Given this standard formula, it was possible alternative would have re-evaluated the Rebuilding Plan would be considered the Since then, the stock status has continued for the TAC to be greater than the entire POP Rebuilding Plan to reconsider upper bound limit for the POP TAC. to improve, yet the annual TACs had been acceptable biological catch (ABC) the Council’s intended harvest strategy. The set below the ABCs to remain determined by biological and survey data alternative chosen would not change the precautionary. The TACs for 1997, 1998 and published in the annual Stock general direction established by the earlier and 1999 increased to 9,190 Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Rebuilding Plan except to allow the Council mt, 10,776 mt and 12,590 reports. The TAC is determined using the more flexibility in recommending the annual mt, respectively; while the formula in the Rebuilding Plan and is then TAC if the Council identified specific TAC from 2000 to the apportioned to each regulatory area biological or conservation issues that were present has been set equal according to the percentage biomass not adequately addressed by the formula to the ABC (for 2018, TAC distribution used for the ABC TAC level. was 29,236 mt). GOA apportionment. Approving a TAC greater Amendment 41 later banned than the acceptable biological catch is a domestic trawling in practice inconsistent with the current Southeast Alaska starting in management practices for other groundfish the year 2000. stocks and the conservation and management objectives of the Magnuson- Stevens Act. The Council also expressed concern with the inability to lower the TAC to accommodate other potential resource conservation issues.
Pacific ocean perch and pollock. Photo courtesy of Jackie Patt. 46 FMP Species Categories
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 39 Establish Forage Fish Category April 1997 December 12, 1997 March 17, 1998 April 16, 1998 62 FR 65402 63 FR 13009
Purpose and Need Analysis The forage fish species category includes Results all species of the following families: Prior to 1998, forage fishes in the GOA A 59-page EA/RIR (final draft dated January No commercial fishery has been allowed to were either managed as part of the “Other 1998) was prepared for this amendment. • Osmeridae (eulachon, capelin and develop on forage fish in the Exclusive Species” group (nontarget species caught Two alternatives including the status quo other smelts) Economic Zone off Alaska. Under incidentally in commercial fisheries) or were were considered, along with four options for • Myctophidae (lanternfishes) Amendment 87, forage fish were moved to classified as “nonspecified” in the FMP, with the non-status quo alternative. The options the “ecosystem component” category, which • Bathylagidae (deep-sea smelts) no conservation measures. Forage fish are not chosen would have put forage fish in the includes species which do not require generally small, abundant fishes that are “other species” category or the prohibited • Ammodytidae (Pacific sand lance) conservation and management, yet are preyed upon by marine mammals, seabirds species category. The alternative chosen • Trichodontidae (Pacific sand fish) listed in an FMP in order to achieve and commercially important groundfish would protect forage fish by prohibiting a • Pholidae (gunnels) ecosystem management objectives. A species. Forage fish perform a critical role in directed fishery and the sale and barter of • Stichaeidae (pricklebacks, warbonnets, report on the status of forage fish in the the complex ecosystem functions of the forage fish. The preferred alternative would eelblennys, cockscombs and shannys) GOA is prepared by the Alaska Fisheries BSAI and the GOA by providing the transfer also reduce waste by allowing retention (up Science Center every two years. The most • Gonostomatidae (bristlemouths, of energy from the primary or secondary to a maximum retainable bycatch amount recent assessment for forage fish was in lightfishes, and anglemouths) producers to higher trophic levels. as set in regulations) and processing (into 2018. Significant declines in marine mammals and fishmeal) those forage fish caught • and the Order Euphausiacea (krill) seabirds in the BSAI and GOA have raised incidentally in groundfish fisheries. concerns that decreases in the forage fish biomass may contribute to the further Regulation Summary decline of marine mammal, seabird and GOA Amendment 39 (BSAI Amendment 36) commercially important fish populations. defined a forage fish species category and Forage fish are the principal diet of more authorized that the management of this than two-thirds of Alaskan seabirds. In species category be specified in regulations addition, many seabirds can subsist on a in a manner that prevents the development variety of invertebrates and fish during of a commercial directed fishery for forage nonbreeding months but can only raise their fish which are a critical food source for nestlings on forage fish. Small forage fish many marine mammal, seabird and fish such as capelin, herring, sand lance and species. Forage fish species are not eulachon also have been recognized as included in a target species category. important prey items for a variety of marine Management measures for the forage fish mammal species including: Northern fur category will be specified in regulations and seal, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, spotted may include prohibitions on directed fishing, seal, bearded seal, humpback whale and fin limitations on allowable bycatch retention whale. amounts, or limitations on the sale, barter, trade or any other commercial exchange, as well as the processing of forage fish in a commercial processing facility. Top to bottom: sand lance (Ammodytidae), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), and capelin (Mallotus villosus). Photo courtesy of AFSC. 47 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Extend Inshore/Offshore Pollock and 40 June 1995 September 18, 1995 December 12, 1995 January 1, 1996 Pacific Cod Allocations 60 FR 48087 60 FR 63654
Purpose and Need the industry, facilitate further development Regulation Summary Results of the comprehensive management regime, GOA Amendment 40 (BSAI Amendment 38) and allow for the realization of the goals and The provisions of GOA Amendment 23 This amendment retained the existing extended the provisions of GOA objectives of the pollock CDQ program. became the basis of Amendment 40. Thus, inshore/offshore pollock processing Amendment 23 and BSAI Amendment 18, in the GOA, the apportionment of pollock allocations for an additional three-year which expired on December 31, 1995. Analysis would be allocated entirely for processing period, through 1998. Stability within and Amendments 23 and 18 (57 FR 23321; by the inshore sector, and the among industry sectors, and associated A 268-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated June 3, 1992) set inshore and offshore apportionment of Pacific cod would be communities and participants, was August 1, 1995) and several appendices processor allocations of pollock in the BSAI allocated 90% for the inshore sector, 10% maintained by this amendment. In 1999, were prepared for this amendment. Two and pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA, for the offshore sector. Amendment 51 extended the provisions of alternatives were considered: 1) no action, respectively, as a response to an early Amendment 40 through 2001. and 2) continuation of the current program closure in 1989 when several catcher/ for a period of three additional years (1996- GOA Amendment 62 replaced inshore/ processors harvested substantial amounts 1998), including the pollock CDQ program offshore language in the FMP. Amendment of pollock in the BSAI and GOA and forced as an inseverable element of the overall 62 removed references to BSAI inshore/ an early closure of the GOA pollock fishery. package. The analysis reiterated the offshore from the GOA FMP; and removed GOA Amendment 23 provided for an Council’s intent not to consider alternative the December 31, 2004, sunset date for allocation of 90% of the Pacific cod TAC inshore/offshore allocation percentages, as GOA inshore/offshore allocations from the and 100% of the pollock TAC in the GOA to that would likely require significant new and GOA FMP. the inshore sector. complex economic analyses, create unnecessary delays in implementing an Amendment 40 was necessary to extend allocation scheme, and be inconsistent with the inshore/offshore allocations set in the overall intent to develop a more long- Amendment 23 through December 31, term solution through the Comprehensive 1998. The purpose of the amendments was Management Plan process. to keep the fishery from turning back into the “free-for-all” it represented previously. Since the original inshore/offshore allocation, the Council had been working toward developing a long-term, comprehensive plan for rationalizing all the groundfish and crab fisheries in and off of Alaska. By the end of 1995, when it was evident that the plan would not be ready for implementation before the inshore/offshore allocations expired, the Council determined it was necessary to extend the provisions of Amendments 23 and 18 for an additional three years in order to maintain stability in Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus). Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Figus. 48 Limited Entry
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 41 Establish License Limitation Program June 1995 August 15, 1997 October 1, 1998 January 1, 2000 62 FR 43866 63 FR 52642
Purpose and Need implemented to provide industry stability Regulation Summary Results and curtail interim increases in fishing In 1992, the Council committed to capacity. The intent was for the LLP to The final rule for GOA Amendment 41 The LLP continues to be refined through rationalize the groundfish and crab fisheries replace the VMP upon implementation. (BSAI Amendment 39, BSAI Crab subsequent amendments. In 2001, the and begin development of a Amendment 5) limited access to the Council approved GOA Amendment 58, Comprehensive Rationalization Plan (CRP). Analysis commercial groundfish fisheries in the GOA BSAI Amendment 60, and BSAI Crab The CRP was prompted by concerns that and BSAI and commercial crab fisheries in Amendment 10 which amended the LLP to A 98-page EA/RIR (final draft dated expansion of the domestic harvesting fleet, the BSAI, except for demersal shelf rockfish reduce the number of vessels eligible to September 1997) with seven lengthy in excess of that needed to efficiently east of 140° W. longitude, and sablefish participate in the overcapitalized crab appendices and several supplemental harvest the optimum yield, was burdening managed under the IFQ program. The rule fisheries and provided further capacity analyses considered the status quo and a compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act provided for the following: issuance of a restrictions in the groundfish fisheries. general license limitation alternative. Out of and severely deteriorating the economic single type of groundfish license; LLP is not Additionally, in 2009 Amendment 82 a comprehensive list of elements and benefits derived from the crab and applicable to waters of the State of Alaska; rescinded latent trawl licenses, and in 2011 options the Council considered during the groundfish fisheries. The Council examined licenses would be issued to current owners Amendment 86 added a Pacific cod debates on LLP, the analysis identified one several management alternatives including (as of 6/17/95) of qualified vessels; licenses endorsement on eligible licenses issued option for each component of a license license limitation programs, individual would be designated as catcher vessel or under the LLP. As of 2019, there were over limitation program to create the preferred fishing quotas (IFQs), and more traditional catcher/processor and with one of three 1,800 groundfish LLP licenses, and 347 alternative described above in the final rule. measures, and determined that a limited vessel length classes; the crab and crab LLP licenses across the BSAI/GOA A supporting document also analyzed the entry program had the most potential to groundfish base qualifying period is 1/1/88- areas. differences between the vessel moratorium address the immediate overcapitalization 6/27/92 and the groundfish area program and the license limitation program problems of the industry. As a result, the endorsement qualifying period is 1/1/92- passed by the Council. The vessel Council approved the License Limitation 6/17/95; endorsement areas are defined as moratorium was more liberal in terms of Program (LLP) in 1995, recognizing the Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, Western Gulf, qualification criteria and the areas a vessel need for further rationalization in the future Central Gulf, and Southeast Outside, or could fish. Under the moratorium, a vessel development of an IFQ system. state waters shoreward of those was only required to make one landing of a endorsement areas; landing requirements The overall purpose of the LLP is to help qualifying species between 1/1/88 and for general license and area endorsement resolve the competing and oftentimes 2/9/92, and having met that criteria the qualifications by vessel class; and additional conflicting needs of the domestic fisheries moratorium permit holders could fish provisions addressing crossover vessels, that developed under open access and to groundfish in any federal waters off Alaska. transfers, and vessel linkages. The rule also close the gap between fishing capacity and Therefore, because the LLP had dual included in CDQ allocations 7.5% of the the available fishery resource. The LLP qualification criteria, many fewer vessels TAC of groundfish and crab in the BSAI that limits the number, size, and specific were expected to qualify than did for the was not originally included in the CDQ operation of vessels fishing crab and moratorium. programs for pollock, halibut, and sablefish. groundfish in the BSAI and GOA based on historical participation. During the design and refinement of the LLP, the Vessel Moratorium Program (VMP) was
49 IFQ Program
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective
42 Individual Fishing Quota Vessel Fish Down January 1996 June 25, 1996 August 22, 1996 August 16, 1996 61 FR 32767 61 FR 43312
Purpose and Need Analysis maximum length on average (LOA) of the Results category to which the QS was originally During the first year of fishing under the A 15-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review assigned. It does not apply to halibut in IFQ Amendment 42 is assumed to have attained Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program in draft dated February 1996) and a regulatory areas 2C or to sablefish east of its goal of increasing the availability of QS 1995, IFQ fishermen reported that the supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility 140°. W. long. Halibut QS assigned to to owners of smaller vessels. Amendment prohibition against using or transferring QS Analysis (FRFA) examined two alternatives vessel Category B in IFQ regulatory areas 42 was later amended by Amendment 67, across vessel categories limited their ability to the status quo. The Council ultimately 2C and sablefish QS east of 140° W. long. which eliminated the exception that IFQ to improve the profitability of their recommended an alternative that included are prohibited from use on vessels less than derived from Category B QS to be used on operations. Many fishermen had received an exemption for Southeast Alaska. or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA except in vessels greater than 60 ft for a) halibut in QS that represented far fewer pounds than Allowing the “buy down” to occur only for QS blocks equivalent to less than 5,000 lb Area 2C, and b) sablefish in the Southeast their catch history prior to the IFQ program. category B blocks < 5,000 lb in Southeast (2.3 mt) based on the 1996 Total Allowable Outside District. Small boat fishermen reported the scarcity still benefits crewmen and small vessel Catch (TAC). of medium- and large-size QS blocks owners who would be able to use small (≥5,000 lb [2.3 mt]) available to smaller category B blocks on smaller vessels vessels and requested that the Council without affecting the market price of enable them to purchase shares from QS category B medium and large blocks and holders in larger vessel size categories. unblocked QS. Also, category B vessel operators reported difficulties in using or marketing small Regulation Summary category B blocks and requested the Amendment 42 and a regulatory opportunity either to downsize operations or amendment to the IFQ Program for fixed to sell smaller QS blocks to owners of gear Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries smaller vessels. in and off Alaska allowed QS initially Amendment 42 (for GOA and BSAI assigned to a larger vessel category to be groundfish) was intended to relieve certain used on smaller vessels, while continuing to restrictions in the IFQ Program by prohibit the use of QS or its associated IFQ increasing the flexibility of QS use and assigned to smaller vessel categories on transfer while maintaining the management larger vessels. QS will continue to be goals of the IFQ Program and to provide assigned to vessel categories by existing small boat fishermen with more criteria at Sec. 679.40(a)(5) (I) through (vi) opportunities to improve the profitability of and will retain original vessel category their operations. assignments. However, halibut and sablefish QS and their associated IFQ assigned to vessel Category B, can be used on vessels of any size and halibut QS assigned to vessel Category C likewise can be used on vessels of categories C and D. The regulations continue to prohibit the use of QS and IFQ on vessels larger than the Small-scale longliner halibut fishing in Southeast Alaska. Photo courtesy of Joshua Roper, joshuaroperphotography.com. 50 IFQ Program
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 43 Individual Fishing Quota Vessel Sweep Up April 1996 September 27, 1996 December 26, 1996 December 20, 1996 61 FR 50797 61 FR 67962
Purpose and Need Analysis appropriate regulatory areas based on Results the 1996 TAC, those QS levels would This amendment, along with a regulatory A 32-page EA/RIR (Secretarial review draft be fixed and codified. This would Following implementation of Amendment amendment for halibut, was deemed dated November 27, 1996) included a range eliminate any confusion as to the 43, the number of sweep-up transactions necessary to increase the consolidation of alternatives of setting the sweep-up level appropriate sweep-up level in pounds, increased substantially related to the higher (“sweep-up”) levels for small quota share at 1,000, 3,000, and 5,000 lb for halibut and which would fluctuate with changes in sweep-up limits. The number of sweep-up (QS) blocks for Pacific halibut and sablefish 3,000, 5,000, and 7,000 lb for sablefish. The the annual TAC. transfers has decreased since the first four managed under the IFQ program. Council rejected the status quo levels (the years of the IFQ Program across all IFQ Amendment 35, implemented in 1995, lowest) and the highest levels. The analysis The maximum number of QS units that may areas, from an average of 40 sweep up included a sweep-up provision that allowed concluded that a moderate increase in the be consolidated into a single QS block in transfers between 1995 and 1998 to an halibut blocks to be combined until the sum sweep-up levels would likely increase the each IFQ regulatory area is shown in the average of 13 transfers between 2011 and reached 1,000 lbs and sablefish blocks to transfer of very small, blocked QS to crew above table. 2014 for halibut, and from an average of 8 be combined until the sum reached 3,000 and small boat fishermen who seek to sweep up transfers between 1995 and 1998 lbs. The IFQ longline industry reported that increase their holdings. While some price to an average of 3 transfers between 2011 those sweep-up levels did not equal the increases in small block shares might have and 2014 for sablefish. harvest of a viable fishing trip, and occurred, a price differential was projected This trend is aligned with intuition in that the proposed a moderate increase in these to remain between smaller and larger QS easiest opportunities for coordinating sweep levels to allow greater amounts of QS to be blocks. If the ability to transfer and -up transfers would have likely occurred in swept-up into economically “fishable” consolidate small blocks would increase, the first several years following the IFQ amounts, without overly increasing then the number of unfished blocks would Program, as some initial QS recipients were consolidation or allowing the creation of decrease. exiting and others were consolidating QS. large-sized blocks. This action was intended However, this decrease in sweep up to maintain consistency with the objectives Regulation Summary transfers may also be due to the manner in of the IFQ program (i.e., prevent excessive Amendment 43 increased the sweep-up which the RAM database tracks sweep-up consolidation of QS, maintain diversity of levels for small QS blocks for Pacific halibut transfers by new entrants. the fishing fleet, and allow new entrants into and sablefish from a 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) the fishery), while increasing the program's Halibut fishing. maximum for Pacific halibut and 3,000 lb In 2007, Amendment 67 further amend the flexibility by allowing a moderately greater Photo courtesy of Rhonda Hubbard. (1.4 mt) maximum for sablefish to a 3,000 lb halibut quota share (QS) block program to amount of QS to be “swept-up” into larger (1.4 mt) maximum and a 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) increase the halibut sweep-up limits in Area amounts that can be fished more maximum, respectively. Two other changes 2C and Area 3A. economically. were recommended to accompany these increases:
1) The base year TAC for determining the pounds would be the 1996, rather than 1994, TAC which was used for the first sweep-up levels 2) Once QS levels are established for the
51 Catch Limits Marine Mammals
Council Action Notice of Approval Effective 44 Overfishing Definitions June 1996 January 17, 1997 January 9, 1997 62 FR 2656
with biomass. Second, the ABC fishing rate Purpose and Need Tiers used to determine ABC and OFL for BSAI groundfish stocks under Amendment 44. is reduced when biomass is below levels (1) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B and BMSY and reliable pdf of FMSY . In response to the national standards that produce maximum sustainable yields. 1a) Stock status: B/BMSY > 1 established in the Magnuson Act and Lastly, more caution is incorporated into FOFL = mA , the arithmetic mean of the pdf advisory guidelines, the Council developed establishing fishing rates when less FABC ≤ mH , the harmonic mean of the pdf an objective and measurable definition of information is available; this is particularly 1b) Stock status: a < B/BMSY ≤ 1 overfishing and, in 1991, implemented that true of tier 1. FOFL = mA × (B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) definition under Amendments 16 (BSAI) and FABC ≤ mH × (B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) 21 (GOA) to the FMPs. In the years since Regulation Summary 1c) Stock status: B/BMSY ≤ α implementation of that definition, fishery FOFL = 0 Amendment 44 (in both the GOA and BSAI FABC = 0 scientists had the opportunity to evaluate groundfish FMPs) provided for more (2) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B, BMSY , FMSY , F30% , and F40% . the efficacy of these definitions of ABC and conservative definitions of ABC and OFL. 2a) Stock status: B/BMSY > 1 overfishing. In light of that experience and The fishing mortality rate used to calculate FOFL = FMSY with the increased understanding of the F ≤ F × (F /F ) ABC was capped by the overfishing rate. ABC MSY 40% 30% reference fishing mortality rates used to 2b) Stock status: α < B/BMSY ≤ 1 The maximum allowable fishing rates were define ABCs and overfishing, fishery FOFL = FMSY × (B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) prescribed through a set of 6 tiers which are scientists had raised several concerns FABC ≤ FMSY × (F40% /F30%)×(B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) listed in descending order of preference, about the definitions and the extent to which 2c) Stock status: B/BMSY ≤ α corresponding to descending information FOFL = 0 they reflect and account for levels of availability. These tiers are shown in the FABC = 0 uncertainty about fish populations. adjacent table. Harvest rates used to (3) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B, B40% , F30% , and F40%. Consequently, NMFS’s Overfishing establish ABCs are reduced at low stock 3a) Stock status: B/B40% > 1 Definitions Review Panel and the Council’s F = F size levels, thereby allowing rebuilding of OFL 30% Scientific and Statistical Committee FABC ≤ F40% depleted stocks. If the biomass of any stock recommended redefining ABC and 3b) Stock status: α < B/B40% ≤ 1 falls below Bmsy or B40% (the long-term overfishing to facilitate more conservative, FOFL = F30% × (B/B40% - α)/(1 - α) average biomass that would be expected risk-averse management measures when FABC ≤ F40% × (B/B40% - α)/(1 - α) under average recruitment and F=F40%), 3c) Stock status: B/B40% ≤ α stock size and mortality rates are not fully the fishing mortality is reduced relative to FOFL = 0 known. The purpose of this Amendment stock status. This serves as an implicit FABC = 0 was to revise the ABC and overfishing rebuilding plan should a stock fall below a (4) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B, F30% , and F40% . definitions to be consistent with these F = F reasonable abundance level. OFL 30% recommendations. FABC ≤ F40% Results (5) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B and natural mortality rate M. Analysis FOFL = M The amendment resulted in lower (more FABC ≤ 0.75 × M A 60-page EA (final draft dated January 6, (6) Information available: Reliable catch history from 1978 through 1995. conservative) ABCs; consequently, total 1997) was prepared for this amendment. OFL= the average catch from 1978 through 1995, unless an alternative value is established allowable catch levels were reduced for Two alternatives including the status quo by the SSC on the basis of the best available scientific information many species. The definitions adopted were considered. The alternative chosen ABC ≤ 0.75 × OFL under Amendment 44 were further revised was more conservative for several reasons. under Amendment 56. First, the overfishing rate varies
52 Catch Limits Marine Mammals
Council Action Notice of Approval Effective
45 Pollock Trimester Allowances January 1996 May 31, 1996 May 30, 1996 61 FR 27308
Purpose and Need Regulatory Area: dislocation for current participants in the fishery. Results NMFS ultimately implemented a single opening of 1) Since 1991, chum salmon bycatch had been Since 1990, the TACs specified for pollock in the September 1 for both areas based on additional The three-season allocation of pollock under approximately 500% higher during the third Western and Central Regulatory Areas have public comments on the proposed rule. The Amendment 45 was only in effect for the 1996-98 quarter pollock opening than any other been divided into four equal quarterly allowances, simultaneous opening was believed to disperse seasons, after which a regulatory amendment quarter. which became available on the 1st of January, effort, resulting in more manageable fisheries and implementing reasonable and prudent June, July, and October. The quarterly allowance 2) The third quarter pollock fishery conflicted a more equitable distribution of fishing alternatives (RPAs) for SSL under Amendment system was implemented as part of Amendment with summer salmon processing activities. opportunity. 25 returned the management regime to quarterly 19 to limit excessive harvests of roe-bearing pollock allowances. pollock and provide a more stable year-round 3) Declining pollock stocks and escalating Regulation Summary pollock fishery for GOA-based vessels and fishing effort had made the GOA pollock The Council has revisited seasonal pollock Amendment 45 authorized seasonal allowances allocations on several occasions since the processors. In November 1990, NMFS listed the fishery increasingly difficult to manage, of pollock total allowable catch (TAC) to be implementation of Amendment 45, largely in the Steller sea lion (SSL) as threatened under the especially during the fourth quarter. specified for the combined Western/Central (W/C) context of minimizing Chinook salmon bycatch Endangered Species Act and subsequently 4) Some GOA pollock fishery participants had approved Amendment 25, which further Regulatory Areas of the GOA. The third and which is more prevalent in the fall. In October requested the Council maintain concurrent fourth quarterly allowances of pollock TAC were 2001, following a federal court order for NOAA subdivided the annual TAC specified for pollock GOA and Bering Sea pollock seasons to combined in the W/C areas into a single seasonal and the Council to further justify the fishery in the W/C Regulatory Area into three discourage the Bering Sea-based fleet from management districts (Statistical Areas 610, 620, allowance that would be available on September management program’s impacts to SSLs, a participating in GOA pollock openings. 1. Therefore, the pollock TACs were divided into comprehensive and stringent suite of fishery and 630). This action was implemented to avoid a three seasonal allowances: 25% of TAC available management measures (Amendment 70) was concentration of fishing effort in time and/or Analysis on January 1, 25% of TAC available on June 1, developed by the Council’s RPA Committee (later space that could cause localized depletions of SSL prey and exacerbate the decline of SSL. Its A 35-page EA/RIR (draft dated February 1996) and 50% of TAC available on September 1. This replaced by the SSL Mitigation Committee) to action complemented a regulatory amendment to minimize potential competition for prey between effect was to divide the pollock TACs in the W/C considered three opening date options for a delay the start of the Bering Sea pollock “B” fisheries and the endangered western stock of Regulatory Areas into 12 individual allowances combined third and fourth quarter allowance; (four quarterly openings in each of the three September 1, September 15, and October 1. A season from August 15 to September 1 starting in SSL. 1996. management districts). coalition of Bering Sea and central Gulf-based SSL protection measures for the groundfish processors and vessels submitted a compromise fishery currently include (1) global harvest In August 1995, GOA pollock industry members proposal to the Council in January 1996 to controls for Steller sea lion prey species (pollock, submitted a proposal to combine the third and establish an October 1 opening date for the fourth quarterly allowances of pollock TAC into a Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel); (2) spatial Western Gulf Regulatory Area and a September harvest controls specific to prey species, gear single seasonal allowance of 50% of the TAC 1 opening date for the Central Gulf Regulatory type, and proximity to rookery, haul-out, or forage released on September 1, rather than the current Area. Western Gulf-based processors and areas to limit prey species removal in an area; (3) quarterly releases of 25% on July 1 and October fishermen expressed dissatisfaction with the 1. Representatives of the inshore sector of the temporal harvest controls for pollock, Pacific cod, compromise proposal because an October 1 and Atka mackerel, including seasonal Bering Sea pollock fishery requested that the opening date in the Western Regulatory Area apportionments to limit prey species removal opening date for the combined third and fourth would facilitate entry by Bering Sea-based quarter allowance be delayed until October 1 so during certain times of the year; and (4) a vessel vessels. However, the Council subsequently monitoring system requirement for all vessels that Bering Sea-based vessels would have time recommended that NMFS implement this (except vessels using jig gear) fishing for pollock, to finish the Bering Sea non-roe pollock fishery compromise proposal as the preferred option. Pacific cod, or Atka mackerel. before the start of the final pollock season in the The Council believed that an October 1 opening W/C Regulatory Areas. date for the Western Regulatory Area and a Several problems were identified with the current September 1 opening date for the Central quarterly allowance system for pollock in the W/C Regulatory Area would achieve the objectives outlined above while causing the least amount of
