{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Programmatic supplemental environmental impact statement for Alaska groundfish fisheries implemented under the authority of the Fishery management plans for the Groundfish fishery of the Gulf of Alaska and the Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area : public review draft. Volume 6","Authors":"","Publication date":"2001","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-21-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000716106"},"Pages":["ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES\nDRAFT PROGRAMMATIC SUPPLEMENTAL\nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT\nVOLUME VI\nAppendices A through H\nSH\n222\n.A4\nP7\n2001\nv.6\nUnited States Department\nof Commerce\nNOAA\nNational Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nAlaska Region\nJanuary 2001","Alaska Groundfish Fisheries\nDraft Programmatic Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Statement\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nSH\nVOLUME I\n222\nA4\nChapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action\nChapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action\nP7\nVOLUME II\n2001\nChapter 3 Affected Environment\nU. 6\nVOLUME III\nChapter 4 Environmental and Economic Consequences\nLIBRARY\nVOLUME IV\nChapter 4 Environmental and Economic Consequences (Continued)\nMAR 202013\nNational Oceanic &\nVOLUME V\nAtmospheric Administration\nU.S. Dept. of Commerce\nChapter 5 List of Preparers\nChapter 6 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of Statement are Sent\nChapter 7 Literature Cited\nVOLUME VI\nAppendix A Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fisheries Management Plan Amendment Summaries\nAppendix B Gulf of Alaska Fisheries Management Plan Amendment Summaries\nAppendix C Regulatory Amendment Summaries\nAppendix D Notice of Intent\nAppendix E Scoping Notice\nAppendix F Scoping Report; Notice of Availability\nAppendix G North Pacific Fishery Management Council Comprehensive Management Goals\nAppendix H Non-Target Species List\nVOLUME VII\nAppendix I Sector and Regional Profiles of the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries\nVOLUME VIII\nAppendix J Cumulative Impacts Assessment","APPENDIX A\nBering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fisheries Management Plan\nAmendment Summaries","Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish\nin the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands\nPrepared by the staff of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council\nNovember 21, 2000","Bering Sea and\nAleutian Islands\nAmendment Summaries\nThis document contains 1-page summaries of more than sixty amendments to the\nFishery Management Plan for Groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands\nthat were approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and\nimplemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service from when the plan was\nimplemented in 1978 through 1999.","This document contains 1-page summaries of more than sixty amendments to the Fishery\nManagement Plan for Groundfish in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands that were approved\nby the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and implemented by the National\nMarine Fisheries Service from when the plan was implemented in 1981 through 1999.","Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish\nin the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands\nAmendment Number\nAmendment Title\nOptimum Yield and TAC Framework\n1\nForeign Fleet PSC Limits for Chinook Salmon\n1a\nIncrease Allocation to Domestic Fleet\n2\nReduced PSC Limits for Foreign Fleet\n3\nIncrease Domestic Allocation II\n4\nReduce Chinook Salmon PSC Limit\n5\nDomestic Fishery Development Zone\n6\nForeign Longline Area Restrictions\n7\n1984 and 1985 Salmon PSC\n8\nReporting Requirements/Habitat Protection Policy\n9\nBristol Bay Trawl Closure and Crab PSC Limits\n10\nApportionment of Pollock for Joint Venture Vessels\n11\nCatcher Processor Reporting Requirements\n11a\nPermit Requirements\n12\nRevised Crab and Halibut PSC Limits\n12a\nObserver Program, Sablefish Gear Allocations, Walrus Island Closure\n13\nPollock Roe Stripping\n14\nSablefish and Halibut Individual Fishing Quotas\n15\nInterm Harvest Levels and PSC Management\n16\nHerring Savings Areas\n16a\nWalrus Haulouts and Experimental Permits\n17\nInshore/Offshore Allocations\n18\nBycatch Control Measures\n19\nSteller Sea Lion Buffer Zones\n20\nHalibut Bycatch Mortality Limits\n21\nPribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Area\n21a\nChinook Salmon Savings Area\n21b\nTrawl Test Zones\n22","Amendment Title\nAmendment Number\nMoratorium\n23\nPacific Cod Allocation\n24\nProhibited Species Catch Limits and Observer Data\n25\nSalmon Retention for Food Banks\n26\nResearch Plan\n27\nAleutian Islands Regulatory Areas\n28\nSalmon Bycatch Accounting\n29\nCommunity Development Quota: Increasing the Allocation Limit for Sablefish\n30\nQuota Share Blocks\n31\nTransfer of Community Development Quota Compensation Quota Shares\n32\nProcessing of Non-IFQ species\n33\nAtka Mackerel Jig Allocation\n34\nChum Salmon Savings Area\n35\nForage Fish Protection\n36\nRed King Crab Protection Measures\n37\nInnshore/Offshore Allocations\n38\nLicense Limitation Program\n39\nOpilio Bycatch Limits\n40\nReduced Bairdi Bycatch Limits\n41\nIFQ Vessel Buy Down\n42\nIFQ Sweep Up Provisions\n43\nOverfishing Definitions\n44\nReauthorize CDQ Fisheries\n45\nPacific Cod Allocation (II)\n46\nThird Party Observer Program\n47\nTAC Streamlining\n48\nImproved Retention/Improved Utilization\n49\nHalibut Donation Program\n50\nInshore/Offshore Allocations\n51\nVessel Registration Program\n52\nShortraker/rougheye Rockfish Allocation\n53","Indirect Ownership and Use Caps\n54\nAmendment Number\nAmendment Title\nEssential Fish Habitat\n55\nRevised Overfishing Definitions\n56\nPollock Bottom Trawl Gear Prohibition\n57\nReduced Chinook Salmon Bycatch Limits\n58\n59\nMoratorium Extensions\nLicense Limitation Program\n60\nAmerican Fisheries Act Implementation\n61\nPacific Cod Fixed Gear Allocations\n64\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern: Harvest Control Measures\n65\nPacific Cod Species and Gear Endorsements\n67","Optimum Yield and TAC Framework\nBSAI Amendment 1\nDates: BSAI Amendment 1 was adopted by the Council in May 1982. NMFS published final rule on January 4, 1984 (49 FR\n397). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1984.\nPurpose and Need: The single species OY levels that were established in the original FMP draft did not provide the flexibility\nneeded to respond to biological changes and the rapidly developing domestic fishery. Plan amendments were required for each\nadjustment to the OY and the amount allocated to domestic and foreign fisheries. This was a very cumbersome, costly, and slow\nprocess that impeded the development of a domestic fishery. Additionally, trawl and longline closure areas implemented with the\noriginal FMP inhibited the developing domestic fisheries, so some of these restrictions were removed.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment included the following measures:\n1. Established a multi-year, multi-species optimum yield for BSAI groundfish complex (1.4 million to 2.0 million mt);\n2. Established a framework procedure for the determination and apportionment of amounts of groundfish specified for total\nallowable catch (TAC), domestic annual harvest (DAH), reserves, and total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF);\n3. Allowed year-round domestic trawling and longlining in the Winter Halibut Savings Area and Bristol Bay Pot Sanctuary;\n4. Modified seasonal foreign trawl restrictions in the Petrel Bank area to be based on crab opening dates;\n5. Updated appendices and annexes to the FMP; added Annex I (description of SAFE document); and\n6. Eliminated \"Misty Moon\" grounds south of the Pribilofs from the winter halibut savings area.\nAnalysis: A 32-page RIR/IRFA (final draft dated August, 1982) was prepared for this amendment. Three primary alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered. The other alternative that was not chosen would have adopted a multi-species OY of 1.6\nmillion mt (which equaled 80% of the midpoint range of the MSY estimate). The alternative adopted for OY was conservative (set\nequal to 85% of the MSY range, estimated to be 1.7 to 2.4 million mt), and based on a range (1.4 to 2.0 million mt) to allow for\nflexibility with changes in the ecosystem. The original FMP OY specifications for individual groundfish species were replaced by\nthe OY range for the complex, with total allowable catch (TAC) specified annually for each target species and for the \"other species\"\ncategory. Fifteen percent of each TAC for target and \"other species\" was set aside for reserves, which could be used for unexpected\nexpansion of the domestic fleet or unexpected conditions of a stock during a fishing year, and for in-season allocations. The TAC\ncould then be apportioned between the domestic annual harvest (DAH) and the total allowable level for foreign fisheries (TALFF).\nResults: Since the 2 million mt OY cap was implemented in 1984, six proposals from fishing associations and foreign interests\nwere submitted to increase the cap. The Council initiated formal analysis three times (1988, 89, and 90), but rejected any increase\nfor the following reasons: its aim to eliminate foreign and joint venture fishing, concerns about the adequacy of biological\ninformation, economic, and ecological factors. In 1991, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigated this rejection of\nan OY increase, and concluded that the Council's decision was appropriate (GAO/RCED-91-96). Total annual catch of groundfish\nhas remained at or below 2 million mt. Recent catches have been 1.3 to 1.8 million mt.","Foreign Fleet PSC Limits for Chinook Salmon\nBSAI Amendment 1a\nDates: Amendment la was adopted by the Council in March, 1981. A proposed rule was published on October 29, 1981 (46 FR\n53475) and a final rule published on January 12, 1982 (47 FR 1295). Effective date of implementation was January 12, 1982.\nPurpose and Need: Western Alaska Native groups expressed concern over the apparent increase in the incidental catch of\nwestern Alaska chinook salmon in the foreign trawl fisheries. Western Alaska Native groups had negotiated with the Japanese\ntrawling interests to limit the number of chinook salmon caught incidentally in foreign trawl operations to 55,250 in 1982.\nAmendment la made this agreement formal by establishing a prohibited species catch (PSC) limit of 55,250 fish in the eastern Bering\nSea foreign trawl fishery. This amount was a 15 percent reduction from the 1981 chinook salmon PSC of 65,000 fish implemented\nunder the preliminary management plan. Additionally, Amendment la established a formula used to distribute the salmon PSC so\nthat if there were changes in TALFF during the year with releases of reserves, the salmon PSC for a country would be adjusted also.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment la established foreign chinook salmon PSC limits as follows: During any fishing year,\nthat portion of fishing Area 1 lying between 55° N and 57°N latitude and 165° W and 170° W longitude and all of fishing Area 2 may\nbe closed for the remainder of the periods January 1 through March 31, and October 1 through December 31 to trawl vessels of any\nnation. This closure will occur when vessels of a nation have intercepted that nation's portion of the PSC of chinook salmon. A\nnation's initial portion of the chinook salmon PSC for a fishing year was determined by multiplying 55,250 (the total PSC for\nchinook salmon) by the ratio of that nation's initial groundfish allocation to the total initial TALFF plus reserves for groundfish.\nAnalysis: No formal analysis of this amendment was located in the files. Note that the final rule states \"The Administrator of\nNOAA has determined that this proposed rulemaking is not a 'major rule' requiring a regulatory impact analysis under Executive\nOrder 1291, and that the sector of the U.S. fishing industry dealing in groundfish from the Bering sea and Aleutian Islands is too\nsmall for the proposed action to have a significant effect on the economy. The Administrator also certifies that approval and\nimplementation of Amendments 1 a and 2 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and\nthus do not require the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis.\"\nResults: Bycatch of chinook salmon was greatly reduced in the early 1980's, from a high of about 115,000 fish in 1980 to only\n10,000 fish by 1983. An estimated 15,644 chinook salmon were taken as bycatch in foreign trawl fisheries in 1982.","Increase Allocation to Domestic Fleet\nBSAI Amendment 2\nDates: Amendment 2 was adopted by the Council in September, 1980. A proposed rule was published on October 29, 1981 (46\nFR 53475) and a final rule published on January 12, 1982 (47 FR 1295). Effective date of implementation was January 12, 1982.\nPurpose and Need: The domestic fleet was beginning to grow, and U.S fishermen, particularly those delivering fish to foreign\nvessels under joint venture arrangements, judged that they would be able to catch more flatfish than in the past. Additionally, NMFS\nresource assessment data indicated a short-term increase in Pacific cod due to a strong year class entering the fishery, along with a\nrapid expansion of the domestic fishery for this species.\nThe purpose of the amendment was to increase the domestic annual harvesting (DAH) amount and the joint venture processing (JVP)\namount of yellowfin sole and other flatfish, and consequently decrease the amount available to foreign fishing (TALFF). The Pacific\ncod catch specifications were increased, particularly for domestic fisheries, to reflect best available scientific information.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment changed the specifications for yellowfin sole, other flatfish, and Pacific cod as\nfollows:\nDAH increased from 2,050 mt to 26,200 mt.\nYellowfin sole:\nJVP increased from 850 mt to 25,000 mt.\nTALFF decreased by 24,150 mt.\nDAH increased from 1,300 mt to 4,200 mt.\nOther flatfish:\nJVP increased from 100 mt to 3,000 mt.\nTALFF decreased by 2,900 mt.\nMSY decreased from 58,700 mt to 55,000 mt.\nPacific cod:\nEY increased from 58,700 to 160,000 mt.\nABC increased from 58,700 mt to 160,000 mt.\nOY increased from 58,700 mt to 78,700 mt.\nReserve increased from 2,935 mt to 3,935 mt.\nDAP increased from 7,000 mt to 26,000 mt.\nDAH increased from 24,265 mt to 43,265 mt.\nAnalysis: A 5-page EA analysis and a 4- page IRFA analysis was prepared for this amendment. Only one alternative to the status\nquo was considered.\nResults: The domestic and joint venture fisheries continued to grow. Additional increases in domestic allocations were made\nin 1983 under Amendment 4. Allocations of catch were frameworked under Amendment 1 in 1984.","BSAI Amendment 3\nReduced PSC Limits for Foreign Fleet\nDates: Amendment 3 was adopted by the Council in September 1981. NMFS published a proposed rule on March 11, 1983 (48\nFR 10383) and a final rule on July 2, 1983 (48 FR 24719). The effective date of implementation was July 4, 1983.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of this amendment was to reduce incidental bycatch of salmon, halibut, king and Tanner\ncrab in the foreign trawl fisheries, and thereby reduce the economic costs to U.S. fishers that participate in these fisheries. The\nCouncil felt the existing requirement that these species be returned to the sea as soon as possible was not reducing the incidental\nbycatch and associated mortality of these species. The intent of this amendment was to set low allowable bycatch rates to reduce\nbycatch. By providing incentives (more groundfish TALFF allocation to that country), it was felt that foreign vessels could reduce\ntheir bycatch of prohibited species and still catch the groundfish TALFF.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 3 reduced bycatch of prohibited species in foreign groundfish fisheries. Essentially,\ntotal PSC allocations for foreign nations were based on bycatch rates multiplied by the nations TALFF allocation. Bycatch rate\nreductions to be met by 1986 from status quo base years (1977-80) were as follows: halibut, 50%; king and Tanner crab 25%; salmon\n75% The target level of salmon bycatch was 17,473 fish. If bycatch apportionments for any PSC species were met or exceeded,\nthat nation's fleet was prohibited from fishing in the entire BSAI area, unless exempted by the NMFS Regional Director.