53 Administrative FMP Species Categories Remove Black and Blue Rockfish from Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 46 June 1997 December 2, 1997 March 6, 1998 April 6, 1998 Fishery Management Plan 62 FR 63691 63 FR 11167
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Expansion of a fishery for these species in A 31-page analysis (Secretarial Review Amendment 46 removed black and blue Black and blue rockfishes are no longer the central GOA in the mid-1990's was draft dated January 6, 1998) identified rockfishes from the FMP. federally managed. The State of Alaska believed to possibly result in unsustainable 1,416 catcher vessels that participated in (State) now regulates fishing for these black and blue rockfish catches. Two the GOA groundfish fishery in 1996. Of species by vessels registered under Alaska problems with Federal management of those, 302 vessels, or 21%, were law to provide for more responsive black and blue rockfish were identified: presumably affected by the proposed management and prevent localized action. Those vessels landed 973,443 lb of overfishing of black and blue rockfish 1) The total allowable catch (TAC) for all black rockfish, most in the directed jig-gear stocks. pelagic shelf rockfish (PSR) species fishery, at an estimated value of $344,000. was based on a triennial trawl survey. Removing black and blue rockfish from the Survey catches are dominated (93 – PSR TAC was predicted to encourage the 99%) by the underexploited dusky development of a small vessel fishery rockfish. This led to acceptable harvest targeting under-exploited black and blue levels for the PSR assemblage as a rockfish stocks in the Western and Eastern whole, but may be inappropriate for GOA. At the same time, the State was lower black and blue rockfish stocks; predicted to more effectively manage 2) The trawl survey only samples fish on potentially overexploited stocks in the or near a smooth bottom. However, Central GOA and increase their long-term most black and blue rockfish occur in yield. rocky nearshore reef habitats that are Another alternative which was examined not sampled by this survey. would have kept black and blue rockfishes Amendment 46 was to implement more in the FMP and assigned management responsive, regionally-based, management authority for them to the State of Alaska. of these species than is currently possible Similar management authority was granted under the FMP. The intended effect of this to the State to address similar management action was to: problems for demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) in Southeast Alaska under Amendment 14 1) Prevent localized overfishing of black and clarified under GOA Amendment 21. and blue rockfish stocks; This alternative was rejected because under 2) Provide for more responsive State delegated authority, the State would need to Blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus). Photo courtesy of AFSC. management; and meet Federal requirements that were deemed unwieldy. Further, the State 3) Repeal duplicative Federal regulations. believed it could not meet the costly assessment needs required under a Federal plan for the nearshore complex in the near future; though conservation was assured through precautionary management. 54 Monitoring Authorize an Interim North Pacific Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 47 April 1996 August 2, 1996 November 1, 1996 January 1, 1997 Groundfish and Halibut Observer 61 FR 40380 61 FR 56425 Program
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
In December 1989, GOA Amendment 18 A 67-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review GOA Amendment 47 (BSAI Amendment 47/ The modified Observer Program was and BSAI Amendment 13 authorized a draft dated June 1996) was prepared to BSAI Crab Amendment 6) created an superseded in 2013 by Amendment 76, the comprehensive observer program for U.S. analyze two action alternatives and a status interim North Pacific Groundfish Observer restructured Observer Program, which fisheries. To fulfill the objectives of quo alternative. Two options were included Program that would expire December 31, addressed the problems identified in Amendments 18 and 13, the Council and under the status quo: 1) Reinitiate the fee 1997 or when superseded by a permanent Amendments 30 and 47. NMFS developed the North Pacific collection program during 1997 as observer program. This Program Fisheries Research Plan (Research Plan) authorized under section 313 of the superseded the Research Plan under under Amendment 30, which required Magnuson-Stevens Act so that the Amendment 30. observers to be stationed on certain Research Plan may be fully implemented by groundfish vessels and established a fee 1998, or 2) Do not reinitiate the fee structure to fund the observer program. collection program so that the Research Amendment 30 was approved and the Plan expires at the end of 1996. Under Research Plan was partially implemented in Option 2, lacking further action by the 1994 with minor changes in 1995. The Council to supersede the Research Plan by Council was reluctant to fully implement the an FMP amendment under Alternatives 2 or Research Plan until they had more time to 3, no observer coverage would be reconsider the changes and requested authorized for the Alaska groundfish additional time to analyze the effects of fully fisheries in 1997 and beyond. Alternative 2 implementing the Research Plan. This would revert back to the observer program extension maintained 1995 observer as it existed before implementation of the coverage requirements through 1996. In Research Plan with an option to implement 1995, the Council asked NMFS to repeal an interim observer program to supersede the Research Plan in favor of a program the Research Plan on January 1, 1997. This that allowed direct payment for observer was the Council’s preferred alternative and services as had been done in the past. This it authorized mandatory groundfish observer request initiated the analysis process to coverage requirements through 1997. explore alternatives to the Research Plan. A third alternative to establish a pay-as-you- After hearing the alternatives in April 1996, go groundfish observer program was also the Council determined that the information considered, but was seen by many as was not sufficient to make a decision and inequitable, because although all requested additional cost comparisons. participants in the groundfish, halibut, and However, since current observer coverage crab fisheries benefited from the groundfish requirements expired on December 31 of and crab observer programs, only those that year, the Council adopted an with observer coverage requirements bore alternative the authorized an interim the cost. groundfish observer program and superseded the Research Plan. Observers monitor catch on board. Photo courtesy of NMFS. 55 Catch Limits
Establish Procedure for Total Allowable Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 48 October 2003 July 27, 2004 November 8, 2004 April 1, 2005 Catch Setting 69 FR 44634 69 FR 64683
Purpose and Need 3) Comply with NEPA, ESA, and RFA Interested parties realize that those effective for more than 12 months, allowing provisions while minimizing numbers will change, sometimes time to comply with APA rulemaking The BSAI and GOA Plan Teams first unnecessary disruption to fisheries; considerably, after release of the final SAFE requirements and ensuring that proposed streamlining the groundfish reports and December Council meeting. management is based on the best available 4) Provide adequate opportunity for public specifications process in 1996. The Council The Federal Register publication of scientific information. review and comment on new initiated Amendments 48 to the GOA and proposed specifications, therefore, may no information leading to annual TAC Amendment 48 also gave NMFS the BSAI FMPs in December 1996 to address longer serve a useful purpose. administrative and public notice issues. The recommendations; and authority to specify a comment period One rejected alternative was scheduling the based on the circumstances present when Council’s preferred action to rollover harvest 5) Promote administrative efficiency while Council and Plan Team meetings to occur the proposed specifications are published, specifications from one year to the next was minimizing public confusion regarding earlier in the year to allow more time to rescinded provisions for interim harvest approved in June 1998. ABCs, TACs, and proposed and interim specifications. PSC amounts would remain unchanged publish proposed and final specifications; specifications, revised species listed for from year to year until revised in a final rule. In October 2003, the Council approved a interim specifications would be seasonal allowances for the final harvest In July 1999, the NMFS Regional new annual harvest specification process unnecessary. A limiting factor to the specifications, and revised §679.20(c)(5), Administrator notified the Council that the for the Alaska groundfish fisheries to: specification process is the time needed by 679.20(c)(6), and 679.62(a)(3) to remove the Plan Teams to analyze data and references to interim harvest specifications. Council’s preferred alternative was not in 1) Eliminate the publication of proposed produce final SAFE documents. Survey compliance with the National Environmental and possibly misleading information in data is not available until late summer or Results Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative proposed and interim specifications; early fall, and it is unlikely that assessments Procedures Act (APA), and the Regulatory Amendment 48 revised some administrative Flexibility Act (RFA). As a result, 2) Enhance the ability of NMFS to adjust of the fisheries could be made any earlier. procedures associated with the harvest Amendment 48 needed to be revised to the TAC and PSC amounts inseason; The Plan Teams and the Council prefer to specifications process that are still in use meet the requirements set forth in NEPA, and base their recommendations on the most today. Under the revised process, the current possible information. A minimum of APA, and RFA, extending deliberations for 3) Remove obsolete references to foreign Council routinely sets harvest specifications four years until the Council approved new two weeks is needed between the for the upcoming two years. The and joint venture management November Plan Team meeting and the annual harvest specifications in October measures. specifications for year 2 opens the fishery in 2003. December Council meeting for the SAFE January, and these specifications are reports to be released for public review. It Analysis superseded by year 1 of the most recently Despite the initial setback in 1999, the would be impracticable, therefore, for the recommended specifications once they Council and NMFS acknowledged the specification process to occur any earlier in A 240-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial have gone through public comment and continuing need to revise the existing TAC the year. review draft dated June 2004) evaluated rulemaking, usually in March. specification process to meet the following four action alternatives and three stand- objectives: alone options. A Finding of No Significant Regulation Summary 1) Manage fisheries based on the best Impact (FONSI) was also prepared by Sections 679.20 and 679.21 were revised to available information; NMFS for this action. An earlier analysis implement the new administrative process concluded that the existing specification for harvest specifications that allowed for 2) Make adjustments to TAC amounts to process could be improved. Proposed proposed and final harvest to remain in respond to new information or specifications may be outdated by the time effect for up to two years. This provides conservation concerns; they are published for public review. flexibility for harvest specifications to be
56 Discards
Improved Retention / Improved Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 49 June 1997 August 18, 1997 December 12, 1997 January 12, 1998 Utilization Program 62 FR 43977 62 FR 65379
Purpose and Need 3) Inability to provide for a long-term, cod, and subsequently shallow water Results stable fisheries-based economy due to flatfish, the Council's objective of To reduce discards, the Council adopted an loss of fishery resources through “substantially reducing discards of Beginning in 1998, 100% retention of improved retention and utilization program wasteful fishing practices; and unprocessed groundfish” in these fisheries pollock and Pacific cod was required, (IR/IU) for all groundfish target fisheries. could be achieved. regardless of how or where it was caught. The Council’s objective for Gulf of Alaska 4) The need to promote improved Only fish not fit for human consumption can groundfish fisheries centers on the same retention and utilization of fish Regulation Summary be legally discarded. Gulf of Alaska shallow basic concern that motivated an IR/IU resources by reducing waste of target water flatfish retention was required Amendment 49 requires all vessels fishing program in the BSAI groundfish fisheries; groundfish species to achieve long- beginning in 2003; the delay allowed for for groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska to retain that is, economic discards of groundfish term sustainable economic benefits to development of new markets and gear all pollock and Pacific cod beginning catch are at unacceptably high levels. An the nation. technological responses by the vessels January 1, 1998, and all shallow water IR/IU program for the GOA would be engaged in these fisheries. This measure Analysis flatfish beginning January 1, 2003. It expected to provide incentives for fishermen has dramatically reduced overall discards of established a 15% minimum utilization to avoid unwanted catch, increase utilization A 130-page analysis (Secretarial review groundfish. After implementation of shallow- standard for all at-sea processors. When of fish that are taken, and reduce overall draft dated October 1997) reviewed a water flatfish IR/IU in 2003, shallow-water shallow-water flatfish are open to directed discards of whole fish, consistent with variety of bycatch reduction plans that had flatfish discards have not exceeded 5% of fishing, a catcher vessel must retain all fish current Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions. been discussed by the Council since 1993. the total groundfish catch in any GOA of that species brought onboard the vessel In addition, the Council recognizes the While other alternatives were discussed, groundfish fishery (as of 2008). GOA and a catcher/processor must make and potential risk of preemption of certain primary focus was given to these three Amendment 72 later required annual review retain a primary product from all fish of that existing GOA groundfish fisheries which alternative programs: of discards of shallow-water flatfish in the species brought onboard the vessel. When could occur in response to economic GOA groundfish fisheries. In 2018, discards 1) Individual fishing quotas for groundfish shallow-water flatfish are closed to directed incentives displacing capacity and effort of shallow-water rockfish accounted for species; fishing, a catcher vessel must retain all from BSAI IR/IU fisheries. This risk can be 0.06% of the total GOA groundfish catch. shallow-water flatfish up to the maximum minimized if substantially equivalent IR/IU 2) A “Harvest Priority” program that would retainable amount (MRA), and a catcher/ regulations are simultaneously implemented provide for quota set-asides for vessels processor must make and retain a primary for the GOA. exhibiting low bycatch rates of non- product from all fish of that species brought target species; The IR/IU program was intended to improve onboard the vessel up to the point that the utilization and effective control/reduction of 3) Retention and utilization mandates, round weight equivalent of primary products bycatch and discards in the fisheries off with built-in incentives for fishing onboard equals the MRA for that species. Alaska to address the following problems: operations to avoid catch of unwanted species. 1) Bycatch and discard loss of groundfish, crab, herring, salmon, and other non- The analysis determined that pollock, target species; Pacific cod, and shallow water flatfish represent approximately 33% of the total 2) Economic loss and waste associated with the discard mortality of target discards of allocated groundfish in the GOA species harvested but not retained for groundfish fisheries. The Council concluded economic reasons; that by requiring 100% retention of these three species, initially pollock and Pacific
57 Discards Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 50 Halibut Donation Program April 1997 March 4, 1998 June 12, 1998 July 13, 1998 – 63 FR 10583 63 FR 32144 December 31,
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Approximately 6,500 metric tons of halibut The Council discourages the discard of This action authorized the voluntary Waste of salmon and halibut has been were taken incidentally to the Alaska incidental catches of fish, as it is wasteful. donation of Pacific halibut taken as bycatch reduced by allowing bycatch to be donated groundfish fisheries during 1999. Vessels Managing halibut incidentally caught in the in specified groundfish trawl fisheries off to food banks. The food banks in turn participating in these fisheries typically use groundfish fisheries as a prohibited species Alaska to economically disadvantaged distribute the fish to needy people in the trawl, hook-and-line, or pot gear, with trawl is an appropriate short-term bycatch individuals. Under the prohibited species northwestern United States. Many fishing gear accounting for most of the groundfish measure. Except under the prohibited donation program, NMFS expanded the companies voluntarily participate in the catch and halibut bycatch. A portion of this species donation program, retention of existing salmon donation program to also donation program. In 2015, 482,165 pounds bycatch is landed dead at shoreside prohibited species captured while authorize distributions by tax-exempt of PSC salmon and 48,285 pounds of PSC processing facilities and must be returned to harvesting groundfish is prohibited to organizations through a NMFS-authorized halibut were distributed. Of that, 182,000 Federal waters for disposal as a prohibited prevent covert targeting on these species. distributor. The program is limited to dead pounds were donated to Alaska, bring the species. The Council's intent was to: The prohibition removes the incentive that halibut landed by trawl catcher vessels to three-year total to over 630,000 pounds. groundfish fishermen might otherwise have shoreside processors. Currently, SeaShare is the only organization 1) Reduce regulatory discards and protein to target on the relatively high valued authorized by NMFS to retain and distribute waste in the groundfish trawl fisheries; prohibited species, and thereby, results in a PSC fish for hunger relief. 2) Provide additional opportunity to collect lower incidental catch. It also eliminates the biological samples or scientific data; market competition that might otherwise and exist between domestic halibut fishermen and groundfish fishermen who might land 3) Support an industry initiative to reduce halibut in the absence of the prohibition. regulatory discards and provided a healthy alternative to the diets of needy A 20-page EA/RIR (Secretarial review draft people. dated September 12, 1997) determined that no changes in fishing activities that would The purpose of this amendment was to reduce the waste of dead, but wholesome, affect the amount of groundfish harvested nor the amount of halibut taken as bycatch fish, and in doing so provide public benefit in the Alaska trawl fisheries was expected by allowing fish that would otherwise be by the preferred alternative. The total discarded to be retained for processing and burden to processors resulting from the delivery to food bank organizations. Any preferred alternative could not be estimated costs associated with this recommended because participation would be voluntary; action would be borne by the voluntarily however, based on information acquired participating shore side processors and the through the salmon donation plan, costs NMFS authorized distributor. were estimated at approximately 20 cents per pound for donated halibut.
Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Photo courtesy of Patrick Sullivan 58 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 51 Inshore/Offshore III June 1998 October 29, 1998 January 25, 1999 January 20, 1999 63 FR 57996 64 FR 3653
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The TACs for pollock and Pacific cod in the A 299-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated As adopted by the Council in June 1998, This amendment continued the pollock and GOA and for pollock in the BSAI and have December 9, 1998) was prepared for Amendment 51 re-established, without cod allocations in the Gulf as they were been allocated between the inshore and Amendments 51/51. Five alternatives were change, the current inshore/offshore established in 1992. Industry and offshore components of the groundfish considered, including: the no action allocation regime in the GOA through community stability have been maintained fisheries since 1992. Amendments 51/51 alternative; a rollover of the existing inshore/ December 31, 2001. The amendment through the approval of this amendment. were proposed to extend the provisions of offshore program; several options to revise maintains the current allocation: 100% of Amendment 62 indefinitely extended the Amendment 40 to the GOA FMP and the BSAI pollock processing inshore/ the pollock TAC to the inshore component, GOA allocation, to be consistent with the Amendment 38 to the BSAI FMP, which offshore percentages; a set-aside for and 90% of the Pacific cod TAC to the duration of the BSAI allocations under the expired on December 31, 1998. catcher vessels less than 125' length inshore component and 10% to the offshore AFA. Amendments 40 and 38 previously overall; and a set-aside for catcher vessels component. extended GOA Amendment 23 and BSAI less than 155' length overall. The Council’s Amendment 18, respectively. The original preferred alternative for the GOA was to amendments set processor allocations of maintain the current allocations of 90% the pollock and Pacific cod processor Pacific cod and 100% pollock to the inshore allocations in the GOA and pollock TAC in sector. the BSAI, as a response to an early closure in 1989 when several catcher/processors harvested substantial amounts of pollock in the BSAI and GOA and forced an early closure of the GOA pollock fishery. The amendments allocated 35% to the inshore and 65% to the offshore processing sector of the BSAI pollock fishery, and allocated 90% of the cod and 100% of the pollock to the inshore processing sector in the GOA.
Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus). Photo courtesy of Alaska Groundfish Data Bank.
59 Limited Entry Administrative
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective
52 Vessel Registration Program December 1997 July 21, 1998 September 11, 1998 September 8, 1998 63 FR 39065 63 FR 48641 (Implemented as Regulatory Amendment)
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Management of the inshore pollock and A 25-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft Under a vessel registration program, NMFS The vessel registration program for “at risk” Pacific cod fisheries of the Western and dated January 1998) was prepared for this would establish criteria to determine which fisheries that met certain criteria was tabled Central (W/C) Regulatory Area of the GOA amendment. Two complementary fisheries would require registration. Based because of changes in the fisheries as a has become increasingly difficult. The risk of management actions were considered by on these criteria, NMFS would create a result of the American Fisheries Act and harvest overruns has grown due to TAC the Council, in addition to the status quo roster of “registration fisheries” that would Amendment 61. amounts that are small relative to the alternative. The analysis concluded that the be announced at the beginning of each year potential fishing effort. The problem has fleet as a whole would benefit if NMFS is and supplemented as necessary on an been most acute in the Western Regulatory able to manage “at risk” fisheries so that inseason basis throughout the year. Criteria Area due to the constant potential pressure quotas are more fully harvested and the for establishing a registration requirement that numerous large catcher vessels based overhead costs associated with re-crewing for a fishery could include: in the Bering Sea (BS) could cross into the and transiting to the fishing grounds for 1) The size of the TAC amount or PSC GOA to participate in pollock and Pacific short term “mop-up” openings could be limit specified for the fishery relative to cod openings that have relatively small avoided. A registration requirement would the degree of interest in that fishery; TACs. NMFS currently lacks a pre-season reduce the flexibility of vessel operators to vessel registration program that could enter and leave fisheries at will. In some 2) A fishery for which the TAC or PSC gauge potential effort in these fisheries prior cases, this could pose costs for certain limit was exceeded by a significant to openings, and inseason catch information operations if they realize mid-course that amount in the previous year and the in these fisheries is neither timely nor they would prefer to be participating in a current year’s quota and expected accurate enough to allow adequate short-term fishery for which they have not effort are similar; management. registered. Nevertheless, while a 3) A fishery for which the registration requirement for certain “at risk” The objective of Amendment 52 was to above two criteria may fisheries will increase the constraints on the create a vessel registration program to not apply but an fleet, it will serve to increase the ability of require vessels to announce their NMFS to manage such fisheries to obtain expanded interest has participation in either the BSAI or GOA developed inseason; optimum yield and provide the greatest net pollock and Pacific cod fisheries before the and benefit to the nation. fishery commenced. This action is 4) A “mop-up” fishery. necessary to prevent unexpected shifts of fishing effort between BSAI and GOA Vessel operators would be fisheries that can lead to overharvesting the required to register with total allowable catch (TAC) in the Western NMFS a certain number of and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. days before beginning directed fishing in a registration fishery and penalties would be established for non- compliance.