\nAnalysis: A 39-page RIR/IRFA (final draft dated November, 1981) was prepared for this amendment. There were three\nalternatives, including the status quo that were considered. The other non-status quo alternatives not chosen would have closed\nINPFC Areas I and II during the period October 1 through March 31, when prohibited species were believed to be highly\nconcentrated.\nResults: The foreign fleet\nBycatch in foreign and JV groundfish fisheries in the BSAI 1983-1986.\nsuccessfully reduced bycatch in their\nfisheries (of course, part of this\nSource: Guttormsen et al. 1990.\nreduction is attributable to reduced\nTALFF). However, bycatch savings\nHalibut (mt)\nSalmon (#)\nKing crab (#)\nwere offset by the growing joint\nYear\nForeign\nJV\nForeign\nJV\nForeign\nJV\nventure (JV) fisheries. The adjacent\n1983\n1,872\n438\n18,173\n24,493\n404,013\n630,144\ntable illustrates these results.\n1984\n2,128\n617\n16,516\n67,622\n292,223\n398,865\n1985\n1,789\n1,026\n10,003\n10,420\n219,783\n1,005290\n1986\n1,192\n1,711\n1,643\n19,340\n14,631\n260,435","Increase Domestic Allocation II\nBSAI Amendment 4\nDates: Amendment 4 was adopted by the Council in 1981. NMFS published a proposed rule/notice of partial approval on\nDecember 6, 1982 (47 FR 54841) and a final rule on May 12, 1983 (48 FR 21336). Effective date of implementation was May 9,\n1983.\nPurpose and Need: The primary purpose was to provide additional opportunities for growth in domestic fisheries. U.S.\nfishermen who delivered fish to foreign processing vessels indicated that the existing domestic annual harvests (DAHs) would not\nallow joint venture (JV, a component of DAH) operations to continue, because the amounts of certain species (pollock, yellowfin\nsole, other flatfish, Atka mackerel, and other species) allocated to DAH were insufficient. Additionally, the abundance of Pacific\ncod had increased due to a strong 1977 year-class entering the fishery, so Amendment 4 also increased the ABC and OY for Pacific\ncod. Amendment 4 was also implemented to allow foreign fishing between 3 to 12 miles in the Aleutian Islands, so that they could\ncatch their groundfish allocations. Previously, foreign fisheries were only allowed to operate outside of 12 miles, but the continental\nshelf is very narrow in this area, making fishing impracticable and thus the catch could not be taken. In its original draft, Amendment\n4 would have provided more flexibility and timeliness of conservation measures by giving the Secretary authority to issue field orders\nfor adjusting time/area closures. This part was disapproved because \"the amendment failed to specify adequately the procedures,\nlimits, and types of responses that could be made in issuing such orders.\"\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 4 allowed foreign trawling outside 3 miles north of the Aleutians between 170°30 W and\n170°W and south of the Aleutians between 170°W and 172°W, and allowed foreign longlining outside 3 miles west of 170°W\nlongitude. Amendment 4 also changed the specifications for yellowfin sole, other flatfish, and Pacific cod as follows:\nDAH increased from 19,550 mt to 74,500 mt, JVP increased from 9,050 mt to 64,000 mt.\nPollock:\nTALFF decreased from 930,450 mt to 875,500 mt.\nDAH increased from 26,200 mt to 31,200 mt, JVP increased from 25,000 mt to 30,000 mt.\nYellowfin sole:\nTALFF decreased from 84,950 mt to 79,950 mt.\nDAH increased from 4,200 mt to 11,200 mt, JVP increased from 3,000 mt to 10,000 mt.\nOther flatfish:\nTALFF decreased from 53,750 mt to 46,750 mt.\nDAH increased from 100 mt to 14,500 mt, JVP increased from 100 mt to 14,500 mt\nAtka mackerel:\nTALFF decreased from 23,460 mt to 9,060 mt.\nDAH increased from 2,000 mt to 7,800 mt, JVP increased from 200 mt to 6,000 mt.\nOther species:\nTALFF decreased from 68,537 mt to 65,648 mt.\nABC corrected to be 79,714 mt, OY to 77,314 mt, and reserves to 3,566 mt.\nDAP set at 1,100 mt for BSAI area combined.\nOther rockfish:\nDAP set at 550 mt for Bering Sea and 550 mt for Aleutians.\nPOP:\nJVP set at 830 mt for Bering Sea and 830 mt for Aleutians.\nJVP set at 200 mt for Bering Sea and 200 mt for Aleutians.\nSablefish:\nMSY set at 11,600 mt for Bering Sea and 1,900 mt for Aleutians.\nEY and ABC increased from 160,000 mt to 168,000 mt, OY increased from 78,700 mt to 120,000 mt.\nPacific cod:\nReserve increased from 3,935 mt to 6,000 mt, TALFF increased from 31,500 mt to 70,735 mt.\nAnalysis: A 16 page Environmental Assessment was prepared for this amendment. Eight alternatives including the status quo\nwere considered. Essentially, the alternatives considered were different combinations of the management actions contained in this\namendment.\nResults: Allocations of catch were frameworked under Amendment 1 in 1984.","Reduce Chinook Salmon PSC Limit (withdrawn)\nBSAI Amendment 5\nDates: Amendment 5 was adopted by the Council in September 1981 in conjunction with Amendment 3. A proposed rule was\ndrafted but withdrawn because it was redundant to Amendment 3, which finally was implemented on July 2, 1983 (48 FR 24719)\nafter a long delay.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of Amendment 5 was to limit the prohibited species catch (PSC) of chinook salmon in the\neastern Bering Sea foreign trawl fisheries to 45,500 fish. This was the amount approved by the Council as part of Amendment 3,\nand was a reduction from the existing limit of 55,250 fish established by Amendment 1a. These values for the proposed chinook\nsalmon PSC were based upon the Council approval of the PSC reduction schedule for salmon that was negotiated between principal\ndomestic and foreign user groups (western Alaska residents and Japanese trawl industry representatives). Because there was a long\nimplementation delay for Amendment 3, Amendment 5 was proposed to reduce the salmon PSC sooner.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment was withdrawn when it was superceded by implementation of Amendment 3.\nAnalysis:\nThere is no record of an analysis in the files.\nResults: Salmon PSC limits for foreign trawl fisheries were reduced in accordance with Amendment 3.","Domestic Fishery Development Zone (disapproved)\nBSAI Amendment 6\nDates: Amendment 6 was adopted by the Council in September, 1982. NMFS published a proposed rule on October 7, 1983, (48\nFR 45806) and a notice of withdrawal on February 9, 1984 (49 FR 4956).\nThe purpose of the amendment was to provide a sanctuary for U.S. fishing vessels in a productive fishing\nPurpose and Need:\narea of the Bering Sea and to encourage the expansion of the U.S. groundfish fishery. It was felt that by setting aside a very\nproductive area in relatively close proximity to the only three developed harbors in the Bering Sea (Unalaska, Akutan, and Sand\nPoint), the domestic fisheries would gain a competitive advantage. Creation of the FDZ would have had the effect of eliminating\na 6 month foreign fishery from areas near the three harbors, because the nearby Winter Halibut Savings Area is closed to foreign\ntrawling from December 1 through May 31.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 6 would have\nestablished a fishery development zone (FDZ). The proposed\n50°\nFDZ was located north and west of Unimak Pass and was\nbounded by the following coordinates:\n59°\n55°16' N Latitude, 166°10' W Longitude;\nBERING SEA\n54°00' N Latitude, 166°10' W Longitude;\n58°\n54°35' N Latitude, 164°55'42\" W Longitude;\nThe FDZ would have been reserved for use by domestic fishing\n57°\nof\nvessels - including those delivering to shore-based processors,\nU.S. catcher/processors, and foreign processing vessels\n56°\no\ninvolved in U.S. joint venture operations. All foreign harvest\noperations would have been excluded year-round from the\nWinter Halibut\nFDZ.\n55\nSavings Area\nFDZ\nAnalysis: A 79 page RIR/IRFA (final draft dated November\n51°\n1983) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives to\nthe status quo were examined. The other alternative would\n53°\nhave defined a larger area as the FDZ.\nof\nAleution\nResults: The amendment was disapproved by the Secretary\nof Commerce under Section 304(b)(2) of the Magnuson\nFishery Conservation and Management Act on December 8,\n1983. Instead of resubmitting the proposed amendment, the\n160°\n165°\n170°\nCouncil agreed to a voluntary foreign industry abstention from\nLocation of the Fishery Development Zone (FDZ), northeast\nfishing in the local areas of importance to U.S. fishermen and\nof Unalaska.\nprocessors.","BSAI Amendment 7\nForeign Longline Area Restrictions\nDates: Amendment 7 was adopted by the Council in September 1982. NMFS published the proposed rule on May 16, 1983 (48\nFR 21978), and the final rule on August 2, 1983 (48 FR 34962). Effective date of implementation was August 31, 1983.\nPurpose and Need:\nThe purpose of the amendment was to modify the regulations designed to control halibut bycatch in the\nforeign longline fisheries. Under the original FMP, foreign longline vessels were prohibited from fishing landward of the 500 meter\ndepth contour in the Winter Halibut Savings Area (WHSA) from December 1 through May 31. The provision was intended to protect\njuvenile Pacific halibut when they concentrate in the WHSA. An amendment was proposed by the Japanese longline industry to\neliminate the 500 meter depth restriction, because they felt it would prevent the harvest of their Pacific cod allocations.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 7 allowed the foreign longline fleet to fish in the shallow waters of the WHSA so as to\nallow them to catch their allocation of Pacific cod. However, the depth restriction would be reimposed if the foreign longline fleet\nin the entire BSAI caught 105 metric tons of halibut as bycatch during the 12 month period of June 1 through May 31. Thus, if the\nincidental catch of Pacific halibut by foreign longline vessels in the BSAI reached 105 mt between June 1 and November 30, the\nWHSA would be closed to foreign longlining landward of the 500 meter depth contour for the 6-month period December 1 through\nMay 31. If the incidental catch limit of 105 mt was reached from December 1 though May 31, the restriction would be reimposed\nfor whatever remained of that 6-month period.\nAnalysis: An 18 page EA was prepared for this amendment. Three\nalternatives including the status quo were considered. The other alternative not\nCatch of BSAI Pacific cod in foreign\nchosen would have eliminated all area restrictions on foreign longliners and thus\nallowed them to fish year-round in the WHSA regardless of depth. Problems\nlongline fisheries and domestic longline\nidentified with this alternative included gear conflicts and an increase in bycatch\nfisheries, 1981-1992.\nof halibut.\nYear\nForeign\nDomestic\nThe alternative chosen would allow foreign longline vessels to pursue Pacific\n1981\n6,086\n27\ncod in shallow waters, while at the same time provide incentives to reduce\n1982\n3,618\n5\nhalibut bycatch. The 500 meter depth restriction was maintained because\n1983\n6,847\n4\nbycatch rates for halibut in the Pacific cod fishery are higher in shallower waters.\n1984\n27,446\n8\nThe 105 mt bycatch limit was a 25 percent reduction from the average 1978-81\nincidental take of halibut in the BSAI foreign longline fishery.\n1985\n37,571\n50\n1986\n26,563\n49\n1987\n47,028\n1,417\nResults: Foreign longline vessels were able to catch their allocation of Pacific\n1988\n0\n2,611\ncod, until phased out by domestic fisheries. The adjacent table shows the catch\n1989\n0\n14,219\nof Pacific cod in foreign and domestic longline fisheries. No information could\nbe found on the bycatch of halibut associated with this fishery.\n1990\n0\n47,716\n1991\n0\n79,696\n1992\n0\n101,249","1984 and 1985 Salmon PSC Limits\nBSAI Amendment 8\nDates: Amendment 8 was adopted by the Council in March 1983. Effective date of implementation was July 4, 1983. No final\nrule is on file.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of Amendment 8 was to extend reductions of incidental bycatch of salmon in the foreign\ntrawl fisheries implemented under Amendment 3. Its intent was to continue the Council's salmon bycatch reduction efforts begun\nunder Amendment 3, which controlled salmon PSC through 1983 only.\nRegulation Summary: Amendments 3 and\n8\nreduced bycatch of prohibited species in foreign groundfish\nTarget reduction schedule of salmon prohibited species\nfisheries. Amendment 3 set a goal of total salmon bycatch\nof 17,473 fish by 1986, which was a 75% reduction from the\ncatches based on the average 1977-80 foreign trawl salmon\n1981 salmon PSC of 69,893 and a 78% reduction from the\nincidental catch.\naverage salmon bycatch of 80,000 fish for the years 1977-\n80. Amendment 8 implemented a salmon PSC limit of\nChinook Salmon (#)\nTotal Salmon (#)\n38,441 fish for 1984 and 27,957 fish for 1985. The 1986\nYear\nlimit remained at the 17,473 fish PSC envisioned in\n65,000\n69,893\n1981\nAmendment 3.\n59,409\n1982\n55,250\n48,925\n1983\n45,500\nAnalysis: The Council reviewed the status of the salmon\n38,441\n1984\n35,700\nresource and the economic and technological reasonableness\n26,000\n27,957\n1985\nof further PSC reductions in context with the 75% reduction\n17,473\ngoal by 1986. The 1984-86 salmon PSC levels reflect limits\n1986\n16,250\nnegotiated between representatives for those Western Alaska\nresidents who depend on the salmon resource and the\nAverage incidental catch\nJapanese trawl industry. A 39-page analysis of salmon,\n1977-80\n74,400\n80,000\nhalibut, and crab bycatch reductions was prepared for\nAmendment 3 in 1981.\nResults: The foreign fleet successfully reduced bycatch in their fisheries. However, bycatch savings were offset by the growing\nJV fisheries.","BSAI Amendment 9\nReporting Requirements/Habitat Protection Policy\nDates: Amendment 9 was adopted by the Council in May 1985. It was partially disapproved on October 17, 1985. The proposed\nrule (50 FR 33080) was published on August 16, 1985. The final rule (50 FR 46072) was published on November 6, 1985; a\ncorrection to the final rule (50 FR 48601) was published on November 26, 1985. Effective date of approved measures was January\n1, 1986.\nPurpose and Need: Rapid growth of the domestic groundfish fleet led to the development of reporting requirements of catch\ninformation by vessels that process their catch at sea. While fish tickets collected catch data from vessels landing at shore-based\nprocessing facilities, the action was aimed at collecting necessary and timely catch information from at-sea processors on extended\ntrips.\nWhile not required by law at the time, incorporation of habitat concerns into the FMP was approved in response to the NMFS Habitat\nConservation Policy which advocated such consideration in development of FMPs and amendments. The policy further aimed to\nstrengthen the federal/state partnership to act as stewards of marine habitat.\nRegulation Summary: Three parts of Amendment 9 were approved:\n(7) incorporate catcher/processor and mothership vessel reporting requirements to provide NMFS with more timely catch\ninformation necessary for adequate in-season management (weekly processor report with check-in/check-out reporting). A\nreporting system for catch held aboard for 14 days or more by the expanding domestic fleet was established. Permit holders must\nidentify vessels as: (a) harvesting/processing, (b) mothership processing; (c) harvesting only; or (d) support only.\n(8) incorporate the NMFS habitat protection policy into the FMP in response to NMFS' Habitat Conservation Policy which\nadvocates consideration of habitat concerns in developing or amending FMPs; and\n(9) incorporate a definition of directed fishing.\nOne action associated with habitat consideration in the FMP, to prohibit the discard of fishing gear and marine debris, was reserved\nuntil the required analysis was prepared. A measure to reduce bycatch of fully utilized species by closing an area within 20 miles\nof the Aleutian Islands to foreign trawling was disapproved.\nAnalysis: A 40-page RIR/IRFA (dated May 28, 1985) reviewed two actions which arose from the Council's first call for\nproposals:\n(1) Reporting requirements:\n(a) operators of catcher/processor and mothership vessels must indicate on federal fishing permits their capability and intent\nto preserve catch at sea;\n(b) same operators must check-in/out of a regulatory area;\n(c)\nsame operators that retain fish at sea for 14 days or more to provide a weekly report of the amounts of groundfish caught\nor received by species by fishing area.\nFour rejected alternatives included the status quo, weekly processor reports with no check-in/check-out reporting, placing observers\naboard a portion of the catcher/processor and mothership fleet, and placing observers aboard the entire processing fleet.\nApproximately 25 vessels harvesting $114 million of groundfish were affected by the decision in 1985.\n(2) Habitat. The Council identified habitat as the source of productivity of the groundfish resource. Two rejected alternatives\nincluded status quo and a general habitat conservation objective that would include habitat information in a separate, referenced\ndocument rather than in the FMP;\nResults: Under Amendment 9, NMFS implemented weekly processor reporting which has provided necessary data for inseason\nmanagement and numerous subsequent groundfish analyses.","Bristol Bay Trawl Closure and Crab PSC Limits\nBSAI Amendment 10\nDates: Amendment 10 was adopted by the Council in September 1986. The proposed rule for Amendment 10 was published on\nDecember 18, 1986 (51 FR 45349) and NMFS published a final rule on March 19, 1987 (52 FR 8592), with a corrected version\npublished on April 22, 1987 (52 FR 13375). Effective date of implementation was March 9, 1987.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 10 was proposed primarily in response to concerns that commercial trawl fishing was\ncontributing to the mortality of crabs through their incidental capture and mutilation from trawl gear. At its January 1986 meeting,\nthe Council determined that stocks of Bering Sea Tanner and king crab were\nlow in abundance, and that trawling for groundfish, especially yellowfin sole\nand other flounders, was threatening both the crab and halibut stocks. Although\nregulations governing foreign trawl fishing (Amendment 9 banned foreign\ntrawling in the Aleutian Islands) provided certain closed areas and prohibited\nSea\nspecies catch (PSC) limits for Pacific halibut, Tanner crab, and king crab,\ndomestic trawl fishing vessels and joint ventures (domestic catchers delivering\nDonut Hole\nLoves\n=257N\nto foreign catcher/processors) had not been similarly restricted.\n-56N\nIn response, the Council approved an emergency rule to close an area north of\n-55N\nthe Alaska Peninsula to all trawling, with the exception of trawling for Pacific\n-54N\ncod (with a PSC limit of 12,000 red king crab). The closed area was expected\nGulfofAlaska\nto protect about 70% of the mature female red king crab spawning stock. The\nemergency rule also established PSC limits for C. bairdi, red and blue king\nAlculian kinds\ncrab, and halibut that, when reached, would close a directed fishery. The rule\n180W\n170W\n165W\n160W\n185W\n175W\nalso required that domestic vessels carry NMFS observers in certain areas and\ncomply with a data gathering program. The Secretary implemented the\nemergency rule, with the deletion of blue king crab and halibut, on June 3,\n1986, and it was extended until December 2, 1986.\nRegulation Summary: The final regulations contained the following four parts:\n1) Closed the area north of the Alaska Peninsula, south of 58° N. latitude, west of 160° W longitude, and east of 162° W\nlongitude to all trawling year-round and established the following PSC limits and bycatch limitation zones:\nApplicable to all domestic vessels in directed fisheries for yellowfin sole and other flatfish in the specified zone:\na) 80,000 C. bairdi in bycatch limitation Zone 1\nb) 135,000 red king crab in Zone 1\nc) 326,000 C. bairdi in Zone 2;\nApplicable to foreign directed fishing for yellowfin sole and other flatfish: 64,000 C. bairdi in Zones 1 and 2 combined;\nApplicable to domestic vessels in directed fisheries for yellowfin sole and other flatfish and delivering to foreign\nprocessing vessels (i.e. joint ventures): 828,000 halibut in the entire BSAI.\nRequired written weekly catch reports from all catcher/processors and motherships regardless of when the catch is landed\n2)\n(BSAI Amendment 9 implemented the same requirement for catcher/processors holding their catch for more than 2 weeks);\nProvided authority to the Secretary to make inseason changes to gear regulations, season, and harvest quotas; and\n3)\n4) Provided the Secretary with inseason authority to reapportion surplus groundfish within the domestic allowable harvest.\nAnalysis: A 79-page RIR/IRFA (final draft dated November 1986) was prepared for Amendment 10. Six alternatives were\nconsidered for the proposed area closing, including no action. The alternatives included variations on the closed area, PSC limits,\nand bycatch limitation zones. The other actions were evaluated on the basis of the preferred alternative and the no action alternative.\nResults: This action caused a substantial change in the distribution of groundfish fishing effort, especially the joint venture\nyellowfin sole and other flatfish fisheries. The benefits, in the form of bycatch savings that occurred during the 1986 fishery under\nthe emergency rule compared to the 1985 fishery, were significant. The bycatch rates for red king crab, C. bairdi, and halibut declined\nby 90%, 44%, and 17%, respectively. The C. opilio bycatch rate, however, increased by a factor of 10 when the fleet moved out of\nZone 1. Imposition of the emergency rule saved an estimated 1,162,000 red king crab, 221,000 C. bairdi, and 64,000 halibut, and\na loss of juvenile 4,492,000 C. opilio, providing an estimated net benefit of $6.7 - $14.6 million in ex-vessel revenue.\nSince 1986, crab stocks have continued to fluctuate. For example, the opilio stock peaked in 1991 and again in 1998, then declined.\nA rebuilding plan is being developed for both the C. opilio and Tanner (Bairdi) crab stocks. The red king crab fishery was closed\nin 1994 and 1995, but has since provided a small fishery. Crab and halibut PSC limits were further revised under BSAI Amendments\n12a, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 37.","Apportionment of Pollock for Joint Venture Vessels\nBSAI Amendment 11\nDates: Amendment 11 was adopted by the Council in May 1987. The proposed rule for the Amendment was published on\nSeptember 1, 1987 (52 FR 32942) and NMFS published a final rule on December 3, 1987 (52 FR 45966). Effective date was\nDecember 30, 1987.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 11 was proposed in response to concerns that the domestic annual harvest was being\ndominated by the joint venture processing fishery (domestic catcher vessels delivering to foreign processing vessels). Since 1977,\nthe pollock fishery in the BSAI evolved from an entirely foreign-harvested fishery to a predominantly domestic-harvested fishery.\nYet the volume of fish delivered to foreign processors continued to largely exceed the amount delivered to domestic shore-based\nprocessors. In 1986, nearly 95% of the total 886,000 mt domestic annual harvest was harvested in joint venture operations.\nThe transition to domestic-dominated fisheries was also accompanied by a trend toward harvesting more pollock early in the season,\nfrom January-April. Prior to 1980 and the advent of the joint venture fisheries, less than 25% of the pollock harvest was taken before\nApril. By 1987, 73% of the pollock harvest had been harvested by May in the joint venture fisheries. There are two economic\nadvantages to harvesting early in the year: 1) spawning pollock populations are highly aggregated, improving catch per unit effort,\nand 2) the open access nature of the fishery provides incentive to fish as soon as possible. Higher catch rates posed a significant\nbiological risk; at times, catch rates were so high that it became economically feasible to retain only the valuable pollock roe and\ndiscard whole male and female carcasses (a practice called roe-stripping).\nInstead of relegating joint venture operations to specific areas and prohibiting roe-stripping, the Council adopted a split-season\nproposal to reduce the amount of pollock harvested by the joint venture fisheries during the spawning season. This action would\nprevent development of an efficient fishery for the highly valued pollock roe, as well as allow for the expansion of the domestic\nprocessing fishery.\nRegulation Summary: The regulations implemented the following three provisions:\n1)\nEstablished an apportionment of the pollock TAC allocated to joint venture operations of 40% in the first season (January\n1-April 15) and 60% in the second season (April 16-December 31). The measure was effective only in 1988 and 1989;\n2)\nRevised the definition of acceptable biological catch (ABC) to conform with that used by the Pacific Council and includes\ndefinitions for \"threshold\" and \"overfishing;\"\n3)\nRevised the definition of prohibited species to specifically name the species to be prohibited in the catches of foreign and\ndomestic fishermen. Steelhead and Pacific salmon were added to the prohibited species list of halibut, herring, and king\nand Tanner crab for domestic and foreign fisheries; all salmonids are prohibited for foreign fishermen.\nThe final rule for Amendment 11 also clarified that the definition of directed fishing (20% or more of the harvest) applied to domestic\nfisheries as well as foreign fisheries. This was inadvertently omitted from the proposed and final rule for BSAI Amendment 10.\nAnalysis: An RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 1987) and supplemental document was prepared for Amendment 11. A draft\nanalysis dated April 1987 considered seasonal apportionments of 0/100% and 50/50% for the joint venture pollock fisheries. The\nCouncil's preferred alternative (40/60%) was bounded by the range considered, and therefore the available data and likely effects\nof the preferred action were sufficiently addressed in the draft analysis. The preferred 40/60% split was carried over in the final\nanalysis as the preferred alternative, along with the no action alternative. Continuing to concentrate the pollock harvest in the\nbeginning of the year (no action) was deemed unacceptable due to the possible risk to the reproductive potential of the pollock stocks.\nThe alternatives for revising the definitions of prohibited species catch and ABC included the preferred alternative and no action.\nResults: By 1991, foreign fishing had been phased out of the EEZ and the entire BSAI groundfish harvest (2,126,000 mt) was\ntaken by 391 U.S. vessels. The Council has also since prohibited the practice of roe-stripping of pollock.","BSAI Amendment 11a Catcher/Processor Reporting Requirements\nDates: The Council adopted BSAI Amendment 11a (GOA Amendment 16) in 1987. The proposed rule for Amendment 11a was\npublished on December 21, 1987 (52 FR 48303): and NMFS published a final rule on March 10, 1988 (53 FR 7756). Effective date\nwas April 7, 1988.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 11a was proposed in response to a need for better information from catcher/processors and\nmothership processor vessels in order to sufficiently address fishery management problems, enforce current regulations, and meet\nthe conservation goals identified in the FMPs. The amendment intended to add to the currently required weekly catch reports by\ncatcher/processors and motherships: information on the number of cartons and unit net weight of a carton of processed fish by\nspecies; a Product Transfer Report; and a Cargo Transfer/Offloading Log.\nThe purpose of the amendment also was to redefine the definition of prohibited species and respecify the other three species\ncategories, and to institute some regulatory changes that would affect the public comment period. Several other minor regulatory\nchanges were made specific only to the Gulf of Alaska FMP.\nThe regulations implemented the following provisions to the BSAI FMP:\nRegulation Summary:\n1) Augmented the current catcher/processor and mothership reporting requirements with at-sea transfer information,\nspecifically, a Cargo Transfer/Off-Loading Log and Product Transfer Report;\n2) Revised the definition of prohibited species to include Pacific salmonids, Pacific herring, Pacific halibut, king crab, Tanner\ncrab, and steelhead trout. Respecified the other three categories:\na) Target species-pollock, Pacific cod, flounders, rockfish, and sablefish\nb) Other species-Atka mackerel, squid, sculpins, sharks, skates, eulachon, smelts, capelin, and octopus\nc) Non-specified species-those species taken incidentally in the groundfish fisheries but are not managed by\nthe FMP. No catch records are required;\nRequired the public comment period for proposed annual specifications and prohibited species catch limits to be 30 days\n3)\nfollowing the date of filing of the notice for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register.\nAnalysis: An EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for Amendment 11a, which determined that there was no significant environmental\nimpact as a result of this action.\nResults: Since the amendment was passed, the four species categories have remained intact, and the \"optimum yield\" concept is\napplied to all except the prohibited species category. The prohibited species group has maintained the definition listed in the\namendment. A single total allowable catch still exists for the other species group which currently includes smelts, octopus, sharks,\nskates, and sculpins; squid and Atka mackerel were moved to the target species group in 1993. In 1998, a final rule on forage fishes\nwas published which removed smelts from the other species category and placed them in a separate \"Forage Fish\" category beginning\nin 1999.","BSAI Amendment 12\nPermit Requirements\nDates: BSAI Amendment 12 (GOA Amendment 17) was adopted by the Council in June 1988. The proposed rule was published\non September 6, 1988 (53 FR 34322) and the final rule was published on May 1, 1989 (54 FR 18519). Effective date of approved\nmeasures was May 26, 1989.\nPurpose and Need: As part of its annual call for proposals, the Council initiated a plan amendment to address six proposals\nto amend the BSAI FMP. The Council identified the rationale for the preferred actions under the amendment:\n(1) revise the federal permit requirements:\n(a) the single species rule (whereby the catch of a species approaches its TAC) placed no limit on the amount of a species\ndiscarded after its retention is prohibited because its TAC has been fully harvested. The amount of bycatch discard\nincreased during the rapid increase in the domestic fleet; and\n(b) the single species rule did not apply to foreign fishing. Bycatch would be treated as PSC when a species reached its TAC.\nTherefore, a foreign fishery could not retain or discard bycatch without accounting for it against each species' allocation\nwhich were by then being fully harvested by the joint venture and domestic fisheries;\n(2) an increased interest by the domestic fishery to target roe-bearing rock sole led to competition with the foreign fishery for the\n\"other flatfish\" TAC;\n(3) mirror an administrative procedure in the GOA FMP whereby annual specifications of PSC limits in BSAI could be set for BSAI\ngroundfish.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 12\nrequired:\n(1) All vessels receiving groundfish harvested in the EEZ to hold a federal permit and comply with federal reporting requirements;\n(2) established PSC limit framework for groundfish species in the joint venture and foreign fisheries;\n(3) established rock sole as a target species separate from the \"other flatfish\" category;\n(4) removed the July 1 deadline for resource assessment document.\nAnalysis: A 133-page EA/RIR/IRFA (dated May 18, 1988) analyzed four amendment proposals for the BSAI FMP (the four listed\nabove) and:\n(5) remove the 2 million mt upper limit to the optimum yield range. The Council chose the status quo for this proposal, for which\nit produced a separate SEIS (53 FR 16319) (this was not adopted by the Council).\nResults: The BSAI rock sole fishery has developed into a nearly 135,000 mt fishery as of 2000, comprising 25% of combined\nflatfish TACs.","BSAI Amendment 12a Revised Crab and Halibut PSC Limits\nDates: Amendment 12a was adopted by the Council in December 1988. The proposed rule (54 FR 19199) was published on May\n4, 1989. The final rule was published on August 9, 1989 (54 FR 82642). Effective date of approved measures was September 3, 1989\nthrough December 31, 1990.