Fishing vessels in Kodiak harbor. Photo courtesy of Mark Fina. 60 Discards
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Date 53 Full Retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish February 2003 January 21, 2004 November 23, 2004 December 23, 2004 69 FR 2875 69 FR 68095 (Implemented as Regulatory Amendment)
Purpose and Need whether current MRBs are the analysis (Secretarial review draft dated reported; appropriate levels for DSR in the SEO; December 2003), to include two new 3) Limit the amount of DSR that may be In September 1997, the Council initiated an alternatives that were intended to meet the 2) To minimize waste to the extent sold to an amount that is no more than analysis of a groundfish proposal submitted Council’s objective for enhanced accounting practicable while meeting these goals; 10 percent of other retained catch of by the ADF&G to require full retention of of DSR mortality under existing statutory halibut; Demersal Shelf Rockfish (DSR) in GOA 3) To avoid either increasing incentives to authority. The alternative adopted is similar Regulatory Area 650 (east of 140° W target on DSR or increasing incentives to the one previously adopted, except that 4) Fishermen may do one or all of the longitude) to reduce waste and enhance to discard DSR that is caught in excess retained amounts of DSR that are over the following with amounts of DSR that are estimates of total removals of the species of the amount that can legally be sold specified sale limits would not be allowed to in excess of the amount that may be for stock assessment purposes. The GOA for profit; and enter the stream of commerce. sold: a. retain amounts of DSR that are Groundfish Plan Team (Team) had in excess of the amount that may be 4) To maintain a consistent approach identified a high level of unreported Regulation Summary sold for personal use; or b. donate mortality of DSR associated with the halibut within State and Federal regulations Following Council action, it was determined amounts of DSR that are in excess of fixed gear fishery and associated that govern the retention and that an FMP amendment was not necessary the amount that may be sold to a state- uncertainty in estimating this mortality in the disposition of DSR. to implement this action, and it proceeded recognized charity that provides meals annual DSR stock assessment. The Analysis as a regulatory amendment only. Under the for the maximum retainable bycatch (MRB) rate for action, commercial fixed gear fishermen are DSR limits fishermen to 10% by weight of A 28-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft Results required to bring to shore all landed DSR DSR against their halibut fixed gear harvest. dated September 1999) was prepared for and have such fish counted by fishery Full retention of DSR improved data Any poundage in excess of the 10% MRB this amendment. Three separate managers. To reduce bycatch and waste collection of incidental catch of DSR and limit is discarded (dead) at sea. Anecdotal management actions were considered. Five and reduce the risk of overfishing, an increased vessel compliance. Full retention information from commercial fishermen alternatives including the status quo were accurate accounting system is needed to also reduced waste since many rockfish suggested that the 10% MRB limit for DSR considered for each action. calculate total bycatch mortality of DSR and suffer internal injuries (barotrauma) when taken during the directed halibut fixed gear to provide information for a future revision to they are brought to the surface and do not fishery is inadequate and that for some trips The draft proposed rule would have the DSR MRB limit. The action enhanced the bycatch level may be much higher than required full retention of DSR and allowed survive. In addition, full retention of DSR management of DSR within its TAC without: allowed the Office of Law Enforcement the 10% MRB limit. Because they would be fishermen to sell amounts of retained DSR 1) encouraging “topping off” with bycatch (OLE) time to pursue other priorities rather subject to fines by violating the MRB, the that were less than or equal to specified species, and 2) wasting the resource. than pursuing MRB overages. Finally, the Team and subsequently the Council limits of other retained catch. DSR in excess of those limits could be: 1) sold, with full retention requirement for DSR made it became concerned that many fishermen Regulations requiring full retention of DSR proceeds from the sale relinquished to the easier for vessel operators to understand may not land or report such overages. in the fixed gear fisheries in GOA State, or 2) retained and used for personal and comply with the rockfish retention Regulatory Area 650: The main goals of this amendment were: use or donation; but not traded, bartered or regulations. sold. This draft proposed rule was never 1) Eliminate the maximum retainable 1) To improve data collection on the published, because NMFS determined that bycatch (MRB) limit for DSR; incidental catch of DSR in the halibut it did not have the authority under the and groundfish hook-and-line fisheries 2) Require that all DSR caught by Magnuson-Stevens Act to regulate the in the SEO in order to more accurately Federally-permitted vessels using fixed proceeds from the sale of fish under the first estimate DSR fishing mortality, improve gear in the Southeast Outside District option. Subsequently, NMFS amended the DSR stock assessments, and evaluate be retained, landed, weighed and
61 IFQ Program
Individual Fishing Quota Indirect Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 54 October 1998 October 12, 2001 April 29, 2002 May 29, 2002 Ownership and Use Caps 66 FR 52090 67 FR 20915
Purpose and Need Analysis percentage of ownership of the vessel of 1½ percent based on 1996 QS by the non-individual entity. pools. This amendment also revised During the 1995-97 IFQ seasons, NMFS A 20-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review the halibut use limits to be expressed 2) Revise the definition of “a change in the broadly interpreted the FMP and regulatory draft dated January 2001) was prepared for as a fixed number of QS units rather corporation or partnership” in the FMPs language to allow persons holding initial Amendment 54. Originally, five actions were than as a percentage, in order to to include language specific to estates. allocation QS to hire skippers to fish their proposed in this analysis. One, which dealt provide QS holders with a more stable Estates are included under the IFQ on vessels owned by other “persons,” with a leasing provision, was removed at reference for measuring their holdings definition of the term “Person” in the provided that the QS holder could show a final action. Another action allowed QS against area use caps. Sablefish IFQ FMPs and 50 CFR 679.2 as corporate association to the owner of the holders to provide NMFS/RAM with the use limits are set in the FMPs. “corporations, partnerships, vessel. This policy allows individual QS name of an immediate family member as a Consequently, the regulatory change to associations, or other entities.” The holders to hire skippers to fish their IFQ on beneficiary to whom the existing the halibut use limits could not at the FMPs and IFQ implementing vessels owned by corporations or survivorship transfer privileges will be same time change the calculation of regulations require that upon any partnerships in which the individual QS granted in the absence of a surviving sablefish use limits to a fixed number of change in a corporation, partnership, or holders are shareholders or partners. The spouse (regulatory amendment). Ultimately, QS units for consistency. This FMP other entity that holds QS the QS policy also allows corporations or three separate management actions were amendment would affect that revision transfer to a qualified individual. A partnerships holding QS to fish the considered in the FMP amendment. One to calculate the sablefish in QS units “change” in a corporation, partnership, collectively held QS on a vessel owned by status quo and one proposed alternative based on the appropriate percentage of or other entity is defined as the addition individuals who are shareholders or were considered for each action. the 1996 QS pools. This change would of a shareholder or partner to the partners in the corporation or partnership. standardize the application of use caps corporation, partnership, or collective At the beginning of the 1997 IFQ season, Regulation Summary for both halibut and sablefish fisheries entity. This definition is not applicable NMFS announced to the IFQ fleet that this and would provide the same level of The three actions adopted in plan to estates, because estates are not policy of broadly interpreting the term predictability for sablefish QS holdings amendment were: collective entities which may acquire “person” as it pertains to IFQ hired skipper as currently exists for halibut QS. provisions would continue until the Council 1) Revise the FMP to allow a QS holder’s additional shareholders, partners, or could clarify its original intent. Two other association to a vessel owner, through members. Nevertheless, because an Results clarifying FMP language changes were also corporate or other collective ties, to estate’s QS would not automatically This amendment codified the existing included in this action. substitute for the QS holder’s vessel transfer to an heir once the estate is management policy and methodology that ownership per se for purposes of hiring probated, the FMPs and IFQ was being employed by NMFS at the time a skipper to fish the QS holder’s IFQ. regulations need to define the point at to determine the ownership interest a An individual who has an ownership which estates must transfer their QS to shareholder had in a vessel. Furthermore, it interest in a non-individual entity is a qualified individual. accommodated the fact that many people allowed to employ a hired master on a 3) Change sablefish use limits from move vessel ownership to limited liability vessel owned by that entity, as long as percentages of the total number of QS companies to protect personal assets. the individual maintains the minimum units in the QS pool for each area to a Since 2002, halibut harvest by hired 20% ownership interest requirement in specific number of QS units. In June masters has been between 40-50%, and the vessel. An individual's interest in a 1996, the Council approved a sablefish harvest between 55-60%. The vessel is determined by the percentage regulatory amendment to increase the hired-master provision was further revised ownership by the individual of a non- Bering Sea (Area 4) halibut use caps by Amendment 67 in 2007. individual entity that has an ownership from ½ percent to the QS equivalents interest in the vessel multiplied by the 62 Habitat Conservation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 55 Define Essential Fish Habitat June 1998 October 22, 1998 April 26, 1999 January 20, 1999 63 FR 56601 64 FR 20216
Purpose and Need The purpose of this amendment was to Regulation Summary Results provide for improved long-term productivity The Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended of the fisheries, to allow NMFS and the The alternative adopted and approved After the amendment was approved in in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Council to be more proactive in protecting defined EFH as all habitat within a general 1999, NMFS was sued by a coalition of Congress recognized that one of the habitat areas, and alert other federal and distribution for a species life stage, for all plaintiffs (Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, greatest long-term threats to the viability of state agencies about areas of concern. information levels and under all stock Center for Marine Conservation, National commercial and recreational fisheries is the Federal agencies engaging in activities that conditions. A general distribution area is a Audubon Society, and others) who alleged continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and may adversely affect EFH must consult with subset of a species range. For any species that the EFH amendment failed to meet other aquatic habitats. Therefore, the new NMFS regarding those activities. NMFS listed under the Endangered Species Act, statutory requirements (did not analyze the Act mandated that any FMP must include a must, and the Council may, make EFH includes all areas identified as "critical effects of fishing on habitat and did not provision to describe and identify essential suggestions on how to mitigate any habitat". EFH was described in text, tables, impose practicable measures to minimize fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, minimize potential habitat damage. The Council will and maps. Habitat areas of particular impacts of fishing gear) and violated the to the extent practicable adverse effects on be required to comment on any project that concern (HAPC) were identified as living National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). such habitat caused by fishing, and identify may adversely affect salmon habitat or substrates in shallow and deep waters, and In September 2000, the US District Court other actions to encourage the conservation habitat of any other anadromous fish (smelt, freshwater habitats used by anadromous decision upheld NMFS’ approval of the EFH and enhancement of such habitat. Essential steelhead, etc.). fish. HAPC is defined on the basis of its amendments, but ruled that the EA violated fish habitat has been broadly defined by the ecological importance, sensitivity, exposure, NEPA. The court ordered NMFS to Act to include “those waters and substrate Analysis and rarity of the habitat. The amendment complete an EIS, and HAPCs were later necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, was approved on January 20, 1999. addressed under Amendments GOA A 364-page EA (final draft dated January feeding, or growth to maturity”. All eight Amendments 65/73. The Council further 1999) and a background assessment report regional councils were required to amend addressed EFH in GOA Amendments 90 were prepared for this amendment. Three their fishery management plans by October and 105. alternatives including the status quo were 1998 to: considered. The action alternative that was • identify and describe EFH for species not chosen would have defined EFH only as managed under a fishery management areas of high concentration for each life plan; stage. The alternative chosen was more conservative in that defining a larger area • describe adverse impacts to that habitat may offer more protection. from fishing activities and non-fishing activities;
• recommend conservation and enhancement measures necessary to help minimize impacts, protect, and restore that habitat; and
• include conservation and enhancement measures necessary to minimize to the extent practicable, adverse impacts from fishing on EFH. Cloud sponge (Aphrocallistes vastus) with euphausiids. 63 Catch Limits
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 56 Revise Overfishing Definitions June 1998 August 4, 1997 May 1, 1998 January 27, 1999 62 FR 41907 63 FR 24218
Purpose and Need default fishing mortality rate value from Analysis F30% to the more conservative estimate of The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson- F35%. A 24-page EA (final draft dated June 23, Stevens Act (MSA) defined the terms 1998) was prepared for this amendment. “overfishing” and “overfished” to mean a Tiers used to determine ABC and OFL for BSAI groundfish stocks under Amendment 56. Two alternatives including the status quo (1) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B and B and reliable pdf of F . rate or level of fishing mortality that MSY MSY were considered. The alternative chosen 1a) Stock status: B/BMSY > 1 jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to was more conservative in that it consistently FOFL = mA , the arithmetic mean of the pdf produce the maximum sustainable yield FABC ≤ mH , the harmonic mean of the pdf treats MSY as a limit rather than a target. (MSY) on a continuing basis. Additionally, it 1b) Stock status: a < B/BMSY ≤ 1 required that all FMPs specify objective and FOFL = mA × (B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) Regulation Summary measurable criteria for identifying when the FABC ≤ mH × (B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) Amendment 56 revised the ABC and fishery is overfished and, in the case of a 1c) Stock status: B/BMSY ≤ α overfishing definitions set under fishery which is approaching an overfished FOFL = 0 F = 0 Amendment 44 to be more precautionary. condition or is overfished, contain ABC (2) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B, BMSY , FMSY , F35% , and F40% . Like Amendment 44, the maximum conservation and management measures to 2a) Stock status: B/BMSY > 1 allowable rates are prescribed through a set prevent overfishing and rebuild the fishery. FOFL = FMSY of six tiers which are listed below in The MSA further required regional fishery FABC ≤ FMSY × (F40% /F35%) descending order of preference, 2b) Stock status: α < B/B ≤ 1 management councils to submit MSY corresponding to descending order of F = F × (B/B - α)/(1 - α) amendments, by October 11, 1998, that OFL MSY MSY information availability. For most tiers, ABC FABC ≤ FMSY × (F40% /F35%)×(B/BMSY - α)/(1 - α) would bring fishery management plans into is based on F40%, which is the fishing compliance. 2c) Stock status: B/BMSY ≤ α FOFL = 0 mortality rate associated with an equilibrium The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the revised FABC = 0 level of spawning per recruit (SPR) equal to guidelines indicate that MSY, treated as a (3) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B, B40% , F35% , and F40%. 40% of the equilibrium level of spawning per target strategy under the current FMP 3a) Stock status: B/B40% > 1 recruit in the absence of any fishing. To F = F definition of overfishing, should represent a OFL 35% further minimize the possibility of catches F ≤ F ABC 40% jeopardizing a stock’s long-term limit rather than a target. This means that 3b) Stock status: α < B/B ≤ 1 40% productivity, there is a buffer established “limit” harvest strategies (such as the rules FOFL = F35% × (B/B40% - α)/(1 - α) used to specify overfishing levels [OFL]) FABC ≤ F40% × (B/B40% - α)/(1 - α) between ABC and OFL. Amendment 56 should result in a long-term average catch 3c) Stock status: B/B40% ≤ α modified the OFL definition from F30% to that approximates MSY, and that “target” FOFL = 0 F35% for stocks having tiers 2-4 harvest strategies (such as the rules used FABC = 0 information. to specify ABC) should result in catches that (4) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B, F35% , and F40% . F = F are substantially more conservative than the OFL 35% Results FABC ≤ F40% limit. Because tiers 2-4 of the current FMP (5) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B and natural mortality rate M. These definitions are currently used in the definition could be interpreted as treating FOFL = M annual catch limit specifications process. MSY as a target rather than as a limit, FABC ≤ 0.75 × M Amendment 56 in both the GOA and the (6) Information available: Reliable catch history from 1978 through 1995. BSAI revised tiers 2-4 by changing the OFL= the average catch from 1978 through 1995, unless an alternative value is established by the SSC on the basis of the best available scientific information
64 Limited Entry
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 57 Moratorium Extensions June 1998 November 13, 1998 January 25, 1999 January 19, 1999 63 FR 63442 64 FR 3651
Purpose and Need based, limited access system. Without a exacerbate overcapitalization and the race Results moratorium, the Council feared that for fish, the analysis determined that the no In 1987, concerned with excess harvesting potentially unlimited new entry into the action alternative was inconsistent with the As anticipated, the LLP to limit entry into the capacity in the groundfish, crab, and halibut fishery would exacerbate overcapitalization overall intent of comprehensive groundfish and crab fisheries off of Alaska fisheries of the BSAI and GOA, the Council and hinder the ultimate development of a rationalization. The preferred alternative (Amendment 41) went into effect January 1, established a committee to examine the successful Comprehensive Rationalization extended the moratorium for one year, 2000, effectively replacing the Vessel problem of overcapitalization. Upon Plan. allowing time for NMFS to complete the Moratorium Program (the authorization for conclusion that allocation conflicts and design and implementation of the LLP. the LLP is contained in GOA Amendment overcapitalization would worsen under the The original amendments instituting the 58/BSAI Amendment 60/BSAI Crab current open access system, the committee moratorium (Vessel Moratorium Program) Regulation Summary Amendment 10). For general licenses, the recommended a limited access were scheduled to expire on December 31, base qualifying period established was The final rule simply extended the Vessel management approach for these three 1998. The License Limitation Program January 1, 1988, through June 27, 1992, Moratorium Program and the existing fisheries. Concerned with the potential for (GOA Amendment 41), intended to replace approximately four months longer than the moratorium permits through December 31, speculative entry into the fisheries during the Vessel Moratorium Program, would not moratorium qualification period, in order to 1999. The regulation also provided that no discussions of management alternatives, be in effect until January 1, 2000. be consistent with the Council’s published person could apply for a new moratorium the Council adopted Amendment 28 to the Therefore, regulatory action was necessary cutoff date for qualification under the permit after the original moratorium program GOA FMP and 23 to the BSAI FMP, which to extend the moratorium in order to Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. The expiration date of December 31, 1998, required a moratorium permit for vessels eliminate the one-year lag time between the LLP also required an area endorsement for unless the application was based on a within specific vessel categories that expiration of the moratorium and the the BS, AI or the GOA, to provide for moratorium qualification that was used as a harvest groundfish and BSAI crab beginning of the LLP. present participation in the fisheries (the basis for obtaining a moratorium permit resources off Alaska. Generally, a vessel qualifying period being January 1, 1992 Analysis issued on or before that date. qualified for a moratorium permit if it made a through June 17, 1995). The moratorium legal landing of any moratorium species A 10-page RIR (final draft dated August established by Amendments 28 (GOA) and during the qualifying period of January 1, 1998) was prepared for Amendments 57 for 23 (BSAI) and extended by Amendments 57 1988 through February 9, 1992. the GOA groundfish FMP, Amendment 57 (GOA), 59 (BSAI groundfish), and 9 (BSAI for the BSAI groundfish FMP, and crab) limited speculative entry into the The purpose of Amendments 28 (GOA) and Amendment 9 for the BSAI crab FMP. Two fisheries while the LLP was being 23 (BSAI) was to provide for an interim alternatives were considered: 1) allowing developed and approved, and kept the measure to slow significant increases in the the Vessel Moratorium Program to expire overcapitalization situation from worsening. harvesting capacity of the groundfish and (no action alternative), and 2) extending the crab fishing fleets until additional measures, program for one year. The analysis such as the License Limitation Program determined that although all the impacts of (LLP) could be implemented. The LLP was a one-year lapse between the moratorium initiated as part of a developing program and the LLP were not known, one Comprehensive Rationalization Plan potentially significant impact could be intended to resolve the overall issue of speculative entry into the affected fisheries overcapitalization on a long-term basis, and by persons who would not qualify to fish transition the fisheries from an open access under the moratorium program or the LLP. management system to a more market- Because allowing new entry would Buoys hanging on vessel. Photo courtesy of Herman Savikko. 65 Limited Entry
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Adjustments to the License Limitation October 1998 March 30, 2001 September 24, 2001 January 1, 2002 58 66 FR 17397 66 FR 48813 Program
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results Following the approval of the original A 203-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated Changes adopted and approved under this Amendment 58 provided further capacity License Limitation Program (LLP) in July 1999) was prepared for these amendment included: restrictions in the groundfish fisheries. Amendment 41, industry members amendments. Six proposed actions were requested that the Council revise several of analyzed along with the status quo for each 1) a requirement that the vessel itself the provisions and qualification criteria, alternative, and the five changes outlined would be a specific characteristic of the including adding a recent participation above were adopted. The change that was license and could not be severed (i.e., criteria for crab. GOA Amendment 58, BSAI not approved would have clarified the the license could not be used on any Amendment 60, and BSAI Crab Council’s intent that catch history transfers other vessel); Amendment 10 encompass a package of be recognized, except those occurring after changes focusing primarily on further June 17, 1995, and where the owner of the 2) license designations for the type of capacity reductions and transferability vessel at that time was unable to document gear authorized to harvest LLP restrictions, to tighten up the LLP before a vessel under Chapter 121, Title 46, groundfish as either "trawl" or "non- implementation. U.S.C. NOAA General Counsel advised the trawl" gear (or both); Council that this action may violate foreign 3) the addition of a crab recency reciprocity agreements listed in the requirement which requires one landing Magnuson-Stevens Act; therefore, the during 1/1/96-2/7/98 in addition to the Council decided not to proceed with this proposed action. general license and area endorsement qualifications; and 4) allowance of limited processing (1 mt) for vessels <60' LOA with catcher vessel designations.
Vessels in Western Gulf. Photo courtesy of Karla Bush.
66 Habitat Conservation Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 59 Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve June 1998 June 26, 2000 November 9, 2000 December 11, 2000 65 FR 39342 65 FR 67305 Corrected: January 31, 2001 66 FR 8372 Purpose and Need pinnacles. Juvenile rockfishes occur in great Analysis Results abundance at the tops of the pinnacles, as The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to do Puget Sound rockfish (S. emphaeus), a A 20-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated The Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve was identify, conserve, and enhance essential small rockfish that is important prey for November 1999) was prepared for this implemented in 2000. Regulations prohibit fish habitat is regarded as an important tool other rockfish and lingcod. Dense amendment. Two alternatives including the the use of all recreational and commercial for sustainable fisheries and healthy assemblages of sessile invertebrates, status quo were considered. The action fishing gear (except pelagic troll gear used ecosystems. This mandate recognizes the including Metridium and other anenomes, alternative considered two options: Option 1 for salmon), and anchoring by fishing role of the ecosystem and identifies EFH as tunicates and hydrocorals provide cover for - close the pinnacles area to fishing for all vessels within a 10.3 km2 (2.5 n.mi.2) the waters and substrate necessary to fish these small fishes. Adult lingcod utilize the federally-managed species, and anchoring rectangular area encompassing the for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth tops of the pinnacles as seasonal feeding by all fishing vessels subject to federal pinnacles. This Marine Protected Area to maturity. The Sitka Pinnacles area platforms after spawning, occurring in fisheries jurisdiction; and Option 2 (MPA) appears to be effective at protecting provides habitat for a variety of species and extremely dense aggregations during the (preferred)- close the pinnacles area to a post-spawning aggregation of lingcod, is extremely productive, in part due to its late spring and early summer. The small fishing and anchoring by commercial although comprehensive surveys of the physical oceanography. Closure of this area size of the area and high density and groundfish fishing vessels and commercial lingcod population are still lacking. Closure will allow a vital ecosystem to be maintained feeding behavior of the lingcod make them and sport halibut fishing vessels. of this area is supported by the local fleet of in an area surrounded by heavy fishing extremely susceptible to fishing pressure. In commercial, charter, sport, and subsistence pressure. The closure would also recognize addition to fish living directly on the habitat Regulation Summary fishermen. Compliance with the MPA the fragile nature of this rare habitat, and or using the pinnacles and associated fauna Amendment 59 would prohibit fishing in an regulations appears to be high. would prevent the harvest or bycatch of for cover, there are large schools of pelagic area containing important fish habitat, species that reside there during critical fishes that congregate in the water column totaling 2.5 square nautical miles, off Cape portions or their life history. above the pinnacles. These include black Edgecumbe near Sitka, Alaska. This The boulder field at the base of the (S. melanops), yellowtail (S. flavidus), dusky amendment closes this area to groundfish pinnacles provides important refuge for (S. ciliatus) and widow (S. entomelas) fishing and anchoring by commercial adult fishes including large numbers of rockfishes that feed on the plankton in the groundfish vessels, to halibut fishing and yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), water column. anchoring by IFQ halibut fishing vessels, to tiger rockfish (S. nigrocinctus), prowfish The State of Alaska had already sport fishing for halibut, and to anchoring by (Zaprora silenus) and lingcod (Ophiodon implemented a prohibition on fishing for any vessel if halibut is on board. The area is elongatus) as well as octopus. Aggregations lingcod and rockfish within the prescribed defined by a square, with lines connecting of small deep-water rockfishes occur here area. The purpose of the proposed the following points in a clockwise manner: as well, including sharpchin (S. zacentrus), amendment would be to mirror this 56°55.5' N L following, 135°54' W L pygmy rockfish (S. wilsoni), and redstripe regulation for federally managed fisheries, clockwise 56°57' N Latitude.,135°54' W rockfish (S. proriger). Besides harboring and make the closure more comprehensive. Longitude; 56°57' N Latitude,135°57' W adult fishes, the boulder field is also used Longitude; 56°55.5' N Latitude, 135°57' W as spawning habitat by lingcod. The sides Longitude. and tops of the pinnacles are comprised of columnar basalt and Primnoa gorgonians provide ecologically important biogenic habitat for fishes on the steep walls of the Map of Pinnacle closure area. Photo courtesy of ADF&G.
67 Habitat Conservation Prohibited Species Catch Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 60 Prohibition of Non-pelagic Trawl Gear in September 2000 June 13, 2002 November 27, 2002 December 27, 2002 Cook Inlet 67 FR 40680 67 FR 70859
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
This action is designed to comply with the A 60 page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated The proposed action would prohibit the use Through the direct protection provided by Magnuson-Stevens Act, which emphasizes March 2001) was prepared for this of non-pelagic trawl gear in the EEZ of the prohibition, crab stocks in Cook Inlet are the importance of reducing bycatch to amendment. Seven alternatives were Cook Inlet in an area north of a line from less affected by the activity of the maintain sustainable fisheries. National considered, including: the no action Cape Douglas (58°51.10′ N. lat.) to Point groundfish trawl fleet than they would be in Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act alternative; prohibiting non-pelagic trawls in Adam (59°15.27′ N. lat.). the absence of the measure. Nevertheless, mandates that conservation and Federal waters of Cook Inlet (preferred); it is not well understood how important trawl management measures shall minimize deferring management of federal waters of bycatch is relative to other factors in the bycatch, to the extent practicable, and shall Cook Inlet to the State of Alaska; removing environment that may be limiting recovery of minimize mortality of bycatch where bycatch waters of Cook Inlet from the Gulf of Alaska the stocks and resumption of stable and cannot be avoided (Section 301(a)(9)). FMP; requiring observer coverage in profitable Cook Inlet crab fisheries. Federal waters of Cook Inlet; The objective of Amendment 60 is to reduce implementation of time and area closures; bycatch of crab in the exclusive economic and requiring an ADF&G Commissioner’s zone (EEZ) of Cook Inlet in the GOA Permit. groundfish fishery. This amendment would prevent potential adverse effects of non- pelagic trawl crab bycatch on low populations of Tanner and red king crab stocks in Cook Inlet. Although no crab fisheries existed in Cook Inlet and non- pelagic trawling did not occur, this proposed action would prevent the development of a non-pelagic fishery in an area that has historically supported a productive crab fishery. This action is a proactive measure to limit potential crab bycatch from non-pelagic fisheries that may develop in the future. The proposed measure would reduce potential bycatch on crab resources currently at relatively low abundance, mirror existing regulations in State waters of Cook Inlet, and minimize potential adverse effects of non-pelagic trawl gear on the benthic habitat for crab and other groundfish stocks.
Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi). Photo courtesy of Teresa Peterson/Dave Kubiak. 68 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 61 American Fisheries Act Sideboards June 1999 December 17, 2001 December 30, 2002 January 29, 66 FR 65028 67 FR 79692 2003 – December 31, 2008
Purpose and Need further protect non-AFA fisheries from Regulation Summary Results adverse impacts resulting from the AFA and In October 1998 the U.S. Congress passed pollock fishery cooperatives. In addition to Regulations relevant to the GOA The amendment implemented sideboards. the American Fisheries Act to achieve the implementing the prescribed portions of the established the harvesting sideboard On March 11, 2019, a regulation was following primary objectives: AFA, Amendment 61 contains various amounts of non-pollock groundfish (based implemented that modified regulations for specific protective measures developed by on historical share) and halibut prohibited non-exempt AFA catcher vessels operating 1) remove excess capacity in the offshore the Council which limit the pollock industry’s species catch sideboard limits for AFA trawl in the GOA subject to sideboard limits (84 BSAI pollock sector through the participation in other fisheries - these are catcher vessels in the GOA. Certain AFA FR 2723). In the GOA, many of the retirement of 9 factory trawlers (through referred to as ‘sideboards’. catcher vessels that had relatively low BS sideboard limits for non-exempt AFA a combination of appropriated funding pollock fishing history and could catcher vessels were insufficient to support and a loan to the onshore sector); Analysis demonstrate a significant economic a directed fishery and thus were not open dependence in the GOA were exempt from for directed fishing. This regulatory change The original analysis for Amendment 61, 2) establish U.S. ownership requirements GOA sideboards. Regulations also included was necessary to streamline and simplify upon which the emergency rules are based, for the harvest sector vessels; a prohibition for listed AFA catcher/ management of these GOA groundfish is 320 pages plus several appendices. That processors from fishing in the GOA. sideboard limits as part of the annual GOA 3) establish specific allocations of the BSAI analysis focuses on alternatives for pollock quota as follows - 10% to the establishing sideboard limits for the AFA These regulations also re-established the western Alaska CDQ program, with the harvesters and processors, and also current inshore/offshore allocation regime in remainder allocated 50% to the examines alternatives for the structure of the GOA (Amendment 51) through onshore sector, 40% to the offshore inshore sector co-ops (the relationship December 2004, which were extended sector, and 10% to the mothership between harvest vessels and the shore indefinitely through Amendment 62. sector; plants to which they deliver pollock). Primarily, the alternatives analyzed cover a 4) identify the specific vessels and wide range of options for determining the processors eligible to participate in the amount of the sideboard limits for each BSAI pollock fisheries; sector, whether such sideboards are applied at the sector level vs individual 5) establish the authority and mechanisms vessel/plant level, and whether and to what by which the BSAI pollock fleet can extent there may be exemptions from the form fishery cooperatives; and, sideboards. The analysis also examines the ownership structure of the pollock industry 6) establish specific measures to protect the to determine the entities and companies to non-AFA (non-pollock) fisheries from which sideboards will be applied. adverse impacts resulting from the AFA Implementation and monitoring aspects of or pollock fishery cooperatives, the various alternatives are also considered. including GOA fisheries The EIS furthered examined the prescribed measures of the AFA, including the specific In addition, the AFA included provisions for sector allocations and limited entry aspects the North Pacific Fishery Management of the Act. Council to enact measures as necessary to Alaska pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus). Photo courtesy of Karla Bush. 69 Administrative Allocation
Single Geographic Location and Council Action Notice of Availability Final Rule Effective 62 April 2008 April 2, 2009 July 17, 2009 August 17, 2009 Inshore/Offshore Extension 74 FR 14950 74 FR 34701
Purpose and Need inconsistent language in the Groundfish Regulation Summary Results FMPs. With the passage of AFA, inshore/ The single geographic location restriction offshore language in the BSAI Groundfish The regulation allows AFA inshore floating Originally, the single geographic location originated in GOA Amendment 23 (BSAI FMP was superseded. As a result, inshore/ processors to relocate in state waters in the restriction was implemented in the inshore/ Amendment 18), the initial inshore/offshore offshore language currently contained in the Bering Sea directed pollock fishery between offshore regulations to prevent floating allocation. The restriction applied to floating FMP is obsolete or no longer consistent reporting weeks for a maximum of four processors, which have limited mobility and processors processing targeted pollock and with AFA. times per calendar year. In addition, AFA which operate in the inshore processing GOA Pacific cod. A processing vessel could inshore floating processors would be sector, from having an unfair economic leave specified inshore location to process Analysis required to process all GOA pollock and advantage over operators of onshore other species of groundfish, but if they Pacific cod in the same location at which processing plants. It was also intended to 61-page EA was prepared for this processed pollock or GOA Pacific cod, the they processed these species in 2002. The prevent offshore catcher/processors and amendment. The analysis included options processing vessel would have to return to Council selected preferred alternatives for motherships, which have greater mobility, for single geographic location and inshore/ its original location where it processed inshore/offshore revisions in June 2002. from entering the inshore sector. With the offshore revisions. Two options, including these species at the beginning of the The regulations also: passage of the AFA in 1998, and the status quo, were considered for single season. In October of 1998, the American associated cooperative agreements, these geographic location revisions. Five options, 1) removed references to BSAI inshore/ Fisheries Act was signed into law. The Act, concerns diminished in the BSAI pollock including status quo, were considered for offshore from the GOA FMP; and among other things, established specific target fishery. The most obvious potential the inshore/offshore revisions. Two of these allocations of the BSAI pollock quota to 2) removed the December 31, 2004, benefit of change to the single geographic options addressed issues in the Gulf of onshore, offshore and motherships and sunset date for GOA inshore/offshore location is the increased efficiency that Alaska Groundfish FMP. The first was to established the authority and mechanisms allocations from the GOA FMP. accrues to the stationary floating processor remove any reference to BSAI inshore/ by which the pollock fleet could form fishery sector. These efficiency gains would be offshore from the GOA Groundfish FMP cooperatives. As a result of these realized by both the floating processing while the other alternative was to remove allocations and allowance for cooperatives, plant and those catcher vessels delivering the December 31, 2004 sunset date from some in the industry approached the to it, by reducing delivery costs and the GOA inshore/offshore allocations. Council to revise the single geographic improving pollock production quality. The restriction from one year to one week. In amendment also removed the sunset on October 2001, the Council requested staff inshore/offshore allocations for pollock/cod to provide an analysis of the single (Amendment 51), which remain in effect. geographic location restriction revision. Revising the single geographic location restriction would provide greater flexibility for AFA-qualified inshore floating processors during a fishing year allowing these floaters to process targeted BSAI pollock in more than one geographic location. The inshore/offshore portion of this amendment would remove obsolete and
70 FMP Species Category
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 63 Classify Skates as Target Species October 2003 January 6, 2004 May 12, 2004 June 11, 2004 69 FR 614 69 FR 26313
Purpose and Need species, OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for treat skates as a target species. These Results skates would be established by annual options were: Amendment 63 is intended to respond to harvest specifications, allowing for more This action gave fishery managers better 1) A single GOA wide OFL for the skate concerns that the rapidly developing skate effective management of skates based on tools to protect the skate stocks in the GOA group, and management area ABCs for fishery in the GOA may result in overfishing the best available scientific information. The in the face of a directed fishery that the skate group; of skates. Amendment 63 to the FMP would development of OFL, ABC, and TAC developed rapidly in 2003. Ultimately, move skates from the “other species” list to amounts for the 2004 harvest specifications 2) A single GOA wide OFL for skates, and Amendment 63 increased the amount of the “target species” list, allowing for the for skates would be based on scientific ABCs for key skate species in each control managers have over the fishing management of skates as a target species. survey and harvest information from 2003 management area; mortality of skates, allowed for better At the time, skates were managed as part of and prior years. Managing a directed fishery prevention of overfishing of skates in order 3) Management area OFLs and ABCs for the “other species” complex with sharks, for skates so that OFL, ABC, and TAC to maintain healthy skate stocks. This action each key skate species; or sculpins, octopus, and squid with a total amounts are not exceeded would reduce also provided for increased likelihood of a allowable catch limit (TAC) for that complex the potential for overfishing and would meet 4) GOA species group OFL and ABC for sustainable fishery for skates in the event of 5% of the aggregate of all TACs for the conservation objectives of the skates. that there is both sufficient interest and groundfish of the GOA. Target species Magnuson-Stevens Act. stock biomass levels are available for the TACs are established for an individual Regulation Summary prosecution of one. Separate specifications species or species group and NMFS Analysis have been set for skate species in the GOA. manages the directed fishery for each Amendment 63 amends the GOA FMP by Harvest of skate stocks in the GOA since A 180-page EA/IRFA/RIR was prepared for species to avoid exceeding the specified moving skate species from the “other this amendment has been well below the this amendment, which also provided TACs. TACs usually are set at or below the species” list and adding it to the “target specified overfishing limits thus overfishing environmental and socioeconomic analyses acceptable biological catch (ABC) amount, species” list. Skates would receive their own is not occurring. for proposed and interim BSAI and GOA which are below the overfishing levels OFL, ABC, and TAC. This facilitated specifications. (OFLs) for each target species or species incidental catch management by clarifying the maximum retainable amounts (MRAs) of group. The other species complex does not Two alternatives were considered for groundfish in the skate directed fishery and have an OFL or ABC amount due to the removing skate from the “other species” lack of biomass information for most of the category in the GOA FMP: the MRAs for skates in other groundfish species in the complex. directed fisheries. This action was proposed 1) The no action alternative, under which to give fishery managers better tools to In 2003, a directed fishery for skates rapidly skates would continue to be managed protect the skate biomass in the face of a developed in the GOA. The 2003 skate as part of the “other species” category, directed fishery that developed rapidly in harvest was 3,042 metric tons (mt), and 2003. compared to 782 mt of skates harvested in 2) An action alternative under which 2002. Because skates were managed within The objective of this action is to increase Section 3.1 of the GOA FMP would be the other species complex, the full TAC for the control managers have over the fishing amended to remove skates from the the other species complex was available for mortality of skates, to prevent overfishing of “other species” category and add them a directed fishery for skates. skates, to maintain healthy skate stocks, to the “target species” category. and to make a sustainable fishery for skates To reduce the potential for overfishing, the more likely. Alaska skate (Bathyraja parmifera). Council recommended that skates be Four options were also considered for skate specifications, contingent on a decision to Photo courtesy of AFSC. managed as a target species. As a target
71 IFQ Program Reporting Requirements
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective
64 Prior Notice of Landings Requirements April 2002 January 24, 2003 July 29, 2003 August 28, 2003 68 FR 3485 68 FR 44473
Purpose and Need another Registered Buyer, and provide a six Regulation Summary Results hour notice before offloading to this other The IFQ Program, a limited access Registered Buyer, rendering vessels unable Amendment 64 (BSAI amendment 72) The revised recordkeeping and reporting management system for the fixed gear to respond to necessary changes in consists of three federal regulatory and requirements have improved fishing Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries off business conditions. This action was FMP changes related to recordkeeping and operations and NMFS’ ability to administer Alaska, was approved by NMFS in January necessary to improve IFQ fishing reporting of halibut and sablefish IFQ IFQ programs. 1993 and fully implemented beginning in operations, while complying with IFQ vessels: March 1995. During the implementation of Program requirements, to improve NMFS’ the IFQ Program, NOAA Office of Law ability to efficiently administer the program, 1) Modify PNOL reporting requirements by: Enforcement and the International Pacific and to improve the clarity and consistency • replacing the reporting of “registered Halibut Commission staff indicated that prior of IFQ Program regulations. notice of landing (PNOL) would be helpful buyers” with “location of landings”; for personnel staffing. Regulations enacted Analysis and with the implementation of the IFQ Program A 34-page RIR/IRFA (draft dated May 2002) • change the minimum PNOL reporting in 1995 required a six-hour advance notice was prepared which analyzed a status quo requirements from six hours to as well as the name of the registered buyer and action alternative for each of the three three hours. and location to which the delivery was being main action items in the amendment made. package. The analysis determined that the 2) Eliminate the shipment report and require Over the next few years, IFQ fishing impacts projected for the proposed actions that IFQ species be reported on the industry expressed four main concerns appeared to be largely positive, but without product transfer report about specific aspects of the PNOL the data necessary to make that requirement. 1) Existing regulations require determination conclusively, NMFS could not 3) Require a verbal vessel operators to commit to a specific certify that these actions would not have a departure report Registered Buyer at least 6 hours before significant adverse effect on a substantial instead of the vessel landing, which disadvantaged fishermen in number of small entities within the meaning clearance requirement price negotiations; 2) communications at of the RFA. for vessels with IFQ sea are often limited, as a result, a vessel halibut or sablefish operator may rely on a third party to call in leaving the jurisdiction the PNOL to the toll-free number in Juneau; of the Council. 3) Registered Buyers are restricted in their ability to bid on a load of IFQ fish if they have to wait 6 hours to begin offloading fish from a vessel; and 4) if a particular processor is operating at maximum capacity, or experiences mechanical or other operational difficulties, at the time a vessel is scheduled to deliver to that processor, then that vessel must locate Halibut being gaffed and pulled on deck. Photo courtesy of Julianne Curry. 72 Habitat Conservation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Habitat Areas of Particular Concern: 65 February 2005 March 22, 2006 June 28, 2006 July 28, 2006 Harvest Control Measures 71 FR 14470 71 FR 36694
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended A 51-page EA/RIR (Secretarial review draft At the April 2000 meeting, the Council took Due to the court case on Essential Fish in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. dated June 2000) was prepared for this final action on Part 1 of the HAPC- the Habitat (see Amendment 55), the HAPC The new Act mandates that any FMP must amendment. Three alternatives including harvest control measures. Part 2 was an amendment was put on hold until 2006, include a provision to describe and identify the status quo were considered. The action to develop a more comprehensive after Council and Agency staff prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, alternatives included establishing HAPC and iterative process for HAPC identification EIS for EFH. minimize to the extent practicable adverse biota as a prohibited species or establishing and habitat protection involving Because most of the HAPC biota is found effects on such habitat caused by fishing, a new HAPC category to allow for a researchers, stakeholders, and within state waters, the Council requested and identify other actions to encourage the controlled fishery to develop. Various management agencies, which required a state cooperation to prohibit any new fishery conservation and enhancement of such options would allow some HAPC species longer timeline and was not an FMP on HAPC biota developing in order to habitat. Essential fish habitat has been (e.g., coral and sponges) to be prohibited amendment. effectively achieve the objective of broadly defined by the Act to include “those from harvest, while allowing controlled The Council adopted Alternative 2 of the preventing a commercial fishery from waters and substrate necessary to fish for fisheries to occur on the remaining species analysis which will add corals and sponges developing for corals and sponges. The spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to (e.g., kelp and mussels). to the prohibited species category. This state completed this action in 2002. maturity”. Habitat areas of particular After the amendment was put on hold (see action essentially split prohibited species concern (HAPC) are those areas of special This amendment also resulted in minor Results section), a 281-page EA/RIR/IRFA into two types: the first type would continue importance that may require additional changes to the existing EFH description and (Secretarial review draft dated October to allow no retention for halibut, salmon, protection from adverse effects. HAPC is identification for GOA groundfish stocks, to 2005) was prepared (see GOA Amendment and crab species, and the second type defined on the basis of its ecological incorporate more recent information, 73). (coral and sponges) could be retained, but importance, sensitivity, exposure, and rarity improve mapping, and identify new EFH the sale, barter, trade, or processing of of the habitat. descriptions for a few species that have corals and sponges would be prohibited. been separated out from a complex since Vertical structure provided by invertebrates Kelp (including rockweed), and mussels the existing description and identification (e.g. corals, sponges, mussels, rockweed would not be subject to any management were compiled. and kelp [sic]) may be important habitat for actions at this time, as fish. The purpose of Amendment 65 is to they are typically found in Refer to Amendment 73 for results of provide for improved long-term productivity intertidal areas which Amendments 65 and 73, which were of Alaska’s fisheries by controlling harvest occur within the state implemented together. of invertebrates, which have the potential to water boundary (0-3 nm). be developed into large-scale commercial This action applied to both fisheries. the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries in the EEZ; other fisheries may be considered for HAPC biota protection in the future.
Deep-sea coral. Photo courtesy of NMFS. 73 IFQ and CQE Programs
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 66 Community Quota Share Purchase April 2002 September 2, 2003 April 30, 2004 June 1, 2004 68 FR 52173 69 FR 23681
Purpose and Need communities to purchase catcher vessel QS Regulation Summary 96). The program has been expanded to in IPHC management areas 2C, 3A, and allow for more eligible communities (i.e., During the development of the IFQ 3B. Several factors contributed to the The Council’s preferred alternative on three communities in the GOA and one program, the Council built in several initiation of this analysis: 1) the rate of Amendment 66 included provisions for each community in Aleutian Islands/ Area 4B provisions to address concerns regarding decline of the amount of QS in the smaller of the eight elements listed above. Under region) through GOA Amendment 94 and transferability and the goal of preserving an communities was higher than that of larger this amendment, the Council defined criteria BSAI Amendment 102. owner-operated fleet. Among other things, communities; 2) the bulk of the QS to allow eligible Gulf of Alaska coastal The CQE Program was also expanded to the Council was concerned about consolidation had taken place in the smaller communities to form non-profit corporations allow CQEs to access rights to fisheries consolidation of ownership and divestiture QS holdings, and 3) very few initial large called Community Quota Entities (CQEs) to other than halibut and sablefish IFQ. In of coastal Alaskans from the fisheries. quota share recipients resided in smaller, purchase catcher vessel QS, and the IFQ 2010, the CQE Program was expanded to Ultimately, the Council included a coastal communities. The Council was resulting from the QS must be leased to allow CQEs to receive a certain number of requirement for catcher vessel quota share concerned that declining QS ownership in community residents annually. The criteria community charter halibut permits at no cost (QS) to only be purchased by individual remote coastal GOA communities would for eligibility is as follows: less than 1,500 (75 FR 553). CQEs may also purchase a fishermen, with proven sea time, who would exacerbate unemployment and other people, no road access to larger specified number of charter halibut permits also be required to be on the vessel and adverse social/economic outcomes in communities, direct access to saltwater, and from private entities in the charter fishery. fish the resulting IFQs. The primary intent of fishery-dependent areas with few alternative a documented historic participation in the Since 2011, CQEs have been able to this provision was to maintain a diverse, economic opportunities. halibut and/or sablefish fisheries. owner-operated fleet and prevent Communities not listed in the final receive non-trawl groundfish limited license ‘corporate’, absentee ownership of the Analysis regulations must apply to the Council to be permits (LLPs) endorsed for Pacific cod in fisheries. approved for participation in the program the Central or Western Gulf of Alaska at no A 144-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review and will be evaluated using the same cost (GOA Amendment 86). Consideration of including communities in draft dated April 10, 2002) was prepared for criteria. The CQE Program includes the commercial IFQ Program was motivated this amendment. The eight major elements As of March 2019, 30 of the 46 eligible provisions on QS holdings and use that are by several provisions in the MSA and of the program that were analyzed and communities had formed CQEs, but only both more and less strict than provisions for National Research Council reports, as well included are: five CQEs held halibut QS and one of those other IFQ Program participants. as a specific community proposal. The four held sablefish QS. Barriers to proposal cited a disproportionate amount of • Element 1. Eligible communities Results purchasing QS, for instance access to funding and availability of QS on the QS transfers out of smaller, rural • Element 2. Ownership entity communities as a symptom of the Activity in the CQE Program has been market, are likely still valid reasons for the Element 3. Use caps for individual continuing erosion of their participation in • limited. At the program’s five-year review limited amount of participation by CQEs in communities the commercial IFQ fisheries. A number of (NPFMC 2010), 21 of the 42 eligible the IFQ Program. Lower halibut catch limits small coastal communities in the GOA were • Element 4. Cumulative use caps for all communities had completed the process to during the past decade have likely struggling to remain economically viable, communities form a CQE, but only one had purchased exacerbated these challenges for CQEs as and the IFQ Program, as with other limited • Element 5. Purchase, use, and sale QS. Barriers to purchasing QS and program there are fewer pounds of halibut available entry programs, increased the cost of entry restrictions -related restrictions were the primary to be commercially harvested compared to when the program was first implemented. or expansion in the commercial halibut/ • Element 6. Performance standards reasons cited for low participation in the sablefish fisheries. The Council decided to Program. Since then, amendments to the analyze a proposal to allow a defined set of • Element 7. Administrative oversight program have relaxed some restrictions in small, rural, coastal, Gulf of Alaska • Element 8. Program Review order to provide additional opportunities for coastal communities in Alaska (Amendment
74 IFQ Program Amend Limitations on Use of Quota Share and IFQ: Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 67 December 2004 November 1, 2006 August 9, 2007 Sept 10, 2007 Modify IFQ Program for Halibut and Sablefish 71 FR 64218 72 FR 44795
Purpose and Need Analysis Southeast Outside District. Amendment 67 revised Amendment 42 by removing restrictions on sablefish quota Each proposed action had a no action The purpose for this amendment was to A 93-page RIR/IRFA was prepared, which shares in Southeast Alaska. The other alternative, and actions 1,2,3, and 7 each address changing needs of fishermen with included alternatives for each of the halibut actions passed, with the exception of had only 1 action alternative. Action 4, the evolution of the halibut and sablefish following seven proposed actions (not all of Action 4 on the sablefish product recovery amending the sablefish product recovery IFQ fisheries. Many of these needs were these required a FMP amendment): rate. The Secretary disapproved the rate, had 2 action alternatives. Action 5, addressed in the seven actions described proposed rule to change the Product 1) allow IFQ holders to temporarily amending the halibut block program, had 4 below, recommended by the Council in Recovery Rate (PRR) for bled sablefish transfer their IFQ, avoiding owner-on- action alternatives, and action 6, amending 2004. Specifically, numerous appeals for because the PRR of 0.98 was accurate. board requirements, in the event of a medical hardship relief have been raised the “fish down” regulations for Area 3B and medical condition which precludes their with the Council and NOAA Fisheries since 4C, had 3 action alternatives. NMFS also provided two administrative participation (medical transfers); changes. The first clarified the existing the IFQ program was implemented in 1995. Regarding Action 7, the no action regulation related to the use of sablefish At the time, QS holders who experienced a 2) tighten the criteria allowing the use of alternative would have continued the IFQ with respect to the state waters legitimate medical emergency that hired skippers; requirement that, in Area 2C for halibut and sablefish fishery. The second administrative prevented them from fishing their quota Southeast Outside District for sablefish, 3) add vessel clearance requirements to change converted the nomenclature and were left without the ability to temporarily category B QS must be used on a vessel the sablefish IFQ fisheries in the Bering application of the “IFQ Card” to an “IFQ transfer quota shares. The Council also had greater than 60ft LOA, with the exception Sea and Aleutian Islands regulatory Hired Master Permit.” concerns about alleged abuses of the hired that category B QS blocks of less than areas; skipper provision (previously addressed in 5,000 lbs based on 1996 TACs may be Results Amendment 54), and concerns of 4) change the sablefish product recovery fished on vessels of any size. Alternative 2, misreported BSAI sablefish catch. rate for bled sablefish to 1.0; the chosen alternative, eliminated the The implementation of the “fish down” Additionally, the Council believed that exception that prohibits IFQ derived from provision (Action 7) in the Southeast 5) amend the halibut quota share (QS) product recovery rate provisions for category B QS to be used on vessels regulatory area in the sablefish IFQ fishery block program to: a) increase the block sablefish were inaccurate, which would be a greater than 60 ft for halibut in Area 2C and in 2007 led to an increase in Class B limit to three, unless unblocked QS is disincentive for fishermen to bleed fish sablefish in the Southeast Outside District. sablefish IFQ landings on the less than or thereby reducing the quality of fish held; b) unblock QS in excess of equal to 60-foot LOA vessels. In 2006, 28% 69,492 QS units in Area 3B and 93,404 delivered. Accurate catch reporting was Regulation Summary of sablefish Class B CV IFQ was landed on QS units in Area 4A from a single thought to be compromised under the vessels less than or equal to 60 ft, block; and c) increase the sweep-up Those actions affecting the halibut fishery current application of the product recovery compared to 36% in 2015. However, these limits to 33,320 units in Area 2C and are proposed under the authority of the rate for bled sablefish. Furthermore, QS percentages are specific neither to the GOA Halibut Act, and as such were not part of holders identified safety concerns when 46,520 units in Area 3A; nor to the Southeast regulatory area. the GOA FMP. Those actions affecting the fishing in certain areas on small vessels. 6) allow IFQ derived from category D QS sablefish fishery are proposed under the Increased flexibility in existing block and to be fished on category C vessels in authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To vessel size class restrictions was desired. Areas 3B and 4C; and implement Action 7 (described below) for 7) eliminate the exception that prohibits the sablefish fishery, proposed Amendment IFQ derived from category B QS to be 67 to the Fishery Management Plan for used on vessels greater than 60 ft for Groundfish of the GOA needed to be halibut in Area 2C and sablefish in the approved by the Secretary.
75 Allocation
Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 68 February 2004 June 7, 2006 November 20, 2006 Dec 20, 2006 Program 71 FR 33039 71 FR 67209
Purpose and Need Analysis pounds of CGOA rockfish during the most notably in the CV sector, where halibut processor qualifying years. CV participants mortality dropped from between 25 and 50 In Section 802 of the Consolidated A 204-page EA/RIR (final draft dated that choose not to join a cooperative would pounds per ton of directed rockfish catch to Appropriations Act of 2004, the U.S. August 2006) was prepared for this be permitted to fish in a limited access less than 5 pounds per ton of rockfish catch. Congress included a directive to the amendment. In addition to the status quo, fishery. In addition to the conservation benefits from Secretary of Commerce to establish, in the analysis included two pilot program these discard and mortality reductions, the The Council adopted a share-based consultation with the North Pacific Fishery alternatives for the catcher processor (CP) use of more pelagic gear in the fishery management program, under which the Management Council, a pilot program for sector and two pilot program alternatives for decreases the impact on habitat. Also, the total allowable catch (TAC) of rockfish management of three rockfish fisheries the catcher vessel (CV) sector. Options allocations of maximum retainable primary species (Pacific Ocean perch, (Pacific Ocean perch, northern rockfish, and would create separate sectors for trawl CPs, allowances applicable to shortraker rockfish northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish) pelagic shelf rockfish) in the Central Gulf of trawl CVs, and non-trawl CVs. Under this and rougheye rockfish resulted in catches of was to be apportioned as exclusive shares Alaska. The reasoning behind this was due construction, the different gear types in the those species that were substantially below to cooperatives, based on catch history. to the management structure of the Central CV sector would be governed by the same the amounts permitted. GOA rockfish fishery at the time, which management program, but they would be The program also provided for a set-aside continued to exacerbate the race for fish. managed as separate sectors. of up to 5% for the TAC of such fisheries for In addition, the rockfish fishery-dependent Increased catching and processing capacity CVs not eligible to participate in the pilot community in the CGOA and the shore- Under these alternatives, catch of most entering the fishery had reduced the program, which shall be delivered to shore- based processing sector benefited from secondary species (such as Pacific cod, economic viability of the historical based fish processors not eligible to stabilization of the work force, more sablefish, thornyhead, shortraker, and harvesters and processors. There was a participate in the pilot program. It also shoreside deliveries of rockfish, additional rougheye) would be limited by allocations to decrease in safety; economic instability of established catch limits for non-rockfish non-rockfish deliveries with the RPP halibut cooperatives, which are more restrictive the residential processor labor force; species and non-target rockfish species. It savings, and increased rockfish quality and than the current MRAs. Each participant reduced product value and utilization; was decided that the pilot program would diversity of rockfish products. Issues would receive an allocation for not only jeopardy to historical groundfish community sunset either when a GOA Groundfish identified with the program included the target species, but also for secondary stability; and limited ability to adapt to comprehensive rationalization plan was viability of the entry level fishery. The species and halibut PSC. Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) requirements implemented or 2 years from date of portion of the CP sector participating in the to minimize bycatch and protect habitat. implementation, whichever came first. rockfish cooperatives benefitted from Regulation Summary greater spatial and temporal flexibility in The Council noted the need for a short-term Results For the CP sector, the Council chose to prosecuting the fishery, which resulted in solution in order to stabilize the community lower bycatch, a more rational distribution of develop a cooperative program under which The most notable effect of the program is of Kodiak, which had experienced multiple effort, and more stable markets. non-members of cooperatives fish in a the substantial reduction in discards in the processing plant closures, the negative limited access fishery. An allocation would CGOA rockfish fisheries. In the years impact of shorter processing seasons on its Although originally subject to a sunset after be made to the sector based on the leading up to the program, discards of workforce, and decreases in community fish 2 years, the 2007 reauthorization of the histories of CPs in the CGOA rockfish Pacific Ocean perch regularly exceeded 5% tax revenues. MSA extended the term of the program to 5 fisheries. of total catch of the species. Discards of years. Under this extension, the Pilot The Central GOA rockfish demonstration For the CV sector, the Council chose to sablefish exceeded 100 metric tons in some Program was then scheduled to sunset after (pilot) program (RPP) was intended to be a develop a cooperative program under which years and exceeded 250 metric tons in one the 2011 season. GOA Amendment 88 short-term program for immediate economic year. Under the RPP, discards of these each CV participant is eligible for a replaced the CGOA Rockfish Pilot Program relief until comprehensive GOA species are generally not permitted by cooperative in association with the with the Rockfish Program in 2011. rationalization could be implemented. cooperatives, reducing discards to near processor to which it delivered the most zero. Halibut mortality also dropped sharply, 76 Catch Limits FMP Species Categories
Change Total Allowable Catch Specification Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 69 June 2005 November 29, 2005 March 13, 2006 April 12, 2006 for ‘Other Species’ Category 70 FR 71450 71 FR 12626
Purpose and Need Analysis status quo were considered. As part of its Results preferred alternative, the Council chose to The original FMP, implemented in 1978, A 52-page EA/RIR/IRFA (secretarial review set the “other species” MRAs for all fisheries TAC levels for the “other species” were identified three separate species categories: draft dated September 2005) which at 20 percent. established at 5% of the sum of the target 1) prohibited species; 2) specific species or analyzed three alternatives, including the species TAC levels after this amendment species complexes; and 3) “other species”. status quo, was prepared for this In addition to considering a change in the was approved. Catch levels were At the time of this amendment, the “other amendment. TAC calculation for the “other species” maintained by NMFS to remain at or below species” complex had already evolved via a this level. TAC for the “other species” Alternative 1: (Status Quo) TAC for the complex, consideration was given to series of amendments to the GOA FMP, another alternative which would have complex in the GOA will be specified in the “other species” complex is fixed at 5% of and contained the following species: squids, established an aggregate OFL and ABC for annual specifications process. This action the sum of the target sculpins, sharks, and octopuses. As the complex. This alternative was not was intended as an interim step prior to groundfish TACs. configured, the “other species” complex was carried forward for analysis because a Council action on a more broad-based open to directed fishing up to the TAC for separate amendment package was revision of the “other species” complex Alternative 2: (Preferred) Set the “other the complex. This caused conservation management in both the GOA and BSAI. species” complex TAC at less than or equal anticipated which would break individual concerns given the removal of several species in the BSAI and GOA out from the Subsequent amendments (GOA to 5% of the sum of the target species species over time from the complex, which “other species” complex such that OFL and Amendments 79 and 87) were pursued TACs. Under Alternative 2, the Council served to increase the complex TAC by ABC by species would be established, and which modified and eventually eliminated could consider setting a TAC at a level placing additional species into target its inclusion in this amendment would have the aggregate “other species” management anticipated to meet the incidental catch in categories upon which the sum of the TAC been a redundant effort. approach to provide for more sustainable other directed fisheries during the year in calculation for the “other species” complex management and prevent overfishing of the GOA, or at a higher level which would is based. Additionally, given the individual species in the complex. allow for directed fishing but be low enough Regulation Summary configuration of the complex, it is possible to prevent overfishing the other species to target one member of the complex close The “other species” category will be complex as a whole. to the full complex-level TAC, which inhibits managed by a single TAC less than or in-season management’s ability to control equal to 5% of the combined TACs for Alternative 3: Set the “other species” directed fishing within the complex and all stocks in the “target species” complex TAC at a level anticipated to meet raises concerns given the lack of available category. This amendment packaged incidental catch in other directed fisheries stock information on most members of the also included the regulatory amendment throughout the fishing year. This would complex. These alternatives were intended to raise the maximum retainable amount result in a directed fishing allowance of as a short-term solution, understanding that (MRA) of “other species” in the directed zero, Maximum retainable amounts could a more comprehensive amendment arrowtooth flounder fishery from 0 to still be kept for processing until the TAC package is planned, which will consider a 20%, recognizing that an expanding level was reached, at which point all broader range of alternatives to modify the directed fishery for arrowtooth with trawl retention of other species would be management of target and non-target gear is likely to have some intrinsic prohibited. species in the GOA. bycatch needs. Sub-option: Revise the maximum retainable amount for the “other species” complex by fishery. Three alternatives including the Arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias). Photo courtesy of AFSC. 77 Catch Limits Marine Mammals Monitoring Spatial Management
Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures Council Action Emergency Rule 70 October 2001 January 8, 2002 (Implemented as Regulatory Amendment) 67 FR 956
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The western population of Steller sea lions A 2,206-page EIS/RIR/IRFA (final draft The preferred alternative implements the Amendment 70 (in both GOA and BSAI) declined by over 70% since the 1960s and dated November 2001) was prepared for restricted and closed area approach. This was implemented as a regulatory was listed as endangered in 1997 (62 FR this amendment. Five alternatives were alternative is the RPA detailed in the amendment, and not a plan amendment. A 24345). While GOA Amendments 19, 25, considered including no action, a low and November 30, 2000, Biological Opinion. list of trailing amendments was proposed and 45 afforded SSL some protections, one slow approach (from draft programmatic Essential elements of this approach are: when the Council took final action in hypothesis to explain the continued decline SEIS), a restricted and closed area October 2001. The Biological Opinion on 1) To establish large areas of critical of the western stock of SSL was nutritional approach (from the 11/2000 RPA), an area the preferred alternative, dated October 19, habitat for both the eastern and stress due to competition with fisheries for and fishery specific approach (from RPA 2001, was challenged in US District Court. western stocks of SSL, where fishing prey. The 11/30/00 Biological Opinion Committee) and a critical habitat catch limit On December 18, 2002, U.S. District Court for pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka concluded that fisheries for walleye pollock, approach (based on measures in place in Judge Zilly ruled that the 2001 Biological mackerel is prohibited; Pacific cod and Atka mackerel being 2000). A map packet, containing poster- Opinion’s finding of no adverse modification managed under the fisheries regulations in sized maps that show the closure areas 2) To restrict catch levels in remaining of critical habitat and no jeopardy to the effect in the year 2000, jeopardized the proposed for each alternative, was also critical habitat areas; continued existence of SSL was in part survival and recovery of SSL and adversely provided. The analysis concluded that the arbitrary and capricious, because the 3) Seasonally apportion catches; modified their critical habitat. The 2000 preferred alternative would avoid jeopardy Amended RPAs’ impacts on sea lions, their Biological Opinion included a reasonable and adverse modification while at the same 4) To establish a modified harvest control prey, and their critical habitat were not and prudent alternative (RPA) that included, time, have the least negative social and rule that prohibits directed fishing adequately described. The Judge remanded among other things, areas closed to economic impacts to fishermen, processors, should pollock, cod, or mackerel stocks the 2001 BiOp to NMFS, but ruled that the trawling, which if implemented in its entirety, and communities. fall below 20% of the unfished level; BiOp (& RPAs) remain effective until June would have had substantial adverse and 30, 2003. impacts to the fishing industry and fishing Additional SSL protection measures communities. Federal legislation (Public 5) A vessel monitoring system effective in 2005 (69 FR 75865) adjusted Law 106-554) allowed for a requirement for all vessels (except jig Pacific cod and pollock fishing closure phase-in of the RPA for the gear) participating in these fisheries. areas near four SSL haulouts and modified 2001 fisheries while the the seasonal management of pollock Council developed an harvest in the GOA. SSL protection alternative approach which measures for the GOA, including language would allow fisheries to resulting from the 2010 Biological Opinion, operate in such a manner that include area closures to pollock and Pacific would not jeopardize the cod fishing (except for vessels using jig continued existence of SSL gear), and groundfish fishing closures within and would prevent adverse 3 nm of rookeries. No further GOA modification of their critical Groundfish FMP Amendments specific to habitat. SSL protection measures have occurred. Furthermore, the Eastern population of SSL was delisted from the ESA in 2013.
Steller sea lions. Photo courtesy of NPFMC. 78 Discards
Annual Review of Shallow-water Flatfish Discards/ Council Action Notice of Avail. Final Rule Effective 72 May 15, 2008 May 28, 2008 August 29, 2008 August 25, 2008 Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program 73 FR 30598 73 FR 50888 Flatfish Requirement Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
In September 1996, the Council adopted The amendment was a minor addition to the In response to fishing industry concerns Discard rates for the shallow water flatfish Amendment 49 in the GOA and the BSAI, FMP that would not result in any changes to noted above, this amendment added trawl fishery are reviewed by the Council which required all vessels fishing for the human environment. As such, it was language to the FMP to state that the annually as part of a GOA in-season groundfish in the BSAI and GOA categorically excluded from further Council would annually review the discards management report presented by NMFS at management areas to retain all pollock and environmental review and requirements to of shallow-water flatfish in the GOA each December Council meeting. In 2017, Pacific cod beginning January 3, 1998 and prepare additional environmental review groundfish fisheries and, based on this 82% of shallow water flatfish were retained retain all shallow water flatfish beginning documents. A 2-page categorical exclusion information, may recommend future and in 2018, 88% were retained. No January 1, 2003. was prepared (dated May 19, 2008). revisions to Improved Retention/Improved additional changes to the IR/IU program for Utilization (IR/IU) regulations if the discard shallow water flatfish in the GOA have While many groundfish vessels were able to rate for shallow-water flatfish falls above or occurred. meet a long-term goal of reducing shallow- below a specific threshold. water flatfish discards by consistently remaining under a 5% discard rate, This FMP amendment requires NMFS to members of the GOA fishing industry provide a report to the Council, but it does reported to the Council that complete not require any new regulations or revisions elimination of shallow-water flatfish discards to existing regulations. Shallow-water is costly if some vessels do not have viable flatfish would continue to be one of three markets for small amounts of a species. GOA IR/IU species categories in 50 CFR part 679, along with pollock and Pacific cod. Any future revisions to shallow-water flatfish IR/IU regulations would be contingent on the Council establishing the need to modify these requirements, initiating an analysis, and proposing a regulatory amendment that could be approved by the Secretary of Commerce. No changes to regulations, management programs, permitting, observation, or enforcement of fishing occurred with the approval of this amendment.
Assorted flatfish. Photo courtesy of NPFMC. 79 Habitat Conservation Spatial Management Revisions to Essential Fish Habitat, Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 73 February 2005 March 22, 2006 June 28, 2006 July 28, 2006 Harvest Control Measures 71 FR 14470 71 FR 36694
Purpose and Need action also stemmed from a May 2003 joint Regulation Summary Results stipulation and order approved by the U.S. Actions included in this package fall under District Court for the District of Columbia. This package of amendments revised the This amendment addressed habitat GOA Amendments 65 and 73, and BSAI That agreement reflected the Council’s FMPs by identifying and describing conservation requirements, which were Amendments 65/78. The purpose of this commitment to consider new HAPCs as part essential fish habitat (EFH), designating further addressed in Amendments 90 and action is to determine whether and how to of the response to the AOC v. Daley habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), 105. This amendment also resulted in minor amend the Council’s FMPs to identify and litigation that challenged whether Council and including measures to minimize to the changes to the existing EFH description and manage site-specific HAPCs. HAPCs FMPs minimize to the extent practicable the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH. identification for GOA groundfish stocks, to identified as a result of this EA would adverse effects of fishing on EFH. incorporate more recent information, The preferred alternative for Action 1 provide additional habitat protection and improve mapping, and identify new EFH designated 16 named seamounts in the further minimize potential adverse effects of Analysis descriptions for a few species that have EEZ off Alaska as HAPC, and prohibited all fishing on EFH. been separated out from a complex since A 281-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial bottom contact fishing by Council-managed the existing description and identification The HAPCs are subsets of EFH that are review draft dated October 2005) was fisheries within five smaller areas inside were compiled. particularly important to the long-term prepared for this package of amendments. these HAPCs. productivity of one or more managed The three actions analyzed were as follows: Action 2 designated three areas in species, or that are particularly vulnerable 1) HAPCs for Seamounts in the EEZ Southeast Alaska (in the vicinity of Cape to degradation. HAPCs may be identified Ommaney, Fairweather grounds NW, and based on one or more of four 2) HAPCs for GOA (GOA) corals Fairweather grounds SW) as HAPC. Bottom considerations listed in the EFH regulations: contact gear was prohibited in several ecological importance, sensitivity, stress 3) HAPCs for AI corals (BSAI FMP) subareas within the HAPC designated from development activities, and rarity of Each action had a different number of areas. the habitat type. The Council required that alternatives. each HAPC site should meet at least two of those considerations, with one being rarity. HAPCs and associated management measures considered by the Council would provide additional habitat protection and further minimize potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH. Such actions are consistent with the EFH EIS (completed in April 2005) because they address potential impacts that are discussed in the EIS, even though the EIS indicates that new management measures may not be required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to reduce those impacts. In effect, through its evaluation of HAPCs, the Council is considering new precautionary measures. The need for this Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) in coral. Photo courtesy of NMFS. 80 Administrative
Council Action Notice of Availability 74 Revise Management Policy April 2004 June 2, 2004 69 FR 31091
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Both the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea The analysis of GOA Amendments 74 Amendments 74 and 81 formally adopted Annual review of the Council’s Aleutian Island FMPs were informed by (BSAI Amendment 81) was a programmatic the new policy goals and objectives defined Programmatic Groundfish Management respective Environmental Impact evaluation of the groundfish fisheries, which in the PSEIS for the FMPs. Five Policy is mandated by the groundfish FMPs Statements (EISs), as per NEPA entailed alternatives that examine fishery management goals were established and in practice is generally conducted at requirements. EISs are action information management from different policy through the PSEIS process: each Council meeting during staff tasking analyses that NEPA recommends be approaches. Each alternative contained a through a programmatic workplan. Annual 1) Sound conservation of the living marine reexamined every 5 years to ensure they policy statement that detailed an overall review of the Management Policy since resource; encompass the current state of the fishery. management approach and specific implementation has confirmed that the NEPA requires that the EIS be updated if management objectives. All the action 2) Socially and economically viable Policy continues to be appropriate and there is a significant change that falls alternatives contain examples of FMPs that fisheries and fishing communities; applicable for management of Gulf of outside the scope of the original analysis. represent a range of management Alaska groundfish fisheries. In 2015, NOAA With the passage of the Sustainable measures that would be employed to meet 3) Minimal human-caused threats to Fisheries determined, based on a Fisheries Act in 1996, NMFS determined the policy statement. The analysis identified protected species; supplemental information report that the that the changes constituted a nine primary objectives to be considered “2004 PSEIS continues to provide NEPA 4) Healthy marine resource habitat; reexamination of the EIS. According to over the life of the PSEIS: compliance for the groundfish FMPs and a NEPA, such a change does not necessitate 5) Ecosystem-based considerations in supplemental NEPA document is not 1) Prevent overfishing; a complete revision of the EIS, only the management decisions. necessary”. parts that do not fall within the scope of the 2) Promote sustainable fisheries and analysis. These changes are analyzed in a communities; Supplemental EIS (SEIS). After the SEIS was prepared for the GOA and BSAI FMPs, 3) Preserve food web; a major federal lawsuit (Greenpeace v. 4) Manage, reduce, and avoid bycatch National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 F. and incidental catch; Supp. 2d 1248, 1999) found that the document did not analyze all reasonable 5) Avoid impacts to seabirds and marine alternatives, and the judge ordered a PSEIS mammals; that analyzed a “no fishing” alternative. Thus, the Council initiated a PSEIS to fulfill 6) Reduce and avoid impacts to habitat; the court order and update policy objectives 7) Promote equitable and efficient use of to reflect shifts in fisheries management. fishery resource; After numerous extensions and an extensive development and public review 8) Increase Alaska Native consultation; process, the Council adopted the PSEIS in and April 2004. 9) Improve data quality, monitoring, and enforcement.
Block and seabirds. Photo courtesy of Karla Bush. 81 Administrative Catch Limits
Housekeeping Amendments: updated harvest, Council Action Notice of Availability Approval of Amendments 75 December 2004 March 24, 2005 June 20, 2005 ecosystem, and socioeconomic information 70 FR 15067 70 FR 35395
Purpose and Need Regulation Summary Results
After the adoption of the Programmatic GOA Amendment 75 and BSAI Amendment The FMP text better reflected existing Supplemental Environmental Impact 83 consisted of housekeeping changes to conditions. Statement (PSEIS) as BSAI Amendment 81 update information and technically edit the and GOA Amendment 74 in 2004, the FMPs to make them consistent with the Council identified the need to reorganize the PSEIS. The Amendments also revised the content of the FMPs, technically edit the harvest specifications process in the FMPs language, and update certain descriptions to make them consistent with the new policy within the FMPs that did not reflect the objectives established in Amendments 74 current status of the groundfish fisheries. In and 81. December 2004, the Council unanimously recommended GOA Amendment 75 and BSAI Amendment 83 to update harvest, ecosystem, and socioeconomic information, consolidate text, and reorganize the FMPs to make them consistent with the adopted provisions in the PSEIS. Additionally, the Council adopted a substantive change to the groundfish FMPs, namely to remove language in the BSAI and GOA FMPs that allows TAC or OY to be set higher than ABC or the sum of ABCs, respectively. This change reflected to the new policy objectives in the FMPs.
Sitka harbor. Photo courtesy of Herman Savikko 82 Monitoring
Restructuring the Program for Observer Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 76 October 2010 April 18, 2012 November 21, 2012 January 1, 2013 Procurement and Deployment in the North 77 FR 23325 77 FR 70062 Pacific Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary met, enforcement issues, and other issues that may be requested by the Council or The North Pacific Groundfish Observer A 379-page EA/RIR/IRFA (dated March GOA Amendment 76 (which revised GOA highlighted by the agency. Program was largely successful during the 2011) prepared for GOA Amendment Amendment 18) and BSAI Amendment 86 was Under the restructured Observer Program, early years of its implementation, but it had 76 and BSAI Amendment 86. Four (which revised BSAI Amendment 13) a number of inherently restrictive implemented an ex-vessel value-based fee observer coverage categories based on alternatives were considered that analyzed vessel length or processing volume were components within the program’s structure various fee structures, within the 2% structure for all vessels (including vessels (as described in GOA Amendments 30 and under 60 feet length overall) fishing for removed and replaced with requirements maximum as mandated by the Magnuson- based on the data needs for specific 47). Vessel coverage had not changed Stevens Act. Additionally, two options were groundfish with a federal fishing permit in since the early 1990s, largely because cost federal waters, and all vessels fishing management programs. The number of considered that addressed NMFS’ reporting participants in the full coverage category and statutory constraints prevented the expectations for the Council. The preferred halibut and sablefish IFQ in federal or state Council from addressing restructuring the waters. They also established two observer increased, although there were no other alternative by the Council was Alternative 3, structural changes to the deployment or program. Observer deployment was also a a coverage-based restructuring alternative coverage categories: <100% observer longstanding issue. Lack of funding and coverage and ≥100% observer coverage. funding of observers in this category. In the that would implement a 1.25% ex-vessel partial coverage category, the number of resources restricted coverage levels and value fee for vessels participating in the Vessels in the <100% category are subject deployment, and the structure did not allow to an ex-vessel value-based fee not to vessels subject to coverage greatly groundfish fishery. The second option, increased, to include all vessels in the for the flexibility to respond to future which called for an annual financial report exceed 2%. Vessels with ≥100% observer management needs. Furthermore, the coverage obtain coverage by contracting halibut fishery and groundfish vessels less by NMFS laying out the Observer Program than 60 feet length overall that had never existing structure did not allow for managers budget, was also supported by the Council. directly with observer providers to meet to control when or where observers were coverage requirements. carried an observer under the previous deployed resulting in potential sources of In 2015, NMFS prepared a 140-page program. NMFS’ ability to estimate total bias that could jeopardize the statistical Supplemental EA for this action. NMFS Results catch in all Federal fisheries in the North integrity of the data. The cost structure of prepared the supplement in response to a Pacific is considerably improved, both by The restructured Observer Program was the program also meant that the cost of Court Order to consider whether the expanding observer coverage to previously implemented at the start of the 2013 fishing observer coverage on smaller vessels was restructured Observer Program would yield unobserved vessels, and adopting a year. Each year, an Annual Deployment disproportionately higher relative to gross reliable, high quality data given likely representative sampling plan that resolves Plan (ADP) is prepared by the agency and earnings. The funding of the Observer variations in costs and revenues. The spatial and temporal coverage issues reviewed by the Council. The ADP Program did not provide the flexibility or agency collected and analyzed observer resulting from the previous ad hoc describes how and at what selection rate resources to solve the inherent problems of data, costs, and fee revenue from two deployment method. vessels in the partial coverage category will the existing program and was too rigid to complete years under the new program, be randomly selected for observer 2013 and 2014. allow for adapting to shifting management coverage. The ADP also provides an objectives. This action was necessary to evaluation of the potential risks (that resolve data quality and cost equity coverage goals will not be met) associated concerns with the Observer Program’s with different allocations of deployment funding and deployment structure. rates. An Annual Report on the previous year’s observer program is presented to the Council each June, which describes the overall program budget, whether the deployment plan’s sampling goals were
83 Administrative FMP Species Categories
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 77 Remove Dark Rockfish from the FMP April 2007 September 24, 2008 December 31, 2008 January 30, 2009 73 FR 55010 73 FR 80307
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
A 2004 scientific paper titled “The dusky A 98-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review GOA Amendment 77 and BSAI Amendment The OY no longer includes TAC or catch of rockfishes (Teleostei: Scorpaeniformes) of draft dated August 2008) was prepared to 73 transfer management authority of dark dark rockfish, and is no longer assessed as the North Pacific Ocean: resurrection of analyze a status quo alternative and an rockfish from the FMPs to the State of part of the SAFE report. This nearshore Sebastes variabilis (Pallas, 1814) and a re- alternative to remove dark rockfish from the Alaska. Further, the amendments update species now receives more localized description of Sebastes ciliatus (Tilesius, GOA and BSAI groundfish FMPs. The the language of the FMPs to account for the conservation and management through the 1813)” by James W. Orr and James E. Council also discussed an alternative to updated taxonomic information. State of Alaska. Blackburn found that the two forms of dusky transfer dark rockfish management authority rockfish – “light dusky rockfish” and “dark to the State of Alaska, but still retain the Dark rockfish dusky rockfish” – were two distinct species. species under the FMPs. This alternative The dusky rockfish (Sebastes variabilis) is was not carried forward because of the primarily found in deeper water, while the difficulty in reconciling State and Federal “dark dusky rockfish” or dark rockfish management procedures. The EA (Sebastes ciliatus) is found in shallow determined that there would be minimal water. With the recognition of two distinct effect on the groundfish fishery should dark species and with dark rockfish primarily rockfish be assigned to State management. occupying habitats found in State waters, Similarly, the RIR found that there would be the Council initiated a discussion paper to no significant costs associated with the analyze the impacts of transferring action alternative. management authority of the nearshore species to the State. Management by the State of Alaska would better address localized assessment and harvest requirements for this nearshore species Dusky rockfish than was provided by Federal management under the larger pelagic shelf rockfish (PSR) complex in the GOA and the “other rockfish” (OR) component in the BSAI. A similar situation was addressed by Amendment 46, which removed black rockfish and blue rockfish, both nearshore species not well-assessed by the trawl survey, from the GOA groundfish FMP, and turned management over to the State of Alaska.