\nPurpose and Need: The Council intended that Amendment 10 expire at the end of 1988 due to uncertainty about fluctuations\nin population levels of prohibited species and development of domestic groundfish fisheries. Concern about continued crab and\nhalibut bycatch prompted the Council to develop more comprehensive controls to replace those that were set to expire. Amendment\n12a, separated from Amendment 12, specified PSC limits on Tanner crab, red king crab, and Pacific halibut in the BSAI groundfish\nfisheries and apportioned these limits among four specified groundfish fisheries. These PSC limits were in effect during 1989 and\n1990. The Council aimed to balance the avoidance of bycatch with providing reasonable opportunities for trawl fisheries to harvest\ntheir target species. Its bycatch policy was developed because discarding crab and halibut is wasteful, may adversely affect their use\nas a target species in other commercial fisheries, and potentially could result in their being overfished.\nRegulation Summary: The PSC limits\nCrab and halibut PSC limits\nset in regulation under Amendment 12a are\nlisted at right.\nZone 1&\nBSAI\nSpecies and fishery\nZone 1\nZone 2\n2H (1°)\n(2°)\nAnalysis: An 86-page EA/RIR/IRFA (dated\nMarch 29, 1989) analyzed the following\nred king crab (animals)\nmanagement alternatives to address crab and\ndomestic flatfish\n50,579\nhalibut PSC limits:\ndomestic other\n20,879\n(a) status quo;\nJV flatfish\n111,858\n(b) extending specific bycatch provisions in\nAmendment 10;\nJV other\n16,684\n(c) establishing a framework for management\n200,000\nprocedure to control bycatch of Tanner\nTanner crab (animals)\ncrab, red king crab, and Pacific halibut;\ndomestic flatfish\n68,790\n260,910\n(d) establishing fixed, but increasingly\n609,519\n1,828,558\nrestrictive, numerical limits for particular\ndomestic other\nzones; and\nJV flatfish\n93,359\n280,077\n(e) establishing aggregate PSC limits,\nJV other\n210,152\n630,455\napportioned by \"target fishery\" and area\n1,000,000\n3,000,000\n(preferred).\nPacific halibut (mt)\n181\n220\nResults: Since 1986, crab stocks have\ndomestic flatfish\ncontinued to fluctuate. For example, the opilio\n3,408\n4,131\ndomestic other\nstock peaked in 1991 and again in 1998, then\n146\n177\nJV flatfish\ndeclined. A rebuilding plan is being developed\n665\n805\nJV other\nfor both the opilio and Tanner crab stocks. The\n4,400\n5,333\nred king crab fishery was closed in 1994 and\n1995, but has since provided a small fishery.\nThis amendment was an extension of\nAmendment 10. Amendment 12a reexamined\navailable data for crab and halibut bycatch and revised the PSC limits through 1990. Crab and halibut PSC limits were further revised\nunder Amendments 16, 19, 21, 25, and 37.","BSAI Amendment 13\nObserver Program, Sablefish Gear Allocations,\nWalrus Island Closure\nDates: BSAI Amendment 13 (GOA Amendment 18) was adopted by the Council in June 1989, and approved by the Secretary\non November 1, 1989. A proposed rule (54 FR 36333) was published on September 1, 1989 and corrected on September 22, 1989\n(54 FR 39022). A final rule implementing actions in Amendments 13/18 (54 FR 50386), except for the Observer Program, was\npublished on December 6, 1989 and effective January 1, 1990. A correction was filed on January 11, 1990 (55 FR 1036). A final\nrule implementing the Observer Program (55 FR 4839) was published on February 12, 1990 and effective on February 7, 1990.\nPurpose and Need: Since foreign fishing had been curtailed, NMFS needed to augment the fisheries observer program to\ncover the domestic fishery. The purpose of a comprehensive data collection program for the domestic groundfish fishery is to provide\nadequate and reliable data on which to:\n(1) base in-season and inter-season management decisions;\n(2) efficiently carry out resource management; and\n(3) measure fishery performance against existing and proposed management measures.\nAdditionally, the Council identified concerns regarding sablefish bycatch and a 50% decline in the number of walrus hauled out on\nRound Island.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 13 to the groundfish FMPs authorized a comprehensive domestic fishery observer\nprogram. The 1990 and 1991 Observer Plans required specific levels of observer coverage which varied with size of fishing vessel\nand quantity of fish processed.\nThe Observer Plans required that owners and operators of vessels and shoreside processing facilities participating in the groundfish\nfishery arrange for and pay for the cost of placing observers aboard their vessels and at their shoreside processing facilities beginning\nin January 1990. Each vessel or processor required to have observer coverage is responsible for the cost of obtaining the required\nobservers from a certified contractor.\nAmendment 13 also:\n(1) allocated sablefish: 50/50 percent to fixed and trawl gear in the BS and 75/25 percent to fixed and trawl gear in the AI;\n(2) closed waters seaward of 3 miles out to 12 miles surrounding the Walrus Islands (Round Island and the Twins) and Cape\nPeirce from April 1 through September 30 to groundfish fishing;\n(3) deleted fishing season dates from the FMPs but retained them in regulation;\n(4) clarified authority to recommend TACs for additional or fewer target species within the \"target species\" category.\nAnalysis: A 193-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 21, 1989) was prepared for this amendment. Alternatives examined\nincluded the preferred alternative and the status quo for four of the five actions affecting GOA groundfish management. In approving\nits action to allocate sablefish between fixed and trawl gear, the Council also considered an alternative to determine and allocate\n\"true\" bycatch needs, with any residual being made available to the directed fishery without regard to gear type.\nResults:\nThe domestic observer program provides information for stock assessment and in-season management, including the\nability to accurately assess catch and bycatch in the fisheries. Three problems were later identified for observer coverage payment.\nIt was not an equitable system in that some operations paid for 100% coverage and others did not pay anything, it limited the ability\nof NMFS to effectively manage the observer program, and it may result in a conflict of interest that could reduce the credibility of\nobserver data. The research plan, under Amendment 30, was designed to address these three problems. Industry support for such\na change is demonstrated by the willingness and ability of the industry to convince Congress and the President to amend the Act to\nallow the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan to be established and paid for by a broad-based system of user fees. The proposed\nplan was to be applicable to the groundfish, halibut, and BSAI crab fisheries. Instead, implementation was delayed one year, then\nreplaced with a modified pay-as-you-go system adopted under Amendments 47/47. Fees were collected by NMFS in the first year\nof implementation, which were later returned when the research plan was repealed.","Pollock Roe Stripping\nBSAI Amendment 14\nDates: Amendment 14 (GOA Amendment 19) was approved by the Council in June 1990. NMFS published the final rule on\nJanuary 7, 1991 (56 FR 492), effective January 1, 1991.\nPurpose and Need: Growth of the domestic harvesting and processing capacity in the pollock fishery had created competition\nfor the pollock TAC by 1990. Competition for pollock during the roe season is intensified due to the high value of the roe relative\nto other products. In addition, extraction of roe can be done faster than production of other pollock products. By roe stripping,\nfishermen can increase their share of the pollock TAC by quickly producing the most valuable product at the least cost. This\namendment was intended to address the following problems:\n(a) roe stripping is a wasteful use of the pollock resource;\n(b) roe stripping causes unintended allocation of pollock TAC among seasons and industry sectors;\n(c) roe stripping may adversely affect the ecosystem;\n(d) roe stripping may adversely affect the future productivity of the stock; and\n(e) roe stripping increases the difficulty of accurately monitoring the pollock TAC for inseason management.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment implemented rules that regulated the practice of stripping roe (eggs) from female\npollock and discarding female and male pollock carcasses without further processing, and seasonally allocated the TAC of pollock.\nSeason opening dates were established as follows for the GOA: January 1, April, July, and October, and for the BSAI: January 1 and\nJune 1. To get at the issue of roe stripping, product recovery rate standards were established, which if exceeded would constitute\na violation. The recovery rate standard established was 10 percent of the total round-weight equivalent of pollock and other pollock\nproducts onboard a vessel at any time during a fishing trip. To extrapolate round weight equivalents, the rule established product\nrecovery rates as follows: fillet (18%), surimi (15%), mince (17%), meal (17%), and head & gut (50%).\nAnalysis: A 138-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 20, 1990) was\nprepared for this amendment. Five primary alternatives including the status quo\nwere considered. The other alternatives that were not chosen would have just\nprohibited pollock roe-stripping, required full utilization of all pollock in\npollock fisheries, or implemented seasonal allowances for pollock to reduce the\namount harvested in the winter-early spring. Options for these alternatives\nincluded applying the regulations only to certain areas, and restricting the GOA\npollock fishery to midwater gear only. The alternative adopted combined the\nelements of roe-stripping and seasonal allowances for all areas.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the practice of roe stripping has stopped. In 1993, regulations were further tightened\nto close loopholes that could have potentially undermined the intent of the roe stripping regulations (58 FR 57752). 'Fishing trip'\nand 'pollock roe' were better defined as were pollock products that could be used to calculate retainable amounts of pollock roe. Full\nretention and utilization of pollock were required under Amendment 49.","Sablefish and Halibut Individual Fishing Quotas\nBSAI Amendment 15\nDates: NMFS published the proposed rule for BSAI Amendment 15 and GOA Amendment 20 on December 3, 1992 (57\n57130) with a corrected version published December 29, 1992 (57 FR 61870). These amendments were adopted jointly by the\nCouncil in December 1991. The final rule was published November 9, 1993 59375), with the effective date of implementation\nDecember 9, 1993. Actual program implementation was March 15, 1995, following applications, appeals, and establishment of\nmonitoring systems. Portions of the regulations were amended in subsequent final rules.\nPurpose and Need: In 1987, the Council recognized a need to take management action with regard to the sablefish fishery\nbecause it was exhibiting significant problems created by a short-season, derby-style fishery. Over time, with the constant increase\nof new entrants in the fishery, the sablefish fixed gear fishing seasons had degenerated to several short seasons each year. Typical\nproblems included allocation conflicts, gear conflict, deadloss from lost gear, increased bycatch and discard mortality, excess\nharvesting capacity, decrease in product wholesomeness, safety concerns, and economic instability in the fisheries and fishing\ncommunities. In December 1988, the Council decided that the status quo was unacceptable and expressed a desire to explore the\nlimited access options of license limitation, Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), and annual fishing allotments in a draft EIS. In January\n1990, the Council decided to focus on IFQ options as an alternative to the status quo. The IFQ approach was preferable in that it\nprovided fishermen with the authority to decide how much and what type of investment they wished to make to harvest the resource\n(by guaranteeing a certain amount of catch at the beginning of the season and extending the season over a period of 8 months), while\nalso addressing the problems created by a derby-style fishery. In addition, in early 1991, the Council found that the management\nproblems in the fixed gear sablefish fishery also afflicted the halibut fishery, and therefore decided to consider a similar IFQ system\nfor the halibut fishery. The intent was that a single IFQ program would apply to both fisheries.\nThe IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of the halibut and sablefish fisheries,\nand to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The program essentially assigns\nthe privilege of harvesting a percentage of the sablefish and halibut quota to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the\nfisheries. The rights given to each person are proportional to their fixed gear halibut and sablefish landings during the qualifying\nperiod determined by the Council and are represented as quota shares. Under this program, only persons holding quota shares are\nallowed to make fixed gear landings of halibut and sablefish in the regulatory areas identified.\nRegulation Summary: The IFQ Program was approved for the Pacific halibut and sablefish fixed gear fisheries in the\nFederal waters of the BSAI and GOA, and these fisheries have been managed under the program since 1995. The regulations outline\nseveral key provisions of the program: initial allocation of quota shares; vessel categories; transfer provisions; use and ownership\nprovisions; the annual process for allocating quota shares (QS); and the establishment of Community Development Quotas. The\nregulations state that legal landings of halibut or sablefish harvested with fixed gear had to occur at any time during 1988-1990 to\nqualify for an initial allocation of quota share. Generally, if a vessel owner or lessee is qualified, their initial quota share would be\nbased on their highest total landing of halibut for any 5 years of the 7-year base period 1984-1990. For sablefish, the initial quota\nshare would be based on the highest total landing of sablefish for any 5 years of the 6-year base period 1985-1990. Each person\neligible to receive quota share would have it assigned to one of four vessel categories: \"A\"-freezer vessels of any length; - catcher\nvessels greater than 60'; \"C\" catcher vessels less than or equal to 60' for sablefish, or between 35'-60' for halibut; \"D\"- catcher vessels\nless than or equal to 35' for halibut. Initial quota share would be assigned to the vessel category that a person's most recent fixed gear\nlandings of groundfish or halibut were caught by that vessel. Various restrictions on transfer and ownership are designed to maintain\nthe owner/operator characteristics of the fleet, and to prevent consolidation of QS in the hands of a few participants.\nAnalysis: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (final draft dated September 1992)\nand several appendices containing background information and an evaluation of the New Zealand Individual Transferrable Quota\nprogram were prepared for the initial review of the IFQ management alternative. Two alternatives were considered: 1) the status quo\nopen access system characterized by fixed quotas for each regulatory area, and 2) IFQs. In addition, the document recognized the\nCouncil's previous determination that open access or more traditional management measures are not acceptable for the sablefish\nfishery. The Council rejected license limitation on the basis that it may not be possible to reduce the fleet size in an equitable manner,\nand because of the significant potential for the reduction in vessel number to be offset by an increase in fishing power per vessel.\nAnnual fishing allotments that were also considered previously were deemed a more complicated management program that would\nnot solve the race for fish. With the preferred IFQ alternative, the Council intended to acknowledge and reward long-term and\nconsistent participation in the fisheries; those whose catch histories showed less dependence on and participation in the fisheries were\nsupposed to receive relatively small amounts of quota share. However, the method by which initial quota shares were calculated also\nallowed for one to two years of poor performance in the fishery due to circumstances beyond a person's control.\nResults: The fixed gear halibut and sablefish IFQ program continues to rationalize the fishery and is generally considered a\nsuccessful market-based management system to address overcapitalization. Overall, for the combined sablefish and halibut fisheries,\nan estimated total of 5,875 vessel owners received initial quota shares, and as expected, the number of quota share holders\nhas\ndecreased over time. The total number of initial issuees (unique number of people) in the halibut fishery was 4,827, which was\nreduced to 3,795 by the end of 1998. The total number of issuees in the sablefish fishery was 1,048, reduced to 919 by the end of\n1998. The fishing season was converted from several 24-hour period openers each year to an eight-month season from March 15 to\nNovember 15. Among some of the anticipated and realized benefits are bycatch reductions and safety improvements. Bycatch\nContinued","reduction was inherent in the program, due to the close interaction between sablefish and halibut fisheries. Much of the longline\nbycatch of halibut occurred in the sablefish fisheries, and many fishermen fish for both (and received IFQ for both). To the extent\nsablefish fishermen have halibut IFQ, this halibut is now retained and counted against the target quotas, as opposed to being caught\nas bycatch and discarded (by regulation it previously had to be discarded). This resulted in an immediate reduction of the GOA\nhalibut Prohibited Species Cap from 750 metric tons annually to around 150 metric tons annually (Oliver and Pautzke 1997).\nLikewise, improved safety is inherent in the program; instead of having to fish intensely under any weather conditions, fishermen\ncan choose their fishing weather considering the seasons, grounds, and size and sea worthiness of their vessel.\nIn addition, IFQs have reduced gear conflicts and fishing mortality due to lost gear within the sablefish and halibut fisheries by\nreducing the intense competition for grounds in a short time. Product quality and price has also increased under the IFQ Program,\nas fishermen have more time to cater to the fresh fish market. At the time of the Council decision, analysts estimated that the total\nannual benefits of the IFQ program would range from $30.1 to $67.6 million.\nSubsequent regulations were proposed following the final rule for Amendments 15/20, to refine various portions of the regulations\nimplementing the IFQ Program and make the program more responsive to the conservation and management goals specified in the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act. Some of the changes were intended to clarify ambiguous regulations, and others were new provisions\ndesigned to make the program more effective. The comprehensive list of regulatory provisions added or amended is contained in the\nfinal rule (60 FR 87).","Interim Harvest Levels & PSC Management\nBSAI Amendment 16\nDates: BSAI Amendment 16 (GOA Amendment 19) was adopted by the Council in June 1990. NMFS published a proposed rule\non September 18, 1990 (55 FR 38347) and a final rule implementing the approved portions of Amendment 16 on January 24, 1991\n(56 FR 2700). Effective date of implementation was January 18, 1991. The amendment was revised to include a vessel incentive\nprogram, and the interim final rule was published on May 10, 1991 (56 FR 21619), effective May 6, 1991 through June 5, 1991.\nPurpose and Need: A number of management measures were bundled together in Amendment 16, including PSC bycatch\nmanagement, procedures for specifying TAC, and gear restrictions. Management measures designed to control the bycatch of crab\nand halibut in the domestic and joint venture groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) were implemented\nas the result of Amendment 12a. These management measures expired at the end of 1990. The Council felt that without management\nmeasures to control bycatch, the levels of red king crab, C. bairdi Tanner crab, and Pacific halibut bycatch would be too high, and\nthere were no incentives for vessel operators to reduce their bycatch. The main purpose of this amendment was to better manage\nPSC bycatch in non-directed fisheries.\nBecause of insufficient time to modify regulations between the end of the December Council meeting and January 1 of a new fishing\nyear, this amendment was developed to establish interim TACs so that the fishery would open on January 1. Prior to this amendment,\nchanges to gear definitions or other restrictions required an FMP amendment to change. In order to respond more rapidly to changes\nin the fishery, the purpose of this action was to allow gear restrictions to be accomplished through a regulatory amendment. An\noverfished definition was added to the FMP because revised \"Guidelines for Fishery Management Plans\" (the \"602 Guidelines\")\nrequired each FMP to include an objective and measurable definition of overfishing for each stock or stock complex under\nmanagement.\nRegulation Summary: The Amendment contained 8 approved management measures as follows:\n1. Modified PSC limits and bycatch limitation zones for halibut, bairdi crab, and red king crab in the BSAI;\n2. Apportioned PSC limits into bycatch allowances for trawl fishery categories;\n3. Allowed separate apportionment of halibut PSC to hook and line and pot gear in the GOA;\n4. Allowed seasonal allocation of halibut and crab PSC;\n5. Established procedures for interim TAC specifications\n6. Established fishing gear restrictions (definition of pelagic trawl, biodegradable panels & halibut excluders on pot gear);\n7. Modified authorization language that allows demersal shelf rockfish in SE Alaska to be managed by the State; and\n8. Established definitions of overfishing.\nLater revisions to the amendment included addition of a vessel\nincentive program, which would issue civil penalties (fines) to\nvessels that exceeded seasonal fixed bycatch rate standards for\nhalibut and crab taken in specified target fisheries.\nBering Scu\nAnalysis: A 213-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 31,\n58N\n512\nDonut Hole\n1990) was prepared for this amendment. In the original draft, three\nZone 2\n57N\nprimary alternatives including the status quo were considered: (1)\nZone\n1\n56N\nthe status quo which allows the 12a provisions to expire at the end\nof 1990; (2) a one year extension of the 12a provisions; and (3) a\n55N\none year or indefinite extension of Amendment 12a provisions\n54N\nmodified to add PSC cap apportionments for the Domestic Annual\nGulf of Aluska\nProcessing (DAP) rock sole and deep-water trawl (Greenland\nturbot/sablefish) fisheries, permit seasonal allowances of PSC limits,\nAleutian Islands\nand provide for sanctions against vessels whose bycatch rates for red\n185W\n180W\n175W\n170W\n165W\n160W\nking crab, C. bairdi Tanner crab or halibut significantly exceed a\nfishery average. The analysis was revised several times to address\nother issues, including the vessel incentive program.\nLocation of the crab bycatch limitation zones.\nResults: Portions of the proposed amendment (i.e. the penalty\nbox program) were disapproved by the Secretary. In response, revisions to this amendment were made in BSAI Amendment 16a\nand in Amendment 19/24.","BSAI Amendment 16a Herring Savings Areas\nDates: Amendment 16a was adopted by the Council in September 1990. NMFS published a proposed rule on April 15, 1991 (56\nFR 15063) and a final rule on July 18, 1991 (56 FR 32984). Effective dates of implementation were July 12 and August 12, 1991\nfor different parts of the regulations.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 16a was designed to address management of herring bycatch and other bycatch taken in\ndomestic trawl fisheries. In particular, it defined the \"hot spot authority,\" intended to give the Regional Director flexibility to close\nspecific small areas inseason when bycatch rates were high. This also allowed for limitation of the pollock TAC to gears other than\npelagic trawl gear, and established a prohibited species limit for herring. Herring in the eastern Bering Sea had declined from a peak\nin the mid 1980's, and unconstrained bycatch in trawl fisheries had jumped to high levels relative to exploitable biomass in 1989.\nThis was a cause for concern because when the bycatch mortality was added to the mortality due to the directed inshore fishery,\nexploitation rates exceeded the State's harvest policy for herring. The 'hot spot' authority was proposed to reduce prohibited species\nbycatch rates and to provide fishermen a greater opportunity to harvest groundfish TAC prior to reaching established PSC limits.\nA limitation on bottom trawling for pollock was included in the amendment to reduce the amount of crab and halibut bycatch in this\nfishery.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 16a established prohibited species\nbycatch limits for Pacific herring taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries. The annual\nBering Sea\nPSC limit was set at 1% of the annual biomass of eastern Bering Sea herring, and\nis apportioned among trawl fishery categories. Attainment of any apportionment\n58N\nSummer\nWinter\ntriggers closure of herring savings areas to that fishery. The Herring Savings\nArea 1\nArea 3\nSummer\n57N\nAreas are described as follows:\nArea 2\n56N\n(1) Summer Herring Savings Area 1 means the part of the Bering Sea subarea\nthat is south of 57° N. latitude and between 162° and 164° W longitude from\n55N\n12:00 noon Alaska Local Time (ALT) June 15 through 12:00 noon ALT July 1\n54N\nof a fishing year.\nGulf of Alaska\n(2) Summer Herring Savings Area 2 means the part of the Bering Sea subarea\n165W\n160W\nthat is south of 56°30' N. latitude and between 164° and 167° W. longitude from\n175W\n170W\n12:00 noon ALT July 1 through 12:00 noon ALT August 15 of a fishing year.\nLocation of the Herring Savings Areas.\n(3) Winter Herring Savings Area means that part of the Bering Sea subarea that is between 58° and 60° N. latitudes and between\n172° and 175° W. longitudes from 12:00 noon ALT September 1 through 12:00 noon ALT March 1 of the succeeding fishing year.\nThe Regional Director may promulgate an inseason closure of an area (for up to 60 days) to reduce prohibited species bycatch rates.\nA number of factors must be considered when implementing any 'hot spot' closure. Also, Amendment 16a allows the Regional\nDirector, in consultation with the Council, to limit the amount of pollock that may be taken with trawls other than pelagic trawls.\nThe Council's recommendations are to be available to the public for comment under the annual TAC specification process.\nAnalysis: A 47-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March 1, 1991) plus tables, was prepared for this amendment. There were four\nalternatives, including the status quo, for herring savings areas considered. The alternatives not chosen would have established\nsmaller or larger winter savings areas. Options for trigger limits included 1%, 2%, 4%, and 8%. The alternative chosen was for the\nlowest PSC limit (1%) and an intermediate sized winter savings area.\nResults: Herring bycatch has been controlled so that the 1% level has not been exceeded. Nevertheless, herring biomass in the\neastern Bering Sea remains at moderate levels. Few, if any, hot spot actions have been taken by the Regional Director. The pollock\nfishery was required to use only pelagic trawl gear with implementation of Amendment 57.","Walrus Haulouts and Experimental Permits\nBSAI Amendment 17\nDates: Amendment 17 was adopted by the Council in August 1991. NMFS published a proposed rule on December 4, 1991 (56\nFR 63487) and a final rule on March 26, 1992 (57 FR 10430). Effective date of implementation was April 24, 1992, except for\ncertain sections effective April 1, 1992.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to address several conservation issues in one package:\n1. Authorize experimental fishing permits:\nAn FMP amendment is proposed whereby the Regional Director, in consultation with the Council and Alaska Fishery Science Center,\nmay issue experimental fishing permits to persons for purposes of obtaining information necessary to promote fishery conservation\nand management of the fisheries.\n2. Establish Walrus Islands groundfish fishing closures:\nAn FMP amendment is proposed which would institute protective measures for the Walrus Islands in northern Bristol Bay, by\nreducing the potential disturbance problems caused by vessel activity in the vicinity of haulout areas. The 12-mile buffer zone\ncreated in 1989 will expire at the end of 1991.\n3. Rescind GOA statistical area 68:\nAn FMP amendment is proposed to delete statistical area 68 (East Yakutat District), because it is not needed for fishery conservation\nand management and is imposing unnecessary record keeping and reporting costs.\n4. Establish the Bogoslof District:\nAn FMP amendment is proposed which would create a separate statistical subarea around Bogoslof Island. This measure would allow\nfor the establishment of a separate TAC for pollock in this subarea, thereby providing regulatory protection of Aleutian Basin pollock\nduring spawning to help rebuild the Aleutian Basin pollock stock.\n5. Definition of a groundfish pot:\nA regulatory amendment is proposed that would define a groundfish pot to differentiate it from king crab and Tanner crab pots. The\nintent of this action was to address potential enforcement problems of potential crab fishing under the guise of groundfish fishing.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 17 prohibits all vessels federally permitted to fish for groundfish from entering the walrus\nhaulout closure areas from April 1 through September 30. These areas include the EEZ within 12 miles of islands named Round\nIsland and The Twins, and around Cape Peirce. Amendment 17 allows the NMFS Regional Director, after consulting with the\nDirector of the Alaska Fishery Science Center and with the Council, to authorize for limited experimental purposes, the target or\nincidental harvest of groundfish that would otherwise be prohibited. The amendment also combined statistical area 68 with statistical\narea 65, established the Bogoslof Area, and requires pot gear to be identified as such when groundfish fishing.\nAnalysis: A 71-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated May 14, 1991) was prepared for this amendment. Five management actions\nwere evaluated under this amendment package. The number of alternatives considered under each action were as follows:\nexperimental fishing permits (2), walrus haulout buffer zones (3), rescind GOA area 68 (2), establish the Bogoslof District in the\nBering Sea (2), and pot gear restrictions (4). The alternative not adopted for the walrus haulouts would have established a larger\ngroundfish fishing closure from Cape Constantine to Cape Pierce, which would have prohibited the fleet from a productive fishing\narea for yellowfin sole. This alternative was not chosen because it would have resulted in forgone exvessel revenues of up to $14\nmillion per year, and would have resulted in higher halibut and crab bycatch rates by pushing the fleet to outside areas. Regarding\npot gear restrictions, the alternatives not chosen would have conflicted with State regulations or would have required fishermen to\nhave separate pots for groundfish and crab.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the Aleutian Basin pollock stock has not recovered from overfishing by international\nfleets in the Donut hole, which occurred in the mid to late 1980s. Numerous experimental fishing permits have been issued to test\ngear modifications, observer sampling, methodology, bycatch mortality reduction techniques, etc.","Inshore/Offshore Allocations\nBSAI Amendment 18\nDates: Amendment 18 was adopted by the Council in June 1991 along with Amendment 23 to the FMP for the groundfish of the\nGulf of Alaska. NMFS published a proposed rule on December 20, 1991 (56 FR 66009). The final rule was issued June 3, 1992,\nand the effective date of implementation was June 1, 1992 (57 FR 23321). Several corrected versions followed.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 18 developed out of a concern to prevent preemption of resources by one industry sector\nover another. Substantial processing of pollock by several catcher/processor vessels contributed to an early closure of the pollock\nfishery in the Shelikof Strait area in 1989, effectively preventing inshore components from realizing their anticipated economic\nbenefit from processing pollock. Upon industry request, the Council considered the issues of coastal community development and\nshoreside preference at its June 1989 meeting and adopted the Fishery Planning Committee's suggested management alternatives\nfor analysis. The problem statement adopted by the Council identified the issue as a resource allocation problem and stated that\nspecific processing allocations for the inshore and offshore sectors established at the beginning of a fishing year would resolve the\npreemption problem and allow operators to better plan their harvesting and processing activities for the year.\nTo address this problem, the Council determined the need to establish inshore/offshore allocations of pollock and Pacific cod in the\nGOA, and pollock in the BSAI. In addition, the amendments would establish a Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA) in the\nBering Sea, which would limit access to pollock within the area to catcher vessels delivering to inshore or offshore processors. These\namendments also established the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) program pollock allocations, to provide\nWestern Alaska communities with long-term employment and access to the fisheries. The primary purpose of Amendments 18 and\n23 was to protect the inshore component of the fishery from preemption by the offshore fleet. The amendments provided an interim\nsolution for the inshore component, which includes small coastal communities that are highly dependent on fishing to maintain\neconomic stability. While the amendments did not directly address overcapitalization in the fisheries, the approval by the Council\nspecifically expressed an intent to develop and implement a more comprehensive, long-term limited access program.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved defined the inshore and offshore components of the fisheries.\nBSAI Amendment 18 was only partially approved, allocating 35% of the 1992 non-roe pollock season TAC to the inshore\ncomponent, and the remaining 65% to the offshore component. The portion that was not approved would have further allocated\npollock through 1995: (the inshore allocation would have increased to 40% in 1993 and 45% in both 1994 and 1995). A NMFS\neconomic review indicating a large net loss to the Nation as a result of this action provided the rationale for disapproval by the\nSecretary of Commerce. (Analysis of adjoining GOA Amendment 23 indicated a net benefit; therefore, that amendment was approved\nin full. The GOA inshore component was allocated 90% of the Pacific cod TAC and 100% of the pollock TAC for each fishing year.)\nWhile catcher/processors from the offshore component would not be able to conduct directed pollock fishing in the GOA, they would\nbe allowed appropriate bycatch amounts. Amendment 18 also established the CVOA south of 56° N. latitude and between 163° and\n168° W. longitudes and the Community Development Quota program. As a result of the CDQ program, 7.5 percent of the BSAI\npollock TAC was reserved for CDQ fisheries (a nonspecific reserve) at the beginning of the year, and that amount would be reduced\nas allocations are made to community development projects.\nAnalysis: An extensive final SEIS/RIR/IRFA (dated March 1992) and a 265-page appendix containing community profiles were\nprepared for these amendments. Eight alternatives including the status quo were considered. The alternatives not chosen would have\nimplemented traditional management tools or formed an allocation system with a different basis, such as vessel class, species, or at\nthe individual vessel level. The alternative chosen was broadened to include development of a Comprehensive Fishery\nRationalization Program, of which inshore/offshore allocations would be a part.\nResults: After the partial amendment was approved, in September 1992 the Council submitted revised BSAI Amendment 18 to\nNMFS for review. NMFS approved pollock allocations of 35% for pollock processing by the inshore component and 65% by the\noffshore component for each of the years 1993-95. These allocations resulted in a redistribution of fish from one sector (offshore)\nto another (onshore), and provided for stability and business planning advantages for both sectors. Stability in dependent coastal\ncommunities was also enhanced by this amendment. Allocations to the western Alaska CDQ program provided the economic base\nand opportunity for 56 Alaskan coastal communities to become integral participants in the BSAI commercial fisheries, through direct\nrevenues from the pollock allocation and development of fisheries infrastructures.","BSAI Amendment 19\nBycatch Control Measures\nDates: BSAI Amendment 19 (GOA Amendment 24) was adopted by the Council in December, 1991. NMFS published the final\nrule on September 23, 1992 (57 FR 43926). Effective date of implementation was September 30, 1992.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 19 was initiated to further address bycatch issues that were raised under Amendments 16\nto the BSAI FMP and 21 to the GOA FMP. The purpose of this amendment was to control and reduce halibut bycatch mortality\nin the Alaska groundfish fisheries in response to the international, social, and economic conflicts between U.S. and Canadian halibut\nfishermen and U.S. groundfish fishermen that take halibut as bycatch.\nRegulation Summary: Amendments 19/24 established three FMP amendment\nmanagement measures. These are as follows: 1) For 1992, reduce the Pacific halibut\nprohibited species catch (PSC) limit established for BSAI trawl gear from 5,333 metric\ntons (mt) to 5,033 mt, but retain the primary halibut PSC limit at 4,400 mt; 2) For 1992,\nestablish a 750 mt Pacific halibut bycatch mortality limit for BSAI fixed gear; and 3)\nEstablish FMP authority to develop and implement regulatory amendments that allow for\ntime/area closures to reduce prohibited species bycatch rates (revised \"hotspot authority\"). In addition to the above FMP\namendments, the following amendments to current regulations were adopted:\n(1) Revise BSAI fishery definitions for purposes of monitoring fishery specific bycatch allowances and assigning vessels\nto fisheries for purposes of the vessel incentive program;\n(2) Revise the management of BSAI trawl fishery categories for PSC accounting;\n(3) Expand the vessel incentive program to address halibut bycatch rates in all trawl fisheries;\n(4) Delay the season opening date of the BSAI and GOA groundfish trawl fisheries to January 20 of each fishing year to reduce\nsalmon and halibut bycatch rates;\n(5) Further delay the season opening date of the GOA trawl rockfish fishery to the Monday closest to July 1 to reduce halibut and\nchinook salmon bycatch rates; and\n(6) Change directed fishing standards to further limit halibut bycatch associated with bottom trawl fisheries.\nAnalysis: A 111-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated April 10, 1992) was prepared for this amendment. The analysis was broken\ndown into different management actions, and alternatives for each were evaluated separately. The number of alternatives (including\nthe status quo) considered varied for each management measure.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, bycatch of crab and halibut has been controlled to stay within the PSC limits. PSC\ncatch limits have been apportioned among different trawl fisheries in the BSAI, and fisheries have been closed when their respective\napportionments/seasonal allowances were reached. Catch of groundfish (particularly flatfish) has been forgone due to these\nrestrictions. Few vessels have been cited for violations of the vessel incentive program. PSC management was again revisited in\nfollowing amendments, such as BSAI Amendment 25.","Steller Sea Lion Buffer Zones\nBSAI Amendment 20\nDates: BSAI Amendment 20 (GOA Amendment 25) was adopted by the Council in September 1991. NMFS published the\nproposed rule on November 18, 1991 (56 FR 58214), and the final rule on January 23, 1992 (57 FR 2683). Effective date of\nimplementation was January 20, 1992.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 20 was proposed to allow regulations to be implemented to afford marine mammals\nadditional protection, particularly Steller sea lions. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened under heEndangered Species Act on\nNovember 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Although the ultimate cause of the Steller sea lions decline remains unknown, Steller sea lions\nhad been incidentally taken in fishing gear, intentionally killed and harassed by fishermen, and may have competed with commercial\nfisheries for food resources. The purpose of this amendment was to reduce the likelihood that commercial groundfish removals\nwould deplete Steller sea lion prey abundance in key habitats, as well as to reduce incidental take of Steller sea lions.\nSummary: Regulations authorized by Amendment 20 implemented the following measures:\nRegulation\nAreas are closed year-round to fishing by vessels using trawl gear within 10 nautical miles of key Steller sea lion rookeries\n1)\nlocated in the GOA and BSAI management areas.\nAreas are closed within 20 nm of five sea lion rookeries to directed pollock fisheries during the \"A\" season. These rookeries\n2)\nare Sea Lion Rocks, Akun Island, Akutan Island, Seguam Island, and Agligadak Island\nIn the GOA, the specified total allowable catch for pollock in the combined western/central area is further divided among three\n3)\npollock management districts: Area 61 (170°-159° W. longitudes), Area 62 (159°-154° W. longitudes), and Area 63 (154°-147°\nW. longitudes). The Sheliko Strait district was eliminated. To prevent excessive accumulation of unharvested portions in any\nquarterly allowance of the pollock TAC, a limit of 150 percent of the initial quarterly allowance in each pollock management\ndistrict was established.\nAnalysis: A 29 page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for the trawl closure area section and a 10 page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared\nfor the section revising GOA districts (final drafts undated, but near October 30, 1991). Five alternatives including the status quo\nwere considered for the trawl closure section and two alternatives were considered for the GOA districts section of the Amendment.\nThe other alternatives not chosen would have established larger time/area closures (20 nm year-round, 10 nm in summer with 20 nm\nwinter extensions, 20 nm summer with 60 nm winter extensions). The alternative chosen (10 nm year-round rookery closures)\nrepresented an approximation of the average summer foraging range (average was 8 miles; maximum of 21 miles) for the six female\nSteller sea lions with pups tagged and tracked.\nResults: Many subsequent actions have been taken to minimize the impacts of fisheries on Steller sea lions. On March 12, 1993,\nNMFS extended the no-trawl zone around Ugamak Island out to\n20 nm during the pollock roe fishery (58 FR 13561).\nAmendment 28 to the BSAI FMP subdivided the Aleutian\nIslands region into 3 districts to reduce localized depletion of\nRUSSIA\nAtka mackerel. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions was\ndesignated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). Amendment 45\nALABKA\nCANADA\n(U.S.)\nto the GOA groundfish FMP further subdivided the areas for\npollock fishing; these were further modified by regulatory\namendment in June (63 FR 31939). A regulatory amendment\nBERING SEA\nimplemented in 1999 seasonally apportioned the AI Atka\nmackerel TAC into two seasons, incrementally shifted the\na\nallowable catch outside of Steller sea lion critical habitat area,\nand added a 20 nm no-trawl zone around Sequam rookery.\nALEUTIAN ISLANDS\nGULF\nOF\nIn 1997, the western population (west of 144° longitude) of\nSteller sea lions was listed as endangered under the Endangered\nSpecies Act. In April 1998, plaintiffs (Greenpeace, the\nLocation of Steller sea lion rookery and haulouts closed to\nAmerican Oceans Campaign, and the Sierra Club) filed suit\npollock fishing in 1999.\nagainst NMFS challenging the FMPs under both the Endangered\nSpecies Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. In\nDecember 1998, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that the\nAlaska pollock fisheries proposed for the years 1999 to 2002 were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions\nand modify its critical habitat. As a result, numerous management actions were taken via emergency rule and standard rulemaking\nto temporally and spatially disperse the pollock fisheries, and establish numerous no-trawl zones around rookeries and haulouts. The\nplaintiffs have further challenged NMFS on the adequacy of these reasonable and prudent alternatives.","BSAI Amendment 21\nHalibut Bycatch Mortality Limits\nDates: Amendment 21 was adopted by the Council in June 1992, and approved by NMFS on February 9, 1993. NMFS published\na final rule on March 18, 1993 (58 FR 14524). Effective date of implementation was March 17, 1993.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to control halibut bycatch in groundfish fisheries. Halibut bycatch\nlimits for trawl and non-trawl gear fisheries that were established for 1992 under Amendment 19 were scheduled to expire at the\nend of 1992. Without further regulatory action, no halibut bycatch restrictions would be in effect for BSAI non-trawl fisheries in\n1993 and beyond, and the halibut bycatch limit for trawl gear fisheries would revert back to the 1991 level of 5,333 metric tons.\nThere were two other problems addressed in the amendment. First, the trawl PSC\nlimit was previously established in terms of bycatch, not bycatch mortality.\nTherefore, it did not address directly the management goal of controlling bycatch\nmortality and limited the methods available to fishermen to meet that goal. Second,\nthe PSC limits could only be changed with an FMP amendment. This can be a\ncumbersome and lengthy process and may prevent timely and efficient changes to\nthe PSC limits as the biological, economic, and social factors that determine the\nappropriate PSC limits change.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 21 implemented the following measures:\n1. Establish halibut bycatch limits in terms of halibut mortality rather than halibut bycatch;\n2. Establish halibut bycatch mortality limits for trawl and non trawl fisheries in regulations rather than in the FMP to allow\nfor changes in bycatch mortality limits through a regulatory amendment process rather than an FMP amendment; and\n3. Establish FMP authority to annually apportion the non-trawl halibut bycatch mortality limit among fisheries and seasons\nas bycatch allowances. This authority would be similar to FMP provisions for annual specification of bycatch\nallowances of prohibited species catch limits among trawl fisheries.\nConsistent with this amendment, regulations established a 3,775 mt halibut bycatch mortality limit for trawl gear fisheries and a 900\nmt halibut bycatch mortality limit for non-trawl fisheries.\nAnalysis: A 94-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated November 3, 1992) was prepared for this amendment. Six alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered. The other alternatives that were not chosen would have established halibut bycatch limits\nonly (not mortality based), or established fixed bycatch mortality limits for trawl fisheries in the FMP or regulations. In addition,\nthree options for bycatch and mortality limits were analyzed. The alternative chosen established halibut bycatch limits in terms of\nmortality, allowed the PSC limits to be changed by regulatory amendment, allowed apportionment and seasonal allowances to be\nspecified, and allowed some non-trawl fisheries (e.g., pot fisheries) to be exempt from the non-trawl PSC limits.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, halibut bycatch mortality limits have not been exceeded. Further, fishermen have\ndeveloped ways to reduce halibut mortality (e.g., careful release, deck sorting) to better achieve OY in the groundfish fisheries. Note\nthat the halibut bycatch mortality limit for trawl gear was reduced by 100 mt with implementation of Amendment 57.","BSAI Amendment 21a Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Area\nDates: Amendment 21a was adopted by the Council in April 1994, and approved by NMFS on December 12, 1994. NMFS\npublished a proposed rule on October 17, 1994 (59 FR 52277), and the final rule on January 20, 1995 (60 FR 4110). Effective date\nof implementation was January 20, 1995.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to eliminate trawl activities in areas of importance to blue king crab\nand Korean hair crab stocks so that these stocks may build to and be maintained at exploitable levels. In addition, the amendment\nwould reduce bycatch of juvenile halibut and crab, and mitigate any unobserved mortality or habitat modification that occurred due\nto trawling.\nRegulation Summary: All trawling is prohibited at all times in the\nEEZ within the area bounded by a straight line connecting the following\npairs of coordinates in the following order:\nBering Sea\n(57° 57.0', 168° 30.0')\nOpen April 1 -June 15\n(56° 55.2', 168° 30.0')\n58N\nNearshore\n(56° 48.0', 169° 2.4')\nBristol Bay\nClosure Area\n(56° 34.2', 169° 2.4')\n57N\nBristol Bay RKC\nSavings Area\n(56° 30.0', 169° 25.2')\nPribilof Islands Habitat\n56N\n(56° 30.0', 169° 44.1')\nConservation Area\n(56° 55.8', 170° 21.6')\n55N\n(57° 13.8', 171° 0.0')\n(57° 57.0', 171° 0.0')\n54N\n(57° 57.0', 168° 30.0')\nGulf of Alaska\nAnalysis: A 106-page EA/RIR (final draft dated September 12,\n165W\n175W\n170W\n160W\n1994) was prepared for this amendment. Eleven alternatives including\nthe status quo were considered. The other alternatives that were not\nLocation of trawl closure areas to protect\nchosen would have established different area closure configurations or\nred and blue king crab habitats.\nestablished a closure based on a trigger level of crab bycatch. Through\nspatial display of NMFS annual trawl surveys; foreign, JV, and domestic groundfish observer data; and the directed commercial crab\ncatch, the analysis provided an understanding of blue king crab habitat, trawl fishing effort and the distribution or feeding areas of\nother marine species. Analysis of this information was used to delineate an area for closures that provides trawl access to the majority\nof groundfish resources in the Pribilof Islands area, yet affords habitat protection for blue king crab. The boundary selected does\nnot encompass the entire range of blue king crab in the area, but does surround the habitat with highest blue king crab concentrations.\nIncluded in the boundary is habitat vital to juvenile blue king crab, populations of red king crab, populations of Korean hair crab,\nand some of the area important to foraging sea birds and marine mammals. The boundary in Alternative 8 was selected to allow trawl\naccess to the edge of the 100 m contour and the groundfish resources to the east and north of the Pribilof Islands. The boundary was\nalso drawn with straight edges and as few corners as possible in order to facilitate ease of closure enforcement.\nSince the amendment was approved, crab stocks have declined. Blue king crab declined from a recent peak in 1995 (8.4\nResults:\nmillion crabs) to very low levels (3.2 million crabs). Hair crabs similarly declined from 11.8 million crabs in 1995 to only 5.6 million\ncrabs in 1999. Other crab stocks (e.g., Tanner and snow crabs) utilizing the conservation area have declined over the time period\nas well and are now considered overfished. Red-legged kittiwakes and black legged kittiwakes, seabird species of special concern,\nappear to have remained at stable population numbers since 1989. Other seabird species, such as northern fulmars and common\nmurres are increasing on the Pribilof Islands.","BSAI Amendment 21b Chinook Salmon Savings Areas\nDates: Amendment 21b was adopted by the Council in November 1995. NMFS published final rule on November 29, 1995 (60\nFR 61215). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1996.\nPurpose\nand Need: Salmon are a target species in directed\nsalmon fisheries, but are taken as incidental bycatch in groundfish trawl\nBering Sea\nfisheries. The objective of the amendment was to provide the Council\nwith the means to control chinook salmon bycatch in the BSAI\ngroundfish trawl fisheries. Chinook salmon bycatch control measures\n58N\nwere thought to be needed for two reasons. First, many chinook salmon\nstocks are fully utilized, and uncontrolled bycatch constitutes an\nChum Salmon\n57N\nadditional, unaccounted for allocation of the resources. Second,\nSavings Area\n1\nuncontrolled bycatch levels exceeding recent highs may lead to\n56N\nChinook\nconservation problems for Alaskan and Canadian chinook salmon\nSalmon\npopulations. During the previous 10 years, several major river systems\n55N\nSavings\nhad experienced low levels of returns, particularly the Nushagak,\nAreas\n54N\nYukon, and Kuskokwim rivers.\n2\nGulf of Alaska\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 21b established measures\nto control the amount of chinook salmon taken as bycatch in BSAI\n175W\n170W\n165W\n160W\ntrawl fisheries. Specifically, the alternative adopted would close three\nareas in the BSAI to all trawling when 48,000 chinook salmon were\nLocation of the chinook and chum salmon\ntaken as bycatch. The chinook salmon savings areas are shown in the\nsavings areas in the BSAI.\nadjacent figure. A closure will remain in effect from the time the\ntrigger is reached until April 16, when the areas would reopen to trawling for the remainder of the year.\nAnalysis: A 203-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated August 16, 1995) was prepared for this amendment. Three primary\nalternatives including the status quo were considered. There were 8 different area closure options, two bycatch limit options, and\nthree seasonal closure options. The other primary alternative that was not chosen would have\nestablished a time/area closure but without a PSC limit that triggered a closure. In selecting the\nNumber of chinook salmon\npreferred alternative, the Council recognized that a PSC limit of 48,000 chinook salmon would not\ntaken as incidental bycatch\nconstrain groundfish fisheries in most years, but would allow for closures in areas and times of\nin BSAI trawl fisheries,\nhistoric high salmon bycatch.\n1989-1999.\nResults: Although more than 48,000 chinook salmon were taken over the course of a year in\nChinook\n1996, 1997, and 1998, closure of the area has not been triggered because the cap was not exceeded\nYear\nSalmon\nprior to April 15. Total number of chinook salmon taken annually as bycatch in BSAI groundfish\n1989\n40,354\nfisheries is shown in the adjacent table. In February 1999, the Council adopted Amendment 58,\n1990\n13,990\nwhich reduced the chinook salmon bycatch trigger level to 29,000 chinook salmon (with year-\n1991\n35,766\nround accounting) and refined the closure areas based on more recent data.\n1992\n37,372\nDespite these actions, chinook salmon populations in western Alaska remain in relatively poor\n1993\n45,964\nshape, and have not yet recovered to earlier levels.\n1994\n43,636\n1995\n23,079\n1996\n63,179\n1997\n50,218\n1998\n58,966\n1999\n12,918","Trawl Test Zones\nBSAI Amendment 22\nDates: BSAI Amendment 22 and GOA Amendment 27 were adopted by the Council in April 1992. NMFS published a proposed\nrule on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 59702) and a final rule on January 22, 1993 (58 FR 5660).\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to provide trawl fishermen an opportunity to test their trawl fishing\ngear when the GOA or BSAI is otherwise closed to trawling. Until 1992, the GOA and BSAI were open to trawling for most of the\nyear, and fishermen were able to test gear in preparation for a season opening. However, in 1992, new regulations delayed the\nopening of the trawl season from January 1 to January 20 to reduce the bycatch rates of chinook salmon and Pacific halibut. The\npurpose of this amendment was to allow fishermen to test their gear and begin fishing efficiently at the beginning of a season,\nreducing lost fishing time that might result from gear problems.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 22 allows the Secretary to promulgate regulations establishing areas where specific types\nof fishing gear may be tested, to be available for use when the fishing grounds are closed to that gear type. Specific gear test areas\ncontained in regulations that implement the FMP were allowed by regulatory amendment. These gear test areas would be established\nin order to provide fishermen the opportunity to ensure that their gear is in proper working order prior to a directed fishery opening.\nThe test areas must conform to the following conditions:\n(1) Depth and bottom type must be suitable for testing the particular gear type.\n(2) Must be outside State waters.\n(3) Must be in areas not normally closed to fishing\nwith that gear type.\nAlaska\n(4) Must be in areas that are not usually fished\nheavily by that gear type.\n(5) Must not be within a designated Steller sea lion\nprotection area at any time of the year.\nDutch Harbor:\nThe rule implementing this amendment established three trawl\n54 40' to 55 00'\nKodiak:\ntest areas: Dutch Harbor (54 °40' to 55° 00' N; 166° 00' to 167°\n166 00' to 167 00'\n57 23' to 57 37'\n00' W), Sand Point (54 °35' to 54° 50' N; 160° 30' to 161° 00' W\n151 25' to 152 02'\n), and Kodiak (57°23' to 57° 37'N; 151° 25' to 152° 02'W). The\nregulation further required that the trawl cod end must be left\nSand Point:\nunzipped so as not to retain fish, that groundfish may not be\n54 35' to 54 50'\nonboard, and that the time used to test gear would not contribute\n160 30' to 161 00'\nto observer coverage requirements.\nLocation of trawl test zones in the Alaska EEZ.\nAnalysis: A 13-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated\nSeptember 1, 1992) was prepared for this amendment. Two\nalternatives including the status quo were considered.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, fishermen have been able to test their gear when trawl fishing is otherwise prohibited\nand no subsequent changes to the areas have been made.","BSAI Amendment 23\nMoratorium\nDates: The final version of BSAI Amendment 23 was adopted by the Council in December, 1994. NMFS published a proposed\nrule for BSAI Amendment 23 and GOA Amendment 28, and Crab Amendment 5 on May 12, 1995 (60 FR 25677). The final rule\nwas published on August 10, 1995 (60 FR 40763). Effective date of implementation for most sections of the amendment was\nSeptember 11, 1995.\nPurpose and Need: In 1987, concerned with excess harvesting capacity in the groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries of the\nBSAI and GOA, the Council established a committee to examine the problem of overcapitalization. Upon concluding that allocation\nconflicts and overcapitalization would worsen under the current open access system, the committee recommended a limited access\nmanagement approach for these three fisheries. Concerned with the potential for speculative entry into the fisheries during discussions\nof management alternatives, NMFS published a control date notice of February 9, 1992. Anyone not having previously participated\nin the fisheries before that date would not be assured future access to the fisheries should a limited access system be adopted.\nThe purpose of this amendment was to provide for an interim measure to slow significant increases in the harvesting capacity of the\ngroundfish and crab fishing fleets until a Comprehensive Rationalization Plan (CRP) could be implemented. The CRP, which\ncontinues to be developed by the Council, is intended to resolve the overall issue of overcapitalization on a long-term basis, and\ntransition the fisheries from an open access management system to a more market-based, limited access system. Without the\nregulatory ability to institute a moratorium, the Council feared that potentially unlimited new entry into the fishery would exacerbate\novercapitalization and hinder the ultimate development of a successful CRP. The anticipated short-term effects of the amendment\nincluded increasing economic benefits to fishermen and reducing the risk of overfishing.\nRegulation Summary: After several proposed moratoriums, the final rule required a moratorium permit for vessels within\nspecific vessel categories that harvest groundfish and BSAI crab resources off Alaska. Generally, a vessel qualified for a moratorium\npermit if it made a legal landing of any moratorium species during the qualifying period of January 1, 1988 through February 9, 1992.\nIn addition, a vessel that made a legal landing during the qualifying period, in either a groundfish or crab fishery, but not both, can\ncross over as a new vessel in the fishery in which it did not made a legal landing in the qualifying period provided: 1) it uses the same\ngear type in the new fishery as it used to qualify for the moratorium in the other fishery; or 2) it made a legal landing in the crossover\nfishery during the qualifying period and it uses only the same gear type it used in that period.\nAnalysis: A 22-page supplemental analysis (final draft dated February 1995) was prepared for the final resubmittal of the\nproposed moratorium for these amendments, which were originally approved by the Council in 1992. The supplemental analysis\noutlined the changes from the original moratorium proposal: revision of the qualification period, halibut and sablefish qualification,\nconsideration of current participation, crossovers, and the appeals process. The analysis also indicated that the revised moratorium\nwould allow 4,144 unique vessels in the crab and groundfish fisheries, about 1,800 more than the current participant fleet but\nsignificantly less than the 15,709 unique vessels that participated in the fisheries since 1978 that had the potential to re-enter if no\naction was taken.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the Council has implemented the License Limitation Program (LLP) to limit entry\ninto the groundfish and crab fisheries off of Alaska. As anticipated, the LLP (Amendment 60 to the BSAI FMP/Amendment 58\nto\nthe GOA FMP/Amendment 10 to the BSAI Crab FMP) replaced the vessel moratorium established in these amendments starting\nin\nthe 2000 fishing season. For general licenses, the base qualifying period established was January 1, 1988, through June 27, 1992,\napproximately four months longer than the moratorium qualification period, in order to be consistent with the Council's published\ncutoff date for qualification under the Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. The LLP also required an area endorsement for the BSAI\nor the GOA, to provide for present participation in the fisheries (the qualifying period being January 1, 1992 through June 17, 1995).\nThe moratorium established by Amendments 23 and 28 limited speculative entry into the fisheries while the LLP was being\ndeveloped and approved, and kept the overcapitalization situation from worsening during development of the long-term\nComprehensive Rationalization Plan. In addition, the moratorium qualifications could be transferred to other vessels (provided that\nthe length of the new vessel was the same or less than the original), and so helped provide a basis for the LLP transfer process.","Pacific Cod Allocation\nBSAI Amendment 24\nDates: Amendment 24 was adopted by the Council in June 1993. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment\n24 on October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57803). The final rule was published on January 28, 1994 (59 Notice 4009). Effective date of\nimplementation was February 28, 1994.\nPurpose and Need: The amendment was proposed in response to socioeconomic concerns of the fishing industry and the need\nfor stability in the trawl gear and fixed gear (longline, pot, and jig) fleets that target Pacific cod. The fishery was exhibiting numerous\novercapitalization problems such as compressed fishing seasons, high bycatch\nand waste, gear conflicts, and an overall reduction in benefit from the fishery. At\nthe April 1993 meeting, the Council developed a problem statement that focused\non resolving overcapitalization in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery In June, the\nCouncil recommended three management measures to be implemented through\n1996: 1) allocation of the BSAI Pacific cod initial Total Allowable Catch (TAC)\namong the jig gear, fixed (longline and pot) gear, and trawl gear fleets; 2)\nseasonally apportion the amount of Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels using\nlongline or pot gear; and 3) provide the authority to reallocate Pacific cod from\nthe trawl sector to the longline and pot sectors, and vice versa, if NMFS determines that one gear group or the other will not be able\nto harvest its full allocation. The part of the jig gear harvest that is expected to go unharvested would also be reallocated to the trawl\nand longline or pot sectors.\nThe Council's action was intended to provide industry and community stability by directly allocating to gear groups approximately\nthe average percent of Pacific cod taken with these gear types during the years 1991-1993. While the fixed and trawl gear fleet were\nallocated about their average catch, the amendment allowed for a substantial increase in the share of the fixed gear catch taken with\njig gear. This was intended to increase participation of small, shore-based vessels. Without explicit gear allocations, the Pacific cod\nfishery would continue to operate under an open access situation, and the amount of cod taken by each gear group would be based\non how well individual vessels compete among gear groups. A direct allocation combined with seasonal apportionment in the fixed\ngear sector was expected to provide the potential for each gear group to increase the average benefits received from the harvest of\nPacific cod.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 24 was proposed to authorize the explicit allocation of BSAI Pacific cod among vessels\nusing trawl, hook-and-line or pot gear, and jig gear through 1996. The alternative adopted and approved allocated the BSAI Pacific\ncod TAC to the jig gear (2%), hook-and-line or pot gear (44%) and trawl gear (54%) fleets. The action also authorized the seasonal\napportionment of the Pacific cod TAC for hook-and-line and pot gear, creating three four-month seasons. In addition, the regulation\nallowed for the reallocation of Pacific cod from the trawl sector to the longline and pot sectors, and vice versa, if NMFS determines\nthat one gear group or the other will not be able to harvest its full allocation.\nAnalysis: A 77-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated October 1993) and a separate volume of nine appendices were prepared for\nthis amendment. Two types of changes were considered: the direct allocation to gear groups and the seasonal apportionment of the\nfixed gear BSAI Pacific cod allocation. The analysis determined that the preferred alternative would provide stability in terms of\nthe distribution of catch between the trawl and non-trawl fisheries. improve the current situation by reducing salmon and other\nprohibited species bycatch rates, and provide information to develop more effective management measures in the future.\nResults: The BSAI Pacific cod allocations resulting from Amendment 24 were approved through 1996. At the December 1995\nCouncil meeting, it was noted that while the action provided the necessary stability to the various gear sectors, significant regulatory,\neconomic, and biological changes had occurred in the Pacific cod fishery since the amendment was implemented in 1994. These\nchanges were incorporated into the original analysis with a specific focus on prohibited species mortality, impacts on habitat, and\ncod discards by the different gear sectors. In June 1996, the Council approved Amendment 46 to continue allocations of the Pacific\ncod TAC, revising the allocation as follows: 51% to fixed gear, 47% to trawl gear, and 2% to jig gear. Most recently, the Council\napproved BSAI Amendment 64 (October 1999), to further split the BSAI Pacific cod fixed gear allocation between freezer longline,\ncatcher longline and pot vessels.","BSAI Amendment 25\nProhibited Species Catch Limits and Observer Data\nDates: Amendment 25 was adopted by the Council in December 1992 along with regulatory amendments that affect the use of\nprohibited species catch (PSC) observer data. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 25 on January 19, 1994\n(59 FR 2817). Effective date of implementation was May 20, 1994. (59 FR 18757; April 20, 1994.)\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 25 was proposed to eliminate the primary Pacific halibut PSC limit that, when reached, closes\nBycatch Limitation Zones 1 and 2H of the Bering Sea. Originally, under Amendment 12a to the BSAI FMP, a 4,400 mt primary\nhalibut PSC limit and a 5,333 mt secondary limit were established for specified BSAI trawl fisheries. When the primary limit was\nreached, Zones 1 and 2H were closed to directed fishing for specified groundfish species by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear.\nWhen the secondary limit was reached, the entire BSAI was closed to directed trawl fishing for specified groundfish species. The\nintent was to reduce halibut bycatch rates experienced by the trawl fisheries without prohibiting the groundfish trawl fisheries access\nto the entire BSAI groundfish resource.\nAmendment 12a expired December 31, 1990 and was replaced by Amendment 16, which maintained the existing PSC limits during\n1991. Amendment 16 was eventually replaced by Amendment 19, which was effective only for the 1992 fishing year and reduced\nthe secondary limit to 5,033 mt. (This action was eventually superceded by Amendment 21, which simply converted the PSC limits\nfrom catch limits to mortality limits.) As a result, the smaller difference between the primary and secondary limits made it difficult\nfor NMFS to monitor the primary limit in a manner to allow closures before the secondary limit was reached; therefore, most trawl\nclosures ensuing from bycatch restrictions were implemented under the secondary limit. At this point, the effectiveness of a primary\nPSC limit to reduce halibut bycatch came into question. NMFS was finding that initial closure of Bycatch Limitation Zones actually\noften increased bycatch rates by forcing fisheries to move to areas with lower groundfish catch per unit effort and higher halibut\nbycatch rates.\nAmendment 25 was proposed to respond to the concerns about the usefulness of the primary PSC limit and its potential\nfor\nexacerbating halibut bycatch rates in the BSAI trawl groundfish fisheries. The intent was to eliminate the primary PSC limit and use\nonly the overall (secondary) halibut bycatch mortality limit established for the BSAI trawl fisheries. This action was necessary to\npromote the management and conservation of halibut and other fish resources as specified in the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens\nAct and the FMPs, and to better meet the original intent of Amendment 12a.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved eliminated the primary PSC limit, but did not affect the overall\nhalibut bycatch mortality limit (3,775 mt) for the BSAI trawl fisheries. The action also implemented regulatory amendments which\n1) prohibited discards of salmon taken as bycatch in the BSAI groundfish trawl fisheries until a NMFS-certified observer determines\nthe number of salmon and collects any necessary data; and 2) established the authority to release to the public vessel-specific observer\ndata on bycatch of prohibited species in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.\nAnalysis: A 21-page EA/RIR (final draft dated December 1993) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including\nthe status quo were considered. One alternative addressed the elimination of the primary PSC limit and the other alternative\naddressed the regulatory amendments proposing the mandatory retention of salmon and authorized release of observer data on\nprohibited species bycatch. The analysis determined that both alternatives would improve the current situation by reducing salmon\nand other prohibited species bycatch rates and providing information to develop more effective management measures in the future.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, trawl halibut bycatch mortality has decreased slightly, as has the overall trawl\nbycatch mortality limit. The following are the trawl halibut bycatch mortality rates in the BSAI groundfish fisheries since the\namendment was approved in 1994 (NMFS 2000):\nYear\nTotal Halibut Mortality (mt)\nTotal Halibut Cap (mt)\n2000\n3,400\n1999\n3,460\n3,492\n1998\n3,432\n3,492\n1997\n3,574\n3,775\n1996\n3,766\n3,775\n1995\n3,753\n3,775","Salmon Retention for Food Banks\nBSAI Amendment 26\nDates: BSAI Amendment 26 (GOA Amendment 29) was adopted by the Council in September 1994. NMFS published a final\nrule on July 24, 1996 (61 FR 38354). Effective date of implementation was July 19, 1996. Selection of an authorized distributor\nfor donated salmon was announced on August 16, 1996 (61 FR 42591).\nPurpose and Need: The Alaska groundfish fisheries result in incidental\nfishing mortality of Pacific salmon. Vessel operators participating in these\nfisheries typically use trawl, hook-and-line, or pot gear. Trawl gear operations\naccount for most of the groundfish catch, harvesting 92 percent and 94 percent\nof the groundfish catch during 1992 and 1993, respectively. Trawl gear\nfisheries for Alaska groundfish also account for more than 99 percent of the\nsalmon bycatch by the Alaska groundfish fisheries. These fish are dead when\nbrought on board a vessel and must be returned to Federal waters as prohibited\nspecies once a NMFS-certified observer has determined the number of salmon\nand completed the collection of any biological or scientific data.\nThe incidental salmon mortality experienced in the groundfish fisheries is one of several competing uses of the fully utilized salmon\nresource. Salmon also are used as catch and bycatch in directed commercial, subsistence, and sport salmon fisheries and as bycatch\nin other non-salmon and non-groundfish fisheries. Salmon used as bycatch in the groundfish fisheries and in other fisheries can\nexacerbate the management problem associated with the allocation of salmon among escapement goals set by Alaska State\nmanagement policy and the terminal salmon fisheries. The groundfish fisheries may result in reduced escapement or harvest in\nthe salmon fisheries, thereby imposing a cost on other salmon users.\nAmendment 21 would authorize the voluntary retention and processing of salmon taken as bycatch in the Alaska trawl fisheries for\ndonation to needy individuals. The intent of this action was to reduce bycatch and waste and potentially provide the opportunity\nto collect additional data that would support a more long-term solution to the salmon bycatch problem.\nRegulation Summary: The Salmon Donation Program authorizes the distribution of Pacific Salmon taken as bycatch in\nthe groundfish trawl fisheries in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska to economically disadvantaged individuals through NMFS\nauthorized distributor selected by the Regional Director in accordance with federal regulations implemented under the FMP.\nAnalysis: A 24-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March 1996) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the\nstatus quo were considered. Under the status quo alternative, all bycaught salmon would be retained until a NMFS-certified\nobserver has determined the number of salmon and collected any biological or scientific data. Salmon could not be retained for\nreasons other than the collection of biological or scientific data and ultimately must be discarded in Federal waters as a prohibited\nspecies. The other alternative not chosen would have mandated that every salmon taken in the Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries\nbe retained, processed for human consumption, and donated to a nonprofit foodbank organization. Because NMFS's authority under\nthe Magnuson - Stevens Act to directly regulate harvesting and processing fishery resources is limited to the EEZ, this alternative\nwas not developed further but instead provided a qualitative comparison with the other alternatives.\nResults: The Salmon Donation Program was implemented in 1996 after two years of assessment under several experimental\nfishing permits. Based on the results from the Salmon Donation Program, it appears that the program was effective at reducing\nbycatch waste without increasing total bycatch and that the program merits expansion. Since the amendment was approved, many\nfishing companies have voluntarily participated in the donation program. Through 1998, the authorized distributor, Northwest Food\nStrategies, has distributed over 3 million pounds (approximately 12 million meals) of donated salmon and halibut to needy people.","BSAI Amendment 27\nResearch Plan\nDates: BSAI Amendment 27 (GOA Amendment 30) was adopted by the Council in June 1992, then reconsidered and adopted\nas revised in December 1993. NMFS published a proposed rule on May 6, 1994 (59 FR 23664) and a final rule on September 6, 1994\n(59 FR 46126). Effective date of implementation was October 6, 1994. Amendment 1 (which delayed implementation until 1997)\nto the research plan was announced on December 26, 1995 (60 FR 66755).\nPurpose and Need: Amendments 13 and 18 to the groundfish FMPs authorized a comprehensive domestic fishery observer\nprogram. The 1990 and 1991 observer program required specific levels of observer coverage which varied with size of fishing vessel\nand quantity of fish processed by floating and shoreside processors. These requirements were established because it was recognized\nthat living marine resources could not be effectively managed without the types of information that were either available only or most\nefficiently through an observer program.\nThe observer program required that owners and operators of vessels and shoreside processing facilities participating in the groundfish\nfishery arrange for and pay for the cost of placing observers aboard their vessels and at their shoreside processing facilities beginning\nin January, 1990. Each vessel or processor required to have observer coverage is responsible for the cost of obtaining the required\nobservers from a certified contractor. The cost averaged between $5,800 and $7,100 per observer month in 1991. There were three\nproblems identified for this method of paying for observer coverage. It was not an equitable system in that some operations payed\nfor 100% coverage and others did not pay anything, it limited the ability of the NMFS to effectively manage the observer program,\nand it may have resulted in a conflict of interest that could reduce the credibility of observer data. It also based observer coverage\nlevels on a simple vessel length criterion, which likely does not result in the most efficient, appropriate coverage across all fisheries.\nThe Research plan was designed to address these problems. Industry support for such a change is demonstrated by the willingness\nand ability of the industry to convince Congress to amend the Act to allow the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan to be established\nand paid for by a broad-based system of user fees. The proposed plan was to be applicable to the groundfish, halibut, and BSAI crab\nfisheries.\nRegulation Summary: The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized the Council and the Secretary to establish a North Pacific\nFisheries Research Plan which: (1) requires that observers be stationed on fishing vessels and at fish processing facilities, and (2)\nestablishes a system of fees to pay for the cost of implementing the research plan. The Research Plan, as adopted under this\namendment, contained four objectives and elements that included observer employment and contracts, observer duties, data collection\nand transmission, annual determination of coverage levels by fishery, in-season changes to coverage levels, establishment of an\nobserver oversight committee, coordination between the NMFS groundfish and ADF&G shellfish observer programs, a fee\nassessment (up to 2% of ex-vessel value of harvested fish), and details on fee collection and contingency plans in case of funding\nshortfalls.\nAnalysis: A 26-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March 22, 1994), together with a lengthy (100+ pp.) appendix section, was\nprepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the status quo were considered. Under the status quo alternative, the\nauthority to establish a research plan would not be used, existing observer coverage requirements and contracting arrangements would\nbe used, and no observer program would be implemented for the halibut fishery. The alternative adopted provided for a research\nplan, and attendant fee on landings, to address problems identified with the existing observer program.\nResults: Though the amendment was approved, it was never fully implemented. Instead, implementation was delayed one year,\nthen replaced with a modified pay-as-you-go system adopted under Amendments 47/47. Start-up fees were collected by NMFS in\nthe first year of implementation (1995), but the Council repealed the Research Plan due to various concerns, including the possibility\nthat the fee would not cover all necessary coverage levels. Fees were refunded following the repeal of the Plan. Since that time the\nCouncil has requested redevelopment of fee plan alternatives and will evaluate possible options through 2000 and 2001.","Aleutian Islands Regulatory Areas\nBSAI Amendment 28\nDates: Amendment 28 was adopted by the Council in January 1993. NMFS published a proposed rule on April 23, 1993 (58 FR\n21695), and a final rule on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37660). Effective date of implementation was August 11, 1993.\nPurpose and Need: A groundfish species or species group may be apportioned to the entire BSAI, or to smaller areas defined\nin the FMP or implementing regulations, provided that sufficient biological