Dark (top) and Dusky (bottom) rockfish. Photo courtesy of AFSC. 84 Allocation
Allow Post-Delivery Transfers of Cooperative Quota Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 78 February 2008 January 5, 2009 August 21, 2009 September 21, 2009 in the Central GOA Rockfish Pilot Program and 74 FR 254 74 FR 42178 Amendment 80 Program Purpose and Need In a purpose and need statement, the Regulation Summary Results Council identified the need to allow post- When the BSAI Amendment 80 Program delivery transfers of CQ to reduce the Amendment 78 to the GOA FMP and Both actions were instrumental in allowing and the Central GOA Rockfish Pilot number of violations and encourage a more Amendment 90 to the BSAI FMP added the unlimited post-delivery transfers within the Program were established, NMFS issued complete harvest of the quota without the language to the respective FMP to allow for cooperatives. In June 2010, the Council quota share (QS) to individual vessels risk of overharvesting allocations. the transfer of CQ after a delivery to cover took final action defining a catch share based on their historic participation in the any potential overages given that the program for the Central GOA directed fishery. QS holders could then either join Analysis cooperative account had a zero or positive rockfish fisheries. The program was cooperatives with other QS holders or balance before the start of the trip. intended to replace the pilot program Two separate RIRs were written for GOA participate in a limited access fishery with (Amendment 68) since that program expired Amendment 78 and BSAI Amendment 90 other non-cooperative QS holders. If QS at the end of the 2011 season. As part of (Secretarial review drafts dated June 2009). holders opt to form a cooperative, a the new Central GOA Rockfish Program These RIRs each analyzed two action cooperative quota (CQ) is issued by NMFS (Amendment 88), post-delivery transfers of alternatives and a status quo alternative. based on the relative amount of QS held by cooperative quota were authorized. Both action alternatives involved the members compared to the total QS pool. allowance of post-delivery transfers, but at The CQ serves as a permit that provides different amounts. Alternative 2 (the exclusive harvesting privileges for a specific Council’s preferred alternative) allowed for amount of groundfish. unlimited post-delivery transfers, while Excess harvest of the CQ allocation is a Alternative 3 provided moderately limited regulatory violation and is punishable by post-delivery transfers. Under Alternative 3, confiscation of catch and other penalties. the strictly limited transfer of PSC was likely Concerns were expressed that a portion of sufficient to cover an unintentional overage the CQ went unharvested due to the risk of arising from a single tow, but could reduce overages and associated penalties. Though the effectiveness of the provision in strict overage penalties were in place, the addressing harvesting efficiencies that fleet was relatively inflexible in how they could be realized through in-season could handle quota transfers, and therefore transfers used to coordinate harvesting opted to forego harvesting a portion of their activity that could not be completed in a quota to avoid the risk of incurring the timely manner. penalties associated with excess harvest. Under both Amendment 80 and the Central GOA Rockfish Pilot Program, cooperatives could transfer unused CQ to other cooperatives but were subject to NMFS approval before they were effective; post- delivery transfers – a transfer of CQ after delivery to rectify a negative CQ balance – were not permitted.
Yelloweye rockfish. Photo courtesy of Julianne Curry. 85 Catch Limits FMP Species Categories
Set Allowable Biological Catch and Council Action Notice of Availability Final Rule Effective 79 April 2008 May 29, 2008 August 25, 2008 August 20, 2008 Overfishing Level Specifications for the 73 FR 30875 73 FR 49963 ‘Other Species’ Category Purpose and Need comply with the MSA’s National Standard 1, Regulation Summary Results and Sections 302(h)(6) and 302(a) that The Council previously set the total specify annual catch limits, and Magnuson- Amendment 79 requires the Council to This action provided an interim allowable catch (TAC) for the “other Stevens Fishery Conservation and recommend an aggregate OFL and ABC for management step to better provide for species” category (sharks, squids, sculpins, Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 the “other species” category in the GOA as scientifically informed specifications of OFL, and octopus) based on a formula in the Section 104(b)(1)(B) requirements that part of the annual groundfish harvest and ABC in aggregate for the other species FMP that was intended to accommodate annual catch limits be implemented in 2011, specifications process. This requires complex. This provides a means to evaluate incidental catch needs in the directed and other applicable laws. managing the “other species” category in to what extent overfishing is occurring on groundfish fisheries. The TAC was currently the GOA groundfish FMP in the same the complex as a whole, as well as whether set at or below 5% of the combined TACs This action would allow the harvest manner as is required for the “other there are scientific concerns regarding any for the GOA target species. However, the specifications for this category to be directly species” category under the BSAI of the individual species managed within the FMP did not authorize the specification of related to biologically-based characteristics groundfish FMP. An annual stock complex. This amendment provided the an overfishing level (OFL) or acceptable of the species in this category. assessment for the “other species” category basis upon which to manage the stocks as biological catch (ABC) for the category. All Analysis is required, upon which the Plan Team, individual species. With ACL revisions other GOA groundfish TACs were set using SSC, AP, and Council would base their resulting from the Magnuson-Stevens the harvest specifications procedure that is A 16-page EA which analyzed two recommendations for harvest specifications. Reauthorization Act in 2007, the “other laid out in the FMP. This procedure requires alternatives was prepared for Amendment species” category has been removed and This action allows the Council and NMFS to an annual or biennial stock assessment, 79. Alternatives included the no action replaced with the categories “in the fishery” incorporate the best and most recent which is reviewed by the Council’s GOA alternative, as well as the action (preferred) or “ecosystem component” (Amendment scientific and socioeconomic information for Groundfish FMP Team and the Council’s alternative to set aggregate OFL and ABC 87). the specification of the “other species” total Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), for the GOA “other species” category. allowable catch, acceptable biological who use it to recommend an OFL and ABC catch, and overfishing level. for the species or category. The Council then set OFL and ABC based on the SSC’s recommendations, and sets TAC at no greater than ABC. The purpose of this amendment is to (1) provide a sound biological basis for the setting of TAC for the “other species” category, in line with other GOA and BSAI groundfish species and species complexes; and (2) provide for an annual review of the stock status of the “other species” category to further reduce the risk of overfishing the species in this category. The Council developed the following problem statement for the analysis: The proposed action was intended to Red Irish lord (Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus). Photo courtesy of Sara Cleaver. 86 Limited Entry
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Rescind Latent Trawl Gear Licenses June 2006 December 30, 2008 August 14, 2009 September 14, 2009 82 73 FR 79773 74 FR 41080
Purpose and Need areas. The intent of this action was to Regulation Summary participating in the CG to keep their provide protection for currently participating WG endorsement because the TAC in In the mid to late 1990s, the Council permit holders from those permit holders Amendments 82/92 consist of two actions. the WG had not been fully harvested in developed the License Limitation Program who could re-enter the fisheries in the future recent years. 1) Latent LLP licenses that have not more (LLP) to address capacity concerns and using a latent license. at least two landings using trawl gear take a first step toward rationalization of the 2) Vessels with LLP licenses assigned to between the years 2000 and 2006 in a groundfish fisheries under its management. Analysis Limited Access Privilege Programs particular endorsement area will have The LLP established criteria for the (LAPPs). Exemptions for LLP licenses A 100-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial that area removed from the LLP. issuance of licenses to persons based on assigned to AFA vessels, the CG review draft dated July 2008) was prepared fishing history of vessels. Generally, a 2) The issuance of new and additional Rockfish Program, and the Amendment for GOA Amendment 82/BSAI Amendment vessel participating in groundfish fisheries in trawl CV AI area endorsements for the 80 Program allowed for the fulfillment of 92. Two action alternatives to implement Federal waters in the BSAI or GOA is Aleutian Islands subarea. the goals of the programs, which is to landing criteria to retail trawl LLP area required to have an LLP license with the facilitate the development of endorsements were considered, with four There were two exemptions to the forfeiture applicable area endorsement and cooperatives. components. The components addressed of latent LLP licenses: designated for the gear (trawl or non-trawl) landings thresholds, multiple LLPs stacked and operation type (catcher processor or 1) Vessels with an LLP license that made Results on a single vessel, exempting Amendment catcher vessel) and of sufficient maximum more than 20 landings in at least one of 80 licenses from the CG and WG Capacity has been further constrained in length overall (MLOA). After fishing under the areas of the GOA from 2005 to thresholds, and adding new AI the GOA as a result of this action. The the program began in 2000, public 2007 may continue to hold an endorsements to trawl LLPs. The Council Council has continued to adjust LLP testimony and review of landings data made selected the action that represented a endorsement in both the Central Gulf programs as per Amendment 86. NMFS aware that a large number of trawl modest step between the status quo and a (CG) and Western Gulf (WG). This LLP licenses were not being used for fishing exemption also allows trawl vessels rationalized trawl fishery. Exemptions were in some, or all, of the regulatory areas for established primarily because the which they were endorsed. A review of participants in the rationalization programs “latent” LLP licenses – valid LLP licenses have already met specified and more that were unused – was initiated after active detailed thresholds for these specific trawl fishermen expressed that should latent management areas. LLP licenses become active it would adversely affect their fishing operations. So, in June 2006, the Council identified the need to reduce the future potential for an increase in trawl groundfish fishing effort from LLPs currently unused or underutilized in all areas. They noted that LLP holders currently fishing the BSAI and GOA groundfish trawl fisheries have made significant investments, have long catch histories, and are economically dependent on the groundfish resources from these Trawl vessel. Photo courtesy of Karla Bush. 87 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 83 Pacific Cod Allocation December 2009 July 26, 2011 December 1, 2011 January 1, 2012 76 FR 44700 76 FR 74670 Corrected December 29, 2011
Purpose and Need could be harvested in parallel waters. There 1) defined the management area; State of Alaska waters, commonly known as was concern that participation in the GOA the parallel fishery, adjacent to the Western 2) defined the sectors; Competition for the GOA Pacific cod Pacific cod parallel waters fishery by and Central GOA. Due to only a small resource increased for a variety of reasons, vessels that did not hold LLP licenses may 3) defined qualifying catch; proportion of the Eastern GOA TAC being including increased market value of cod increase. The Council, in consideration of harvested in the years leading up to the 4) discussed potential sector allocations; products, rationalization of other fisheries in options and recommendations for the amendment, the Council did not allocate the the BSAI and GOA, increased participation parallel fishery, needed to balance the 5) considered jig allocations; Eastern GOA Pacific cod TAC among by fishermen displaced from other fisheries, objectives of providing stability to the long- sectors. reduced Federal TACs due to the State term participants in the sectors, while 6) outlined options for rollover provisions waters (parallel) cod fishery, and Steller sea recognizing that new entrants who do not for unharvested sector allocations; Results hold Federal permits or licenses may lion mitigation measures including the A/B 7) discussed options to apportion the Amendment 83 reduced uncertainty and participate in the parallel fishery. seasonal split of the GOA Pacific cod TACs. GOA hook-and-line halibut PSC limit to contributed to stability across the sectors, The GOA Pacific cod resource is targeted The purpose of Amendment 83 was to the hook-and-line CV and CP sectors; as well as promoted community by multiple gear and operation types, enhance stability in the Pacific cod fishery, participation and provided incentives for principally by pot, trawl, and hook-and-line 8) considered community protection reduce competition among sectors, and new entrants in the jig sector. The action CVs and CPs. Smaller amounts of cod are provisions; preserve the historical division of catch limited the use of mobile floating harvested by jig vessels and as incidental among sectors. Without sector allocations, it 9) allowed adjustment of sector processors, commonly known as catch in other fisheries. The competition was thought that future harvests by some allocations to address conservation, motherships. among sectors in the fishery may contribute sectors may increase and impinge on the catch monitoring, equity of access, to higher rates of bycatch, discards, and out A correction to the Amendment was historical levels of catch by other sectors. bycatch and PSC reduction, and social -of-season incidental catch of Pacific cod. objectives; and published December 29, 2011 (76 FR Separate TACs are identified for Pacific cod Analysis 81872), which corrected the reference to in the Western, Central, and Eastern GOA 10) discussed parallel fishery issues. “catch and process” to read as “directed fish management subareas, but the TACs are A 209-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated Regulation Summary for”. not divided among gear or operation types. September 6, 2011) was prepared for this This results in a derby-style race for fish and amendment. The analysis included two Amendment 83 divided the Western and competition among the various gear types alternatives, including the No Action Central GOA Pacific cod TACs among the for shares of the TACs, which had alternative, which would not make any various gear and operation types. intensified over the years prior to this changes to the existing allocations of the Allocations to each sector were based amendment. Participants in the fisheries Western and Central GOA TACs between primarily on historical dependency and who had made long-term investments and the inshore and offshore processing qualifying catch history, but could be were dependent on the fisheries faced sectors. Alternative 2, the Preferred adjusted to address uncertainty as a result of the competition for Alternative, would allocate the Western and conservation, catch monitoring, catch shares among sectors. Central GOA Pacific cod TACs among the and social objectives, including sectors, as defined by gear and operation considerations for small boat At the time of the amendment, there were types. Alternative 2 included 10 no limits on entry into the parallel waters sectors and coastal components that outlined the details of the communities. This rule limited groundfish fisheries, and no limits on the proposed action, which: proportion of the GOA Pacific cod TAC that access to the Federal Pacific cod fisheries prosecuted in Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus). Photo courtesy of AFSC. 88 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Remove BSAI Stand Down Provision for 85 October 2008 May 13, 2009 November 3, 2009 December 3, 2009 Catcher Processors Participating in GOA 74 FR 22507 (corrected) 74 FR 56728 Rockfish Program
Purpose and Need Rockfish Program were already allocated Regulation Summary Results exclusive privileges for harvesting these The Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish BSAI species, it was determined that the These regulations amended the Central GOA Amendment 85 improved flexibility Program (Rockfish Program) included a July stand down was no longer required as Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program to remove and reduced operating costs for catcher/ sideboard provision that regulated the a protection measure. a restriction that prohibited certain catcher/ processors that participate in the Central participation of rockfish catcher/processor processors from participating in directed Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program. The (CP) vessels in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Analysis groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and following are other results from GOA Islands (BSAI) groundfish fisheries. CP Aleutian Islands Management Area in July. Amendment 85: A 45-page RIR/FRFA was prepared for this vessels that joined a rockfish cooperative, amendment. The analysis considered four or fished in the limited access fishery and • Reduced halibut bycatch alternatives, including the status quo, to held more than 5% of the CP Central Gulf of • Reduced Chinook salmon bycatch in remove the BSAI stand downs. Alternative 2 Alaska (GOA) Pacific ocean perch (POP) some years considered limiting the exemption to CPs history were subject to a July stand down Allowed CP fishing effort to be that annually choose to participate in an • provision in the BSAI. This stand down Amendment 80 cooperative, while distributed over a longer fishing season period was put in place to prevent Alternative 3 considered extending the • Improved NMFS’ ability to conserve participants in the Rockfish Program from exemption to any CP that was part of the and manage the species in the unfairly benefitting from their rockfish Amendment 80 sector. Alternative 4, the program allocation by increasing their effort in BSAI preferred alternative, considered removing Increased vessel accountability fisheries. At the time the Rockfish Program • the BSAI stand down provision from the and its stand down restriction were being • Controlled capacity of the fleets Rockfish Program. developed, all directed BSAI trawl fisheries • Controlled consolidation with the exception of pollock were subject to • Reduced trawl gear contact with the a managed open access race for fish. BSAI sea floor Amendments 80 and 85, implemented • Improved safety at sea subsequent to the Rockfish Program, allocated exclusive privileges for various • Kodiak and shore-based processing BSAI groundfish species (Atka mackerel, AI sector have benefited from stabilization POP, flathead sole, Pacific cod, rock sole, of the workforce and yellowfin sole) to the head-and-gut trawl CP sector (the Amendment 80 sector) in the BSAI and allowed vessels in that sector to form cooperatives. Most of the Rockfish Program CP vessels are also part of the BSAI Amendment 80 sector. Given that, except for pollock, the species allocated under BSAI Amendments 80 and 85 comprised the major directed fisheries in the BSAI, and most CP participants in the
Rockfish haul. Photo courtesy of Mark Fina. 89 Limited Entry
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 86 Add Pacific Cod Endorsement on LLP December 2009 July 23, 2010 March 22, 2011 April 21, 2011 75 FR 43118 75 FR 15826
Purpose and Need Analysis 7) a way to provide fixed gear LLP Results licenses to qualified Community Quota Prior to GOA Amendment 86, competition A 151-page EA and RIR (Secretarial review Entities (CQEs) in the Western GOA The number of licenses eligible to among fixed-gear participants in the draft dated December 2009) was prepared and Central GOA. participate in the directed Pacific cod Western and Central GOA Pacific cod for GOA Amendment 86. Two alternatives, fisheries in Federal waters of the Western fisheries had intensified for a variety of including the no action alternative, were The Council also considered several and Central GOA was substantially limited reasons, including increased market value considered. Alternative 2, the action exemptions from the action and the LLP because of this amendment. As of 2019, of Pacific cod products, a declining ABC/ alternative, would add gear-specific Pacific requirement. there are six CQEs that have requested TAC, increased participation by harvesters cod endorsements to fixed-gear groundfish Regulation Summary LLP licenses with Pacific cod displaced from other fisheries and LLP licenses, which would limit entry into endorsements. Three of these CQEs have introduction of capital that had been the directed Pacific cod fisheries in Federal This action added a Pacific cod linked these licenses to a vessel. accrued from participation in rationalized waters of the Central and Western GOA. endorsement on licenses issued under the fisheries. Many fixed-gear vessel owners at This preferred alternative included seven License Limitation Program (LLP) in specific the time had made significant investments components that outlined the details of the management areas if those licenses have and were dependent on the Western GOA proposed action. The components identified been used on vessels that met minimum and Central GOA Pacific cod resources, the following: recent landing requirements using non-trawl and these long-term participants were gear, commonly known as fixed-gear. It also 1) The management areas subject to the concerned about the potential for latent exempted vessels using jig gear from LLP proposed action; fixed-gear licenses to re-enter the fisheries requirement in all directed groundfish and erode catches. The Council also 2) the sectors subject to the proposed fisheries in the GOA, modified the maximum wanted to retain opportunities for small action; length designation on a specific set of fixed- community quota eligible (CQE) gear licenses, and exempted CP licenses 3) the qualifying years that could be communities dependent on access to a from the 50 mt catch threshold, if the selected for purposes of defining recent range of federal fishery resources. The license holder voluntarily stood down from participation in the GOA directed intent of the proposed amendment was to the Western or Central GOA Pacific cod Pacific cod fisheries; prevent the future entry or re-entry of latent fisheries during 2006, 2007, or 2008, as fixed-gear groundfish fishing capacity that 4) a definition of qualifying catch, and lists part of the informal halibut PSC co-op. had not been utilized in recent years into options for landings and catch (mt) Finally, it allowed qualified CQEs to request the Pacific cod fisheries. thresholds; non-transferable, fixed-gear groundfish licenses with a Pacific cod endorsement. 5) potential solutions to issues related to vessels that have multiple LLPs, or ‘stacked’ licenses; 6) an option to add a new endorsement to fixed gear groundfish LLP licenses with Western GOA or Central GOA area endorsements that would limit the width or simple gross tonnage of the vessel assigned to the license; and
90 Catch Limits FMP Species Categories
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective Revise FMPs to Establish Annual Catch 87 April 2010 July 16, 2010 October 6, 2010 November 5, 2010 Limits and Accountability Measures 75 FR 41424 75 FR 61639
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
As part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery A 128-page EA and 15-page RIR were Amendment 87 in the GOA and 96 in the Conservation has increased as catch Conservation and Management prepared for GOA Amendment 87 and BSAI BSAI revised the FMPs to meet the National specifications have been set separately for Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), new Amendment 96. The analysis considered Standard 1 guidelines for annual catch (GOA) squids, (BSAI and GOA) sculpins, requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) three alternatives, including the No Action limits and accountability measures. These (BSAI and GOA) sharks, and (BSAI and and accountability measures (AMs) were alternative. There were also six alternatives amendments eliminated the “other species” GOA) octopus. Most of the modifications to introduced to reinforce existing that were considered but not moved forward category and allowed (GOA) squids, (BSAI address ACLs and AMs were primarily requirements to prevent overfishing and for analysis due to NS1 considerations. All and GOA) sculpins, (BSAI and GOA) housekeeping amendments to reference the rebuild fisheries. This measure was to be of the alternatives addressed listing of sharks, and (BSAI and GOA) octopus to be existing system of catch specifications immediately applied to overfished fisheries, species groups in a variety of ways. managed separately in the “target species” (OFL, ABC and TAC) for all target species. but could be delayed until the 2011 fishing category, and as such, are considered “in Therefore, no major management changes year for fisheries not overfished. Since none the fishery”. Prohibited species and forage occurred as a result of meeting ACL and of the Alaska groundfish fisheries were fish were moved to the “ecosystem AM provisions and the management system overfished, the implementation of ACLs and component” category. Ecosystem continues to prevent overfishing and rebuild AMs could be delayed until 2011. component species are stocks that a fisheries. Additionally, BSAI and GOA groundfish Council or the Secretary has determined do FMPs were out of compliance with the not require conservation and management, “other species” management strategy but desire to list in an FMP in order to National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines set in achieve ecosystem management 2009. Each year the overfishing limit (OFL), objectives. Non-specified species were acceptable biological catch (ABC), and total removed from the FMPs. ACLs were allowable catch (TAC) are established for established for all stocks ‘in the fishery’ and the “other species” group as a whole. At the set equal to ABC levels that are already time, the FMPs combined the management annually specified under both FMPs. AMs of short-lived invertebrates like squid and reference in-season management authority octopus with long-lived vertebrates like to NMFS to prevent exceeding established shark and skate. In the GOA FMP, shark, ACLs. sculpin, octopus, and squid were managed as a complex and in the BSAI FMP skate, shark, sculpin, and octopus groups were managed as a complex. This did not comply with the MSA and revised NS1 guidelines, which advised that species with dissimilar life history characteristics may not be managed under the same stock assemblage.
Octopus. Photo courtesy of Karla Bush. 91 Allocation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 88 Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program June 14, 2010 August 19, 2011 December 27, 2011 December 27, 2011 76 FR 52148 76 FR 81247 Corrected: January 18, 2012 77 FR 2478
Purpose and Need Regulation Summary species historically harvested in the Results rockfish fisheries; Since implementation of Amendment 68 in GOA Amendment 88 replaced the CGOA • Assign a specific amount of halibut The Rockfish Program allowed for a more 2007, NMFS managed the rockfish fisheries RPP with the Rockfish Program. The PSC to cooperatives and conserve a rational distribution of effort, and has under the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Rockfish Program implemented by this final portion of the halibut that will remain improved NMFS’ ability to conserve and Pilot Program (RPP). Under the RPP, rule includes similar implementation, unallocated; manage the species in the program. The NMFS allocated exclusive harvesting and management, monitoring, and enforcement Program also helped control the capacity of • Restrict entry level fishery to longline processing privileges for a specific set of measures to those developed under the the fleet and consolidation, and successfully gear only; rockfish species and for associated species RPP. For example, the Rockfish Program removed disincentives for some CP harvested incidentally to those rockfish in will 1) continue to assign rockfish quota • Relax the requirements to form a operators to join cooperatives. The Program the Central GOA. Although originally subject share (QS) and cooperative quota (CQ) to cooperative; has improved safety at sea, as there were to a sunset after 2 years, the 2007 participants for rockfish primary and • Specify the location where harvesters no work-related crewmember fatalities or reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens secondary species; 2) allow a participant in cooperatives must deliver rockfish; vessel disasters since implementation. Act extended the term of the RPP to 5 holding an LLP license with rockfish QS to • Remove the requirement that Retention rates in the Rockfish Program years. Under this extension, the RPP was form a rockfish cooperative with other harvesters in a catcher vessel (CV) approach 100% for each fishery in most scheduled to sunset after the 2011 season. persons; 3) allow holders of catcher/ cooperative deliver to a specific years. Halibut mortality rates in the Program In the absence of Council action, processor (CP) LLP licenses to opt-out of processor; have decreased 90% in the CV sector when management of the rockfish fisheries would rockfish cooperatives each year; 4) include • Discontinue the limited access fishery; compared to 2003 through 2006 levels, and revert to the License Limitation Program an entry level longline fishery; 5) establish the CP sector also realized reductions in (LLP). This action considered alternatives to sideboard limits, which are limits designed • Simplify sideboards, and slightly modify halibut mortality amounts and rates. Greater allowing the rockfish fisheries to return to to prevent participants in the Rockfish sideboards for CPs; use of pelagic gear under the Program has LLP management, in order to maintain the Program from increasing their historical • Implement a cost recovery program for reduced trawl gear contact with the sea benefits derived under the RPP. effort in other GOA groundfish fisheries; and all participants except for opt-out floor. Chinook salmon bycatch remains 6) include monitoring and enforcement vessels and the entry level longline highly variable year-to-year. Industry Analysis provisions. fishery; and members continue to try new methods to • Be authorized for 10 years, from A 300-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial The Council recommended the Rockfish reduce Chinook salmon bycatch. Review draft dated October 17, 2011) was January 1, 2012, until December 31, Program include modified provisions of the 2021. Kodiak and shore-based processor sector prepared for this amendment. The analysis RPP as well. Key changes to the Rockfish considered multiple alternatives for three have benefited from stabilization of the work Program, in contrast to the Pilot Program, force. Under the Program, shoreside different sectors (entry level, catcher were to: vessels, and catcher processors). As part of deliveries of rockfish have increased, and raw fish delivered under the Program are of its preferred alternative, the Council chose • Change the qualifying years for higher quality, but product diversity has not to: 1) establish an entry level fishery for the eligibility for QS; longline sector only; 2) establish a changed. • Use a different suite of years to cooperative structure for the rockfish determine sideboard limits and the fisheries; and 3) establish a cooperative allocation of QS; program with annual, severable processor associations. • Assign rockfish cooperatives a specific portion of the Central GOA TAC of
92 Gear Restrictions Habitat Conservation PSC Spatial Management
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 89 Establish Crab Protection Area in Marmot October 2009 June 17, 2013 January 16, 2014 February 18, 2014 Bay, Elevating Devices on Trawl Sweeps 78 FR 36150 79 FR 2794
Purpose and Need analysis also examined exempting some The second part of Amendment 89 required Results vessels from the area closures if they met trawl vessels targeting flatfish in the Central Tanner crab is a prohibited species in the specific conditions such as using approved GOA with nonpelagic trawl gear to use The negative impacts of the non-pelagic Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. Directed gear modifications. Lastly, the analysis elevating devices on trawl sweeps, to raise trawl gear on Tanner crab and Tanner crab fisheries for Tanner crab in the Gulf of examined several alternatives for increased them off the seafloor. The maximum length habitat in the Central GOA are reduced by Alaska were fully allocated under the limited observer coverage requirements to improve of net bridles and door bridles between the the action. Nevertheless, it is not well entry system. At the time, no specific estimates of PSC in the closed area, as a modified trawl sweeps would be 185 feet in understood how important trawl interactions conservation measures existed in the GOA basis for future management action as the Central GOA. The preferred alternative are relative to other factors in the to address adverse interactions between necessary. also corrected existing Federal regulations environment that may be limiting recovery of both the trawl and fixed gear sectors to accommodate modified trawl sweeps up the stock and resumption of a stable and Part of the Council’s preferred alternative targeting groundfish and Tanner crab. to 185 feet in the Bering Sea groundfish profitable Tanner crab fishery. was to develop a trailing amendment to fishery. In the Bering Sea, however, trawl sweep require trawl vessels to use approved This amendment built upon other crab modifications had been effective at reducing modified gear, such as trawl sweep These actions were combined to comprise protection measures in the GOA, unobserved prohibited species catch (PSC) modifications, in the Central GOA the suite of management actions implemented under Amendments 15, 18, mortality of Tanner crab while maintaining nonpelagic trawl fishery. Council staff recommended by the Council to provide 26, and 60. flatfish catch. Additionally, low observer prepared a 95-page EA/RIR/IRFA to additional protection and conservation of coverage in GOA groundfish fisheries examine the efficacy of requiring the use of Tanner crab and benthic habitat in the limited confidence in the assessment of modified nonpelagic trawl gear. The Central GOA. Tanner crab PSC in those fisheries, and the analysis included a No Action alternative Council recommended that PSC catch and one action alternative (preferred). estimation be improved either by this action During rulemaking, the 2 actions were or by the restructured observer program. recombined into a single amendment. Analysis Regulation Summary A 161-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review draft dated May 2013) was prepared Amendment 89 established a protection for the portion of Amendment 89 regarding area in Marmot Bay, northeast of Kodiak area closures for tanner crab protection in Island, and closed that area to fishing with the GOA groundfish fisheries. The analysis trawl gear except directed fishing for pollock included the potential impacts of four with pelagic trawl gear. Based on the alternatives to close specific areas of the Council’s recommendation, NMFS Central GOA to the use of trawl gear and determined that increased observer pot gear or, either in addition to or in lieu of coverage requirements under this action a closure, to require additional observer would were not necessary, as the intent to coverage in these areas. Included in the improve Tanner crab bycatch information is alternatives were options to apply the addressed in the restructured observer closures year-round or seasonally, to pot program. The restructured observer and/or trawl gear types. Additionally, the program was implemented in 2013.
Crab protection areas around Kodiak Island. 93 Habitat Conservation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule
90 Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus Amendments April 2011 August 8, 2012 November 6, 2012 77 FR 47356 77 FR 66564
Purpose and Need Amendment 98 to the BSAI Groundfish Regulation Summary Results FMP, Amendment 40 to the BSAI King and Essential fish habitat (EFH) regulations Tanner Crab FMP, Amendment 15 to the Amendment 90 was approved on October These amendments updated the fishery state that a review of EFH provisions of Scallop FMP, and Amendment 1 to the FMP 31, 2012. While there was no regulatory management plans with the best available FMPs should be conducted once every five for Fish Resources of the Arctic change associated with this amendment, a information with respect to essential fish years. Reviews are essential to ensure that Management Area. number of FMP components were revised habitat life history characteristics and FMPs are based on the best available for EFH in the five amendments in the EFH habitat preferences for FMP species. information. The purpose of these periodic Analysis omnibus, and new habitat and life history reviews is to evaluate published scientific information was applied to the FMPs: A 55-page EA (final draft dated October literature, unpublished scientific reports, 2012) was prepared for the omnibus . information solicited from interested parties, • EFH provisions of the BSAI and GOA amendments. The analysis was divided into and previously unavailable or inaccessible Groundfish FMPs for 24 species and seven actions, each with two alternatives: data. In 2009 and 2010, a 5-year EFH complexes no action or amend the respective FMP review was conducted for the BSAI based on the findings of the five-year • EFH provisions of the BSAI Crab FMP Groundfish, GOA Groundfish, BSAI Crab, review. for five (5) crab species and complexes and Scallop FMPs. Based on the findings in the review, the Council identified a number Action was preferred in all seven instances. • EFH provisions of the Scallop FMP for of elements that warranted updates with the The EA found that no regulatory action was weathervane scallop most current scientific information. EFH necessary to implement the Council’s provisions were revised under Amendment preferred alternatives. • EFH conservation recommendations for 90 to the GOA Groundfish FMP, non-fishing activities in all five FMPs
• Maximum timeline for considering whether new habitat areas of particular concern are warranted extended from 3 to 5 years in all five FMPs
• Research Objectives for EFH revised in the five FMPs subject to the 2010 EFH 5-year review None of the changes required regulatory action, and the 2010 EFH 5-year review concluded that no changes to the conclusions on the evaluation of fishing effects on EFH were necessary.
Pregnant rockfish inside a glass sponge. Photo courtesy of NMFS. 94 Administrative FMP Species Categories Reporting Requirements
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 91 Adding Grenadiers to the FMP February 2014 May 14, 2014 March 5, 2015 April 6, 2015 79 FR 27557 80 FR 11897
Purpose and Need the FMPs to organize the species remaining fishery” was not chosen because a directed grenadiers in the groundfish fisheries and in the FMPs according to the National fishery would be a less conservative added grenadier product recovery rates. The groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and Standard 1 guidelines, in which NMFS approach than if they were an ecosystem GOA incidentally catch grenadiers (family recommended two main categories for component relative to susceptibility to Results Macrouridae) while harvesting other species in an FMP: Stocks “in the fishery” fishing. The analysis determined that since Virtually all the catch of grenadiers groundfish species. For many years, the and ‘‘ecosystem component” (EC) species. the present and past harvests of grenadiers (primarily giant grenadiers) in Alaska has Council has considered how best to classify By including grenadiers in the FMPs “in the taken incidentally are well below the current been taken as bycatch in fisheries directed grenadiers in the FMPs. After GOA fishery” or as an “ecosystem component” ABCs calculated for grenadiers, there would Amendment 8, from 1980 to 2010, the Council would be able to improve the be no significant effects on the stock at other species, particularly longline fisheries for sablefish and Greenland turbot. grenadiers were included in the FMPs in the conservation and catch accounting of biomass, fishing mortality, spatial or Although giant grenadier do not appear to non-specified species category. grenadiers. temporal distribution, or changes in prey be overfished at present, their slow growth, availability for grenadier and groundfish In 2010, the Council recommended the non- longevity, and deep-sea habitat make them Analysis target species in either the BSAI nor the specified species category be removed from particularly vulnerable to overfishing. The GOA with the “ecosystem component” the FMPs when the FMPs were revised. A 33-page EA and 9-page RIR (final draft Council has encouraged continued efforts alternative. The “in the fishery” alternative The amended Magnuson-Stevens Act dated August 2014) were prepared for GOA by the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science would have de minimus effects on fishery required NMFS and the Council to establish Amendment 91/BSAI Amendment 100. The Center to conduct an informal stock participants. annual catch limits (ACLs) and analysis considered two alternatives to assessment to provide information needed accountability measures (AMs) for fisheries include grenadiers in the FMP, one as an Regulation Summary to monitor the status of the grenadier in the FMP. The Council recommended “in the fishery” component and the other as stocks. Grenadiers are assessed every four Amendment 87 to the GOA FMP and an “ecosystem component.” Within the The regulation was meant to address the years, and the most recent assessment for Amendment 96 to the BSAI FMP to meet definition of an ecosystem component incidental catch of grenadiers in the grenadiers was an abbreviated assessment these requirements. The non-specified species, unmanaged target fishing would be groundfish fisheries. GOA Amendment 91/ for 2016. For 2016, the ABC (which is not a species, including grenadiers, were prevented, and NMFS would not authorize BSAI Amendment 100 added grenadiers management quantity, but used for removed from the FMPs because these directed fishing for grenadiers unless catch (Pacific grenadier, Popeye grenadier, and monitoring only) was 29,711 mt for the species were too poorly understood to set specifications were provided for them (by giant grenadier) to the “ecosystem GOA. Catch has been well below the ABC. ACLs and AMs or to develop a moving them into the ‘in the fishery’ component” category of the FMPs. Under GOA biomass increased through 2005 and management regime. The absence of category). Since the grenadiers were not a this rule, they are not allowed to be targeted has been relatively stable since. grenadiers from the FMPs meant that there commercially viable species, the Council but there is an 8% MRA. As an ecosystem were no catch limits and no required favored incorporating them in the FMP as component species, a stock assessment is monitoring of catch in the groundfish an ecosystem component. While Alterative not required and there is no ABC or OFL. fisheries. Due to their abundance, an 2 (classifying them as an ecosystem The regulation included measures such as experimental commercial fishery developed component) would allow for a small amount prohibitions on directed fishing, limitations targeting grenadier, but because of poor of grenadier to be harvested and sold (this on allowable retention amounts, or flesh quality there was little success. rule established a maximum retainable limitations on the sale, barter, trade, or any Grenadiers were found to play a significant amount of 8%), the development of a formal other commercial exchange, as well as the ecological role in their environment, directed fishery would require an FMP processing of grenadier in a commercial amendment. especially the giant grenadier, an apex processing facility. The final rule also Giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis). Photo predator. Amendments 87/96 also amended required recordkeeping and reporting of The alternative to include grenadiers “in the courtesy of NOAA.
95 Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 93 Chinook PSC limits June 2008 December 14, 2011 July 20, 2012 August 25, 2012 76 FR 77757 77 FR 42629
Purpose and Need the origin of Chinook salmon in the GOA Regulation Summary Results indicated that stocks of Asian, Alaska, Amendment 93 applies exclusively to the Chinook salmon PSC limits are now Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards British Columbia, and lower-48 origin, directed pollock trawl fisheries in the Central managed by NMFS in-season similar to require balancing optimum yield with including Endangered Species Act-listed and Western Reporting Areas of the GOA. halibut PSC limits. Since implementation of minimizing bycatch and minimizing adverse stocks, were present in these fisheries. This amendment established separate PSC Amendment 93, the Council has impacts to fishery dependent communities. Additionally, no observer coverage was limits in the Central and Western GOA for recommended, and the Secretary of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus required on vessels less than 60 feet length Chinook salmon. The total Chinook salmon Commerce has approved two salmon PSC tshawytscha) are a prohibited species in the overall (LOA). PSC limit for the Central and Western Gulf limit actions. Amendment 97 implemented a GOA groundfish fisheries, and, as such, pollock fisheries was set at 25,000 fish, with Chinook salmon PSC limit for Western and must be returned immediately to the sea Analysis 18,316 fish (73% of the total cap) Central GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries, with a minimum of injury, if caught A 333-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial apportioned to the Central GOA, and 6,684 and Amendment 103 authorized incidentally in the groundfish fisheries. At review draft dated September 2011), which fish (27% of the total cap) apportioned to reapportionment of unused Chinook salmon the time of the amendment, salmon bycatch analyzed two alternatives including the the Western GOA. The Council included an PSC within and among specific trawl control measures had not yet been status quo, was prepared for this option that would allow a Chinook salmon sectors in the Central and Western GOA. implemented in the GOA, and in 2010 amendment. Three Chinook salmon PSC PSC allowance to be exceeded by up to The amendment did not increase the Chinook salmon bycatch levels in the area limits were considered by the Council under 25% in one of three consecutive years. This combined annual PSC limit of 32,500 were unacceptably high. Chinook salmon Alternative 2 (15,000; 22,500; or 30,000), provision is applied by area. Once the PSC Chinook salmon that applies to Central and PSC taken incidentally in GOA pollock and a fourth PSC limit was recommended limit in a regulatory area is reached, the Western GOA trawl sectors. fisheries historically accounted for the under the preferred alternative (25,000). A directed pollock fishery in that area is majority of Chinook salmon PSC in GOA total of 18 different options were considered closed. Since implementation of Amendment 93, groundfish fisheries. Limited information on to divide the three PSC limits under there has been one reallocation of Chinook Alternative 2 between This action also requires retention of salmon PSC. That reallocation occurred the Central Gulf and the salmon by all vessels in the Central and during the D season of 2017 when 404 Western Gulf pollock Western GOA pollock fisheries until the chinook salmon were reallocated from the fisheries. These limits catch is delivered to a processing facility Central GOA to Western GOA to would be apportioned where an observer is provided the accommodate the pollock directed fishery. among regulatory areas, opportunity to count the number of salmon The combined annual PSC limit of 32,500 based on the relative and to collect scientific data or biological Chinook salmon was not exceeded during historical pollock catch samples from the salmon. This action that reallocation. There was not a in each regulatory area, makes several revisions to the Prohibited reallocation of Chinook salmon during the the relative historical Species Donation (PSD) program. 2018 fishing year. Chinook salmon PSC Lastly, in order to reduce the uncertainty amounts in each area, associated with Chinook salmon catch or a weighted ratio of the estimates, the 30% observer coverage two. requirements were expanded for vessels under 60’ as an interim measure, until the observer program restructuring amendment could be implemented. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Photo courtesy of NMFS. 96 IFQ and CQE Programs
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 94 Revise Vessel Use Caps Held by CQEs October 2011 March 6, 2013 June 4, 2013 July 5, 2013 78 FR 14490 78 FR 33243
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary annual recordkeeping and recording requirements for CQEs participating in Prior to GOA Amendment 94, the CQE A 59-page RIR (Secretarial review draft Amendment 94 and its implementing limited access programs for charter halibut Program limited fishing CQE-held quota to dated November 2011) was prepared for regulations revised the vessel use caps fisheries and the GOA Pacific cod endorsed vessels that fish less than 50,000 lbs. of this amendment. Three alternatives, applicable to sablefish quota share (QS) non-trawl groundfish fisheries. IFQ– both CQE-held quota and non-CQE including the status quo alternative, were held by CQEs (eventually including the quota. The CQE vessel limitation eliminated analyzed. Alternative 2, the Council’s CQE which represents the community of Results the opportunity for community residents preferred alternative, stated that no vessel Adak, with the implementation of BSAI Amendment 94 has allowed the opportunity awarded CQE quota from fishing on a may be used, during any fishing year, to Amendment 102). This final rule made the for increased flexibility for CQEs in the IFQ vessel that has or will fish more than 50,000 harvest more than 50,000 lbs. of sablefish same regulatory revisions to the vessel use program. The CQE was amended again lbs. of quota, even if it is the only vessel (or halibut) IFQ derived from quota share caps applicable to halibut QS held by with the implementation of Amendment 96. available in a community. In addition, this held by a CQE. The vessel would also be CQEs. IFQ derived from non-CQE-held QS However, as of 2019 CQEs are struggling restricted the option for several residents subject to the same vessel use caps is excluded from the 50,000 lb. vessel use with funding to move forward and take awarded CQE quota from combining their applicable in the overall IFQ Program. The cap. Only IFQ derived from CQE-held QS advantage of this increased flexibility. Only quota on a vessel if the cumulative quota, third alternative would have eliminated the will count towards the vessel use cap. In one CQE in Area 3A has purchased ~6000 both CQE and non-CQE, exceeded 50,000 50,000 lb. vessel use caps for CQE-held effect, the following annual vessel use caps lbs of D-class QS as of 2019. lbs. These restrictions limited CQE use quota, and vessels using IFQ derived from apply to all vessels harvesting IFQ: No opportunities and some CQE purchases. CQE quota would continue to be subject to vessel can be used to harvest (1) more than Because CQE communities were meant to the same vessel use caps for halibut and 50,000 pounds of halibut or sablefish IFQ provide GOA communities with sablefish that are applicable in the general leased from a CQE, and (2) more halibut or opportunities to mitigate the emigration of IFQ Program. sablefish IFQ than the IFQ Program overall halibut and sablefish quota shares from vessel use caps. those communities, easing While Amendment 94 pertained specifically vessel use restrictions could to the revised vessel use cap applied to provide additional sablefish QS held by GOA CQEs, the final opportunities for CQE use rule implemented three separate additional and purchase. actions which amended the IFQ Program and CQE Program regulations. These actions are included here as they are often included in discussions of “Amendment 94”: (1) revised vessel use cap applied to halibut QS held by GOA CQEs; (2) added three communities (Game Creek and Naukati Bay in Area 2C, and Cold Bay in Area 3B) to the list of communities that are eligible to participate in the GOA CQE; (3) allowed CQEs in Area 3A to purchase halibut vessel category D QS; and (4) adds and updates GOA longliner. Photo courtesy of Teresa Peterson/Dave Kubiak. 97 Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 95 Halibut PSC Limit Reduction September 2011 September 17, 2013 February 20, 2014 March 24, 2014 78 FR 57106 79 FR 9625
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
Declines in Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus A 317-page document (with ~400 additional This amendment incorporated overall Since implementation of Amendment 95, stenolepis) biomass, particularly in the pages of appendices, Secretarial Review annual GOA halibut PSC limits for the trawl the trawl and hook-and-line sectors have GOA, increased concerns about levels of draft dated November 2013) was prepared and hook-and-line sectors in Federal been effective at reducing their halibut PSC halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) in for this amendment. The analysis included regulations, and reduced the GOA halibut mortality in the GOA groundfish fisheries. groundfish fisheries because of the potential three alternatives including the status quo, PSC limits for the trawl and hook-and-line Halibut PSC limits for trawl and hook-and- effect on other user groups such as directed and several options and sub-options. The gear sectors. The reduction to the trawl line sectors have not been exceeded since commercial IFQ, charter, unguided, and status quo alternative would have retained gear PSC limit also proportionately reduced implementation in 2014. subsistence fisheries. Prior to GOA the process for changing GOA halibut PSC a subset of trawl halibut PSC limits (also Amendment 95, the halibut PSC limit in the limits through the annual groundfish harvest called sideboard limits) for American GOA was set annually through the specifications process. The action Fisheries Act (AFA), Amendment 80, and groundfish harvest specifications process, alternatives would establish and amend Central GOA Rockfish Program vessels. which established a 2,000 mt halibut PSC GOA halibut PSC limits in Federal These regulations also incorporated three limit for trawl gear and a 300 mt halibut PSC regulation. Options and sub-options measures to minimize adverse economic limit for hook and line gear. With the addressed a variety of reductions in halibut impacts on fishing industry sectors. First, exception of PSC limit reductions in the IFQ PSC limits by sector. The preferred the reductions for these sectors will be sablefish fishery (Amendment 21) and the alternative reduced the halibut PSC limit in phased-in over 3 years. Second, this action Rockfish Pilot Program (Amendment 88), the— allowed the Amendment 80 sector to roll these PSC limits had not been revised for over unused halibut PSC sideboard limits trawl gear since implementation in 1989, • groundfish catcher vessel hook-and- from one season to the subsequent season. and not revised for hook and line gear since line gear sector by 15% over 3 years Third, this action combined management of 1995. for a PSC limit of 161 mt in 2014, 152 the deep-water and shallow-water halibut mt in 2015, and 147 mt in 2016. PSC limits from May 15 • groundfish trawl gear sector by 15% to June 30, which over 3 years for a PSC limit of 1,848 mt allowed the aggregate in 2014, 1,759 mt in 2015, and 1,705 halibut PSC limit to be mt in 2016. used in either the deep- • catcher processor hook-and-line gear water or shallow-water sector by 7% in 2014. This PSC limit fishery. could change annually based on the GOA Pacific cod split formula. Using 2012 Pacific cod total allowable catch limits in the Western and Central GOA as an example, the hook-and-line catcher processor sector would fish under a 109 mt PSC limit. • demersal shelf rockfish fishery from 10 mt to 9 mt in 2014. Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Photo courtesy of NMFS. 98 IFQ and CQE Programs
Allow CQEs to Hold and Transfer Small Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 96 December 2012 August 7, 2014 November 7, 2014 December 8, 2014 Blocks of Sablefish Quota Share 79 FR 46237 79 FR 66324
Purpose and Need that could be combined to form a single Regulation Summary Results block. Quota share blocks that are less than GOA Amendment 66 established the or equal to the “sweep up” limit are known This amendment removed a regulation that With this action, CQEs have an opportunity Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program to as “small blocks.” This prohibition was due prohibited CQEs from transferring and to acquire additional QS and facilitate CQE encourage sustained participation in the to concerns that CQE quota purchases receiving small blocks of sablefish (and community resident participation in the IFQ halibut and sablefish IFQ Program by could negatively impact quota share price halibut, through a regulatory amendment) Program. The number of QS units held by residents of smaller Gulf of Alaska fishery and availability for purchase by individual quota share (QS). CQEs are now able to CQEs has increased from 1,128,144 in dependent communities. Initially, a portion participants with limited resources. transfer similar sized blocks of QS in the 2014 to 2,161,747 in 2018, though there are of quota shares (QS) in the fishery was However, participation by CQEs in the market place as individual non-CQE QS other factors to consider, in addition to issued in blocks. Each block is a marketplace was limited and these holders. increased QS purchases by CQEs due to consolidation of a small amount of initially concerns were not realized. The purpose of increased flexibility provided from issued QS units that cannot be subdivided lifting the block restriction for “B” and “C” Amendment 94. upon transfer. One of the primary purposes class quota was to incrementally increase of QS blocks and the subsequent the ease of CQE access to QS and thereby amendments to the block regulatory facilitate for the sustained participation by provisions was to conserve small blocks of CQE community residents in the halibut and QS that could be transferred at a relatively sablefish IFQ Program. low cost by crew members and new entrants to the IFQ fisheries. The IFQ Analysis Program incorporates a “sweep-up” A 72-page RIR/IRFA (dated February 2014) provision to allow very small blocks of QS to was prepared for this amendment. In be permanently consolidated, up to addition to the status quo, the document specified limits, so as to be practical to fish. analyzed the action alternative, which would During development of the CQE Program, allow CQE communities to purchase any the Council and NMFS determined that if no size block of halibut and sablefish quota limit on the acquisition of blocked QS was share (Council preferred alternative). Two established, then gains in CQE holdings options under Alternative 2 included could represent losses of QS holdings allowing CQE communities to purchase the among individual residents of those same QS from residents of any CQE community, CQE communities. Therefore, CQEs were or their own CQE community. The preferred restricted from transferring or holding alternative did not include either of these blocked QS of less than a minimum size to requirements to purchase QS from a CQE preserve purchase opportunities for new community resident. entrants in certain regulatory areas. CQEs were originally prohibited from transferring and holding a QS block that is less than the “sweep up” limit, or the number of QS units initially issued as blocks Sablefish. Photo courtesy of Rhonda Hubbard.
99 Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 97 Limit Chinook PSC in Non-Pollock Trawl February 2012 June 25, 2014 December 2, 2014 January 1, 2015 79 FR 35971 79 FR 71350
Purpose and Need the risk of high Chinook salmon PSC in sector met a certain Chinook avoidance Results future years. threshold in the preceding year; Chinook salmon are a highly valued species 5) Two in-season rollovers of unused On May 3, 2015 all GOA non-pollock/non- for commercial, recreational, subsistence, Analysis Chinook salmon PSC from the RP CV rockfish program CV sector trawl fisheries and personal use fisheries. Chinook salmon were closed for the remainder of the year as A 341-page EA/RIR/IRFA (review draft sector to the non-RP CV sector, are a prohibited species in the GOA a result of the non-pollock/non-Rockfish dated May 2014) was prepared for this occurring on October 1 and at the end groundfish fisheries, and, as such, must be Program CV sector reaching its Chinook amendment. This action included three sets of the Rockfish Program season on returned immediately to the sea with a salmon PSC limit of 2,700 fish for the of alternatives which were determined November 15; minimum of injury if caught incidentally in 6) Full retention of all salmon. Western and Central GOA areas. In June through several iterations of analysis. The the groundfish fisheries. In December 2010, 2015, the Council requested that NMFS proposed measures would apply exclusively the Council initiated two sequential Regulation Summary implement an Emergency Rule to allocate to the directed non-pollock trawl fisheries in amendments to address GOA Chinook an additional 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC to the Western and Central Gulf of Alaska. This amendment established separate salmon PSC. The first amendment package the non-pollock/non-Rockfish Program CV annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for trawl (GOA Amendment 93) was expedited; it The Council’s preferred alternative included sector of the GOA groundfish trawl fishery. catcher/processors (Trawl C/P Sector), trawl addressed Chinook salmon PSC in the six elements: Providing 1,600 additional Chinook salmon catcher vessels participating in the Central GOA pollock fisheries through the PSC allowed the sector to harvest its recent 1) A long-term average PSC limit of 7,500 GOA Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program implementation of a PSC limit for those average amount of groundfish during the Chinook salmon per year for the CV Sector), and trawl catcher vessels not target fisheries in the Western and Central remainder of the 2015 fishing year. combined Western and Central GOA participating in the Central GOA Rockfish GOA. At the same time, longer-term Recognizing there is no ability for managers Program (Non-Rockfish Program CV amendment packages were initiated to non-pollock trawl fisheries; to reapportion unused Chinook salmon PSC Sector) fishing for groundfish species other address comprehensive Chinook salmon 2) Apportionment of the annual PSC limit between the pollock or non-pollock, the between three sectors: than pollock. If a sector were to reach its PSC management in all GOA trawl fisheries Council approved Amendment 103, which a. 3,600 Chinook PSC: Catcher/ Chinook salmon PSC limit, NMFS would and to evaluate a broader suite of bycatch provides some flexibility in using the Processors, prohibit further fishing for non-pollock and PSC reduction management measures. Chinook salmon PSC, but did not increase b. 1,200 Chinook PSC: Rockfish groundfish by vessels in that sector. This While the Council has recently established the total PSC limit of 32,500 Chinook action also established and clarified Chinook salmon PSC limits for the directed Program Catcher Vessels – i.e., salmon in the GOA groundfish trawl CVs operating under the authority Chinook salmon retention and discard pollock trawl fisheries in the GOA, no such fisheries. of a rockfish cooperative fishing requirements for vessels, shoreside PSC limit is currently in effect for other GOA quota permit, processors, and stationary floating trawl fisheries, which also intercept Chinook c. 2,700 Chinook PSC: Non-Rockfish processors participating in both the GOA salmon. From 1997 through 2013, the non- Program Catcher Vessels – i.e., all pollock and non-pollock groundfish trawl pollock trawl fisheries accounted for other the non-pollock trawl CV fisheries. approximately 27% of the total trawl fishery activity within the action area; Chinook salmon PSC in the Western and 3) A seasonal Chinook PSC limit for the Central GOA groundfish fisheries. Under CP sector; the regulations, it is incumbent upon fishermen to avoid catching Chinook 4) An incentive buffer (the “uncertainty salmon; however, the Council has pool mechanism”) for the CP and the non-RP CV sectors that provides a determined that it is necessary to evaluate sector with additional PSC, if that management measures to protect against
100 Administrative Limited Entry Correct Vessel Length Exemptions to Council Action Notice of Availability Final Rule Effective 100 December 2014 February 12, 2015 May 5, 2015 April 27, 2015 the License Limitation Program 80 FR 7816 80 FR 25625
Purpose and Need a joint amendment with BSAI Groundfish Regulation Summary Results Amendment 108 and BSAI Crab In 1998, the License Limitation Program Amendment 46. These FMP amendments did not require a This action was necessary for operational (LLP) was established to set an upper limit change in federal regulation which were status quo. FMP amendments associated on the number of vessels that could Analysis consistent with the Council’s original intent. with this action are not expected to impact participate in the groundfish and crab The joint amendments to the FMPs any current stakeholders in the fishery. This A 4-page analysis, dated January 2015, fisheries off Alaska. The LLP limits the corrected the respective LLP small vessel correction was intended to make the FMPs was prepared identifying the inconsistency number, size, and specific operation of exemption sizes to read “less than or equal consistent with Federal regulation, the between FMP language and federal vessels fishing crab and groundfish in the to.” original intent of the Council and historical regulation, and original Council intent. The BSAI and GOA based on historical operations of the LLP since implementation. analysis identified the corrections that participation. During the design and needed to be made. refinement of the LLP, the Vessel Moratorium Program (VMP) was implemented to provide industry stability and curtail interim increases in fishing capacity. The Council intended for the LLP to retain the size limitations established in the VMP. In 2015, the Council was made aware that the vessel length limits specified for the LLP in the FMP did not reflect those of the VMP. Specifically, the language in the VMP had exempted BSAI groundfish vessels “32 feet or less LOA,” GOA groundfish vessels “26 feet or less LOA,” and BSAI crab vessels “32 feet or less LOA.” The LLP language adopted by the Council described the exemptions as applying to vessels “less than 32 feet LOA,” “less than 26 feet LOA,” and “less than 32 feet LOA,” respectively. In effect, this error created an inconsistency in requirements for BSAI groundfish and crab vessels that were exactly 32 feet LOA and for GOA groundfish vessel that were 26 feet LOA. Joint FMP amendments were necessary to correct the language from “less than” to “less than or equal to” in order to reflect the intent of Council and make the FMPs consistent with federal regulation. This was Vessels in Kodiak harbor. Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Figus.
101 Gear Restrictions
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 101 Authorize GOA Sablefish Longline Pots April 2015 August 19, 2016 December 28, 2016 January 27, 2017 81 FR 55408 81 FR 95435
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
In 2006, the Council received a proposal to A 210-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated This amendment redefined legal gear for This amendment adjusted GOA allow the use of pots in the sablefish fishery October 2016) was prepared for this sablefish in the GOA to include pot longline Amendment 14 (implemented in 1985), in southeast Alaska. Over the following amendment. The analysis included potential gear, subject to a pot limit enforced by pot which phased out the use of sablefish pot years, the Council heard increasing impacts of the no action alternative (status identification tags. The measures adopted gear in the GOA. The year of observations of sperm whale and killer quo) as well as one action alternative. under this amendment also require: implementation of Amendment 101 (2017), whale interactions with the sablefish hook- Under the status quo, hook-and-line gear 22 unique vessels harvested sablefish with and-line fleet in the GOA. These would continue to be the only legal gear • pot longline gear to be moved or pot gear in the GOA. These vessels interactions often result in depredation, the type for sablefish IFQ in the GOA. The tended within a certain amount of time harvested 891 mt of sablefish (10% of technical term for whales stealing or action alternative would allow, but not after being set, or removed from the sablefish IFQ in the GOA). The number of damaging fish caught on fishing gear, which require, harvesters to use pot longline gear fishing grounds when making a pots registered was 11,557, and 168 pots affects the ability of sablefish quota in the sablefish IFQ fishery in the GOA, and sablefish delivery, were reported lost. As of year-end 2018, 28 shareholders to harvest their sablefish IFQs it included the following elements which • specific marking of pot longline gear, unique vessels harvested sablefish with pot by reducing catch per unit of effort and were adopted as management measures: and gear in the GOA. Pot gear accounted for increasing fishing costs. Research into • retention of Pacific halibut if sufficient 1,122 mt (13%) of IFQ sablefish harvest. • area-specific pot limits, developing technological solutions to deter IFQ is held by fishermen to cover the Incidental to the sablefish pot fishery, 14 whales and changes in fishing strategies • pot tag requirements and pot gear halibut IFQ caught using pot longline vessels fishing with pot gear retained 30 mt has not resolved the problem. Depredation marking requirements, gear. of halibut (increase from 16 mt in 2017). also has negative consequences for the • area-specific pot gear removal and whales through increased risk of vessel redeployment requirements, strike, gear entanglement, fisherman • required retention of incidentally caught aggression, and altered foraging strategies. halibut (provided the sablefish IFQ An additional management concern stems holder also holds sufficient halibut IFQ). from the impact that whale depredation may have on the accuracy of sablefish stock Additionally, all vessels using longline pot abundance indices. The Council, noting the gear would be required to use logbooks and increased frequency and severity of whale VMS. Through the elements adopted as depredation in the GOA, initiated action with part of the preferred alternative, the Council the understanding that pot gear for sablefish attempted to minimize potential gear could reduce sperm whale and killer whale conflicts that could result from allowing pot interactions with fishing gear in the Gulf of and hook-and-line gear to fish in the same Alaska. regulatory areas.
Sablefish pot gear on survey vessel. pot gear. Photo courtesy of ADF&G. 102 Monitoring Observer Coverage for Small Catcher/ Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 102 June 2015 December 29, 2015 March 29, 2016 March 29, 2016 Processors 80 FR 81262 81 FR 17403 Corrected: January 22, 2016 81 FR 3775 Purpose and Need that shows that the CP processes a small vessel’s participation in a catch share Regulation Summary amount of groundfish relative to the rest of program (AFA, Amendment 80, Rockfish The restructured Observer Program was the CP fleet. The regulations also did not Program, CDQ Program, AI pollock, longline This amendment modifies the criteria for implemented through GOA Amendment 76 provide a way to move a CP placed in CP subsector), the vessel would be NMFS to place small catcher/processors in and BSAI Amendment 86 in 2013. Under partial coverage into full coverage if ineligible for partial observer coverage the partial observer coverage category the restructured Program, all catcher/ production increases to a level deemed under this action. For vessels that fall under under the North Pacific Groundfish and processors (CPs) are in the full observer appropriate for full coverage. partial coverage despite this limitation, the Halibut Observer Program. It allows certain coverage category, unless they meet the preferred alternative included the following catcher/processors, with relatively small requirements for an allowance to be placed Analysis five elements. levels of groundfish production, to qualify for in the partial coverage category. The partial observer coverage under the annual For GOA Amendment 102 (BSAI placement of CPs in full coverage enables Element 1. Production threshold for placing observer deployment plan, in place of the Amendment 112), a 125-page RIR/IRFA NMFS to obtain independent estimates of a catcher/processor in partial coverage is full observer coverage normally required of (final draft dated February 2016) analyzed catch, at-sea bycatch, and prohibited Option 2B, average weekly production of up catcher/processors. This provides a two alternatives including the no action species catch (PSC) for CPs. In recognition to 79,000 pounds (35.8 mt). relatively limited exception to the general alternative. The no action alternative would of the relatively high cost of full coverage for requirement that all CPs are in the full maintain the existing exemptions from full Element 2. The basis year for placing a small CPs and the limited amount of catch, observer coverage category and maintains coverage for vessels: catcher/processor in partial coverage is the PSC, and bycatch by these vessels, the vessel’s production in a standard basis year the full observer coverage requirement for Council recommended two limited 1) less than 60 feet length overall that or alternate basis year. The standard basis all trawl CPs and CPs participating in a allowances for placing a CP in partial acted as a catcher vessel and a year is the fishing year minus two years. If catch share program that requires full coverage. Both of these allowances were catcher/processor in any year from the vessel has no production in the observer coverage. based on vessel activity from 2003 through 2003 through 2009; standard basis year, the alternate basis Results 2009. 2) that processed less than 5,000 pounds year will be the most recent year that the of groundfish on an average daily basis Owners and operators of some CPs with vessel has any production before the Three CPs were included in partial in their last year of production, between relatively small production requested that standard basis year going back to 2009. coverage under exemptions beginning with 2003 and 2009, inclusive; and the Council and NMFS revise these the restructured Observer Program 3) that did not process more than one Element 3. If a catcher/processor has no allowances to include vessels that began implementation in 2013. A small number of metric ton of groundfish on any day production in the basis year as determined processing after 2009. These operators CPs have taken the opportunity to during the preceding fishing year, under Element 2, Option 2. Place the believed that the costs they incur for full participate in partial coverage since which means a maximum of 365 metric catcher/processor in partial coverage. observer coverage were disproportionate to implementation of Amendment 102. A total tons in a year. the revenues they earned and that these Element 4. For a catcher/processor to be in of 2, 7, 6, and 6 CPs opted in and were high costs precluded them from operating in The action alternative would revise the partial coverage, Option 1. Vessel owner approved for partial coverage in 2016, some fisheries, and that it was impossible to allowances for NMFS to place small CPs must choose partial coverage for the 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. sustain a processing operation by into partial coverage. Under this alternative, upcoming fishing year by an annual processing no more than one metric ton on the basic criterion for placing a CP in partial deadline (otherwise in full coverage). any single day during the year. The coverage in a fishing year is the vessel’s Element 5. Trawl catcher/processors are allowance for placing a CP in partial prior production except the following ineligible for partial observer coverage (i.e., coverage should, at a minimum, be based limitation: If a CP is required to have ≥ always in full observer coverage). on a measurement of ongoing production 100% observer coverage because of the
103 Prohibited Species Catch
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 103 GOA Chinook PSC Reapportionment December 2015 June 16, 2016 September 12, 2016 October 12, 2016 81 FR 39237 81 FR 62659
Purpose and Need Analysis vessel sector Chinook salmon PSC limit, the Results Regional Administrator may reapportion Currently, there is no ability for managers to An 84-page RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review Chinook salmon PSC available to the Since implementation of Amendment 103, reapportion unused Chinook salmon PSC draft dated April 2016) was prepared for this Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector there was one reallocation of Chinook between the pollock or non-pollock amendment. The analysis compared two except for 150 Chinook salmon to the non- salmon PSC. That reallocation occurred fisheries. Fishery closures could be alternatives including the no action Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector during the D season of 2017 when 404 avoided, or limited, by providing NMFS the alternative. The action alternative to allow Chinook salmon PSC limit.” (preferred) chinook salmon were reallocated from the authority to use inseason management to NMFS to reapportion unused Chinook Central GOA to Western GOA to reapportion a limited amount of unused salmon PSC between the GOA pollock and Option 5. Only allow a sector to receive a accommodate the pollock directed fishery. Chinook salmon PSC between the GOA non-pollock sectors based on criteria reapportionment that does not exceed The combined annual PSC limit of 32,500 pollock and non-pollock fisheries. This established for inseason reapportionments (suboptions: 10% to 50%) of the sector’s Chinook salmon was not exceeded during would provide increased management had five options, three of which were initial (excluding any uncertainty buffer that that reallocation. There was not a flexibility without exceeding the overall selected as part of the preferred alternative. may have been added as a result of the reallocation of Chinook salmon during the 32,500 Chinook salmon PSC limit or previous year’s performance per 2018 fishing year. Option 1. Only allow reapportionments negating the current caps under Amendment 97) Chinook salmon PSC limit between the GOA pollock and the non- Amendments 93 and 97, increase the during a calendar year (preferred; selects Rockfish Program catcher vessel sectors likelihood that groundfish resources are 50% for the suboption). (no reapportionment to Rockfish Program more fully harvested, and minimize the catcher vessels). Regulation Summary adverse socioeconomic impacts of the fishery closures on harvesters, processors, Option 2. Only allow reapportionments that GOA Amendment 103 reapportioned and communities. do not exceed (suboptions: 10%, 20%, or unused Chinook salmon prohibited species 30%) of any initial apportionment of a catch (PSC) within and among specific trawl Chinook salmon PSC limit during a calendar sectors in the Central and Western Gulf of year. Alaska (GOA), based on specific criteria and within specified limits. The amendment Option 3. Prohibit the reapportionment of did not increase the combined annual PSC Chinook salmon PSC from catcher vessel limit of 32,500 Chinook salmon that applies sectors to the non-pollock catcher/ to Central and Western GOA trawl sectors processor sector. (preferred) under the FMP. It also promoted more Option 4. To increase flexibility and options flexible management of GOA trawl Chinook for NMFS Alaska region to manage the salmon PSC, increased the likelihood that different catcher vessel non-pollock groundfish resources could be more fully Chinook salmon PSC caps, revise the harvested, reduced the potential for fishery Rockfish Program Chinook salmon PSC closures, and maintained the overall reapportionment provision to read as Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Central follows: “If, on October 1 of each year, the and Western GOA. Regional Administrator determines that more than 150 Chinook salmon are available in the Rockfish Program catcher
104 Monitoring
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 104 Electronic Monitoring Integration December 2016 March 23, 2017 August 8, 2017 September 7, 2017 82 FR 14853 82 FR 36991
Purpose and Need an observer or where deploying an observer retention of rockfish species with associated evaluating the monitoring program through is impracticable. EM technology may also dockside monitoring, however this was not the Annual Report. NMFS woud also set up The Council had been actively considering reduce economic, operational and/or social included in the preferred alternative. contract or grant with one or multiple EM the use of electronic monitoring (EM) as costs associated with deploying human Alternative 3 would allow the use of EM for service providers to install and service EM part of the suite of fishery monitoring tools observers throughout coastal Alaska. The compliance monitoring of vessel operator equipment, and to collect and review EM since the development of an analysis to purpose of GOA Amendment 104 (BSAI logbooks used for catch estimation. The data. The reviewed EM at-sea data would restructure the Observer Program, which Amendment 114) was to supplement Council’s preferred alternative was to be used in catch estimation for NMFS’ catch was implemented in 2013 through GOA existing monitoring tools and techniques in integrate EM into the Observer Program to accounting system (CAS) and fishery Amendment 76 (BSAI Amendment 86). The order to affordably obtain at-sea data from a allow EM to be used in addition to human management. purpose of the North Pacific Observer broader cross-section of the fixed gear observers for the purpose of monitoring at- Program is to collect data necessary for the groundfish and halibut fleet. sea fixed gear groundfish and halibut fishing Results conservation, management, and scientific activity in the partial coverage category of EM for hook-and-line and pot vessels were understanding of the groundfish and halibut Analysis the Observer Program. The implementation fully integrated into the NMFS CAS in 2017 fisheries off Alaska. To carry out their A 278-page EA/RIR (draft dated July 2017) of Alternative 2 would bring EM as an option and 2018, respectively. The program is responsibilities for conserving and into the process by which the Council and was prepared for this amendment. The broadly acknowledged as a success and managing groundfish resources, the Council NMFS make annual policy choices on which document considered two alternatives, in had already grown to include 168 vessels and NMFS must have high quality, timely, vessels are monitored in different selection addition to the no action alternative, that by 2019. The Council’s fixed gear EM and cost-effective data to support pools, and the level of monitoring required would allow an EM system, which consists Workgroup formed a highly productive management and scientific information for each pool. of a control center to manage the data collaborative body of industry, agency, and needs. In part, this information is collected collection, connected to an array of science representatives, who provided through a comprehensive fishery monitoring Regulation Summary peripheral components including digital critical guidance for the composition and program for the groundfish and halibut cameras, gear sensors, and a global This amendment and associated regulatory implementation of Amendment 104 between fisheries off Alaska, with the goals of positioning system receiver, onboard changes would establish a process for 2014 and 2018. The fixed gear EM verifying catch composition and quantity, vessels to monitor the harvest and discard owners or operators of vessels using non- Workgroup was officially disbanded in May including of those species discarded at sea, of fish and other incidental catch at sea, as trawl gear to request to participate in the of 2018 and was replaced by a trawl catcher and collecting biological information on a supplement to existing observer EM selection pool and the requirements for vessel EM Committee. Lessons learned marine resources. While a large component coverage. vessel owners or operators while in the EM from the fixed gear EM Workgroup were of this program relies on the use of human selection pool. It would establish EM as a taken up by the trawl EM Committee, to observers, the Council recognizes the The no action alternative would maintain the part of the Observer Program for the fixed support development of an EM program for benefit of having access to an assorted set status quo- no electronic monitoring would gear groundfish and halibut fisheries of the compliance on trawl catcher vessels in the of monitoring tools to be able to balance the be implemented in the Council’s Fisheries Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea and Aleutian Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. need for high-quality data with the costs of Research Plan. Alternative 2 would allow Islands. monitoring and the ability of fishery use of EM for catch estimation on vessels in participants, particularly those on small the EM selection pool, and two options The integration of EM into the Observer vessels, to accommodate human observers under this alternative were analyzed. The Program would mean that NMFS would onboard. EM technology has the potential to first was to allow EM as a monitoring tool enfold EM into their Observer Program allow discard estimation of fish, including when fishing IFQ in multiple areas infrastructure, management, and oversight, halibut PSC and mortality of seabirds, (preferred alternative). The second option including the annual process of developing onboard vessels that have difficulty carrying the Council considered would require full the Annual Deployment Plan (ADP) and
105 Administrative Habitat Conservation
Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 105 EFH Omnibus Amendments April 2017 March 5, 2018 July 5, 2018 May 31, 2018 83 FR 9257 83 FR 31340
Purpose and Need Analysis Regulation Summary Results
The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Final Rule A 79-page EA (final draft dated June 2018) The actions included in this amendment The 2017 update to EFH incorporated and each of the Council’s FMPs state that a was prepared for Amendment 105 in the were intended to update the Council FMPs model-based definitions and maps of EFH review of EFH components should be GOA and the following amendments: to incorporate the best new information for the BSAI Groundfish, GOA Groundfish, completed every 5 years and the EFH Amendment 115 to the BSAI FMP, available. Amendment 105 in the GOA BSAI King and Tanner Crab, Salmon, and provisions should be revised or amended, Amendment 49 to the Crab FMP, would update EFH descriptions and replace Arctic FMPs, and incorporated results from as warranted, based on the best available Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP, and existing maps in the FMPs with maps that the Fishing Effects model to assess the information. The 2015 EFH 5-year review, Amendment 2 to the Arctic FMP. The represent the 95th percentile by season for impacts of commercial fishing on EFH. which concluded in June 2017, did the Council did not recommend updates to the each species and life stage, as available. These new models make use of following: Scallop FMP. There would also be updates on EFH considerable new data available since the conservation recommendations for non- last EFH review in 2010 and incorporate the There were eight actions considered in this • evaluated new environmental and fishing activities. The Council elected to Catch-In-Areas (CIA) database to describe omnibus EFH amendment package, four of habitat data; take no action to initiate the HAPC process, fishing effort with greater precision than which were specific to the non-GOA • developed new multivariate models to or to update EFH research priorities. previously allowed. groundfish FMPs. Under the action specific describe EFH; to the GOA FMP, the Council considered Much of the information has been • revised models to evaluate fisheries two alternatives, including the no action incorporated into the Alaska EFH Web impacts on EFH; alternative. The action alternative Application, an ESRI platform which hosts • update assessment of non-fishing (preferred) would update EFH descriptions the complete and updated collection of EFH impacts on EFH; in the FMP, as well as replace the existing maps for Alaska’s North Pacific and Arctic • assessed information gaps and EFH maps in the FMP. The other three FMPs. The new online map interface research needs; and actions applicable to the GOA were also provides an improved, efficient, and • identified whether any revisions to EFH applicable to the other FMPs (except for effective way to view, search, and query were needed. scallop). One of these actions would update EFH map information. EFH conservation recommendations for non The next EFH review is scheduled for 2022. Based on the 5-year review, the Council -fishing activities. It would also revise the determined that new habitat and life history appropriate FMP appendices where information was available to revise many of conservation recommendations for non- the EFH descriptions and maps in the fishing activities are described. The other Council’s FMPs. two action alternatives applicable to the GOA and other FMPs would initiate a Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) proposal process and revise research priorities for EFH.
106 FMP Species Categories Reclassifying Squid to Ecosystem Council Action Proposed Rule Final Rule Effective 106 June 2017 March 27, 2018 July 6, 2018 August 6, 2018 Component 83 FR 13117 83 FR 31460
Purpose and Need National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines Regulation Summary Results include options for classification and Squids are short-lived, highly productive, management of target and non-target This final rule prohibited directed fishing for It is too early to determine the results of this and important prey species. No species in FMPs. Options for classification the squid species complex (squids) by amendment. conservation concerns for squid populations and management of non-target stocks Federally permitted groundfish fishermen, in the GOA nor the BSAI were present at include identification of the species as “non- moved squid to the Ecosystem Component the time of the amendment. Squid are target species in need of conservation and category, and specified the MRA of 20% in thought to be substantially more abundant management,” or as “non-target ecosystem the GOA and BSAI groundfish fisheries than can be estimated from trawl survey component species, not in need of consistent with the existing BSAI squid data. OFLs for squid are based on average conservation and management.” retention limit. catch calculations that are poorly linked to abundance. Although limited life-history Analysis information exists, the best available A 150-page EA/RIR (final draft dated June scientific information suggests that squid 2018) analyzed three alternatives for GOA biomass estimates are substantial Amendment 106 (and corresponding BSAI underestimates of true biomass. Fishing Amendment 117). Under the no action related mortality is extremely low compared alternative, squids would continue to be with the estimated predation mortality in managed as target species, and catch food web models. At the time of the specifications (OFL, ABC, and TAC) would amendment, squid were managed as target continue to be set for the squid complex. species despite being caught only MRAs would be established at 20%. incidentally under status quo, and an annual Alternative 2 (preferred) would move squid OFL, ABC, and TAC for the squid complex to the Ecosystem Component category was specified separately for the BSAI and under both FMPs. Catch specifications GOA. There are no directed commercial would no longer be required. Directed fisheries for squid in Federal waters, though fishing for squid species would be squid bycatch is retained in some fisheries prohibited. Alternative 3 would designate and often utilized to prevent waste. In the squids as a ‘non-target’ species complex absence of a directed fishery, squid are whereby OFL and ABC would still be very unlikely to become overfished. If the established but a TAC would no longer be total TAC of squid is caught, retention is necessary. Directed fishing for squids would prohibited for the remainder of the year. be prohibited. Three options for MRAs (2%, The purposes of this action were to identify 10%, 20%) were considered under both the appropriate level of conservation and action alternatives. management required for squid and to classify the squid complex in the BSAI and Magistrate armhook squid (Berryteuthis magister). Image courtesy of NMFS. GOA groundfish FMPs based on the best available scientific information. The revised
107 North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 271-2809
For more information, visit our website or contact the Council office. www.npfmc.org
Produced by NPFMC under NOAA Award #FNA15NMF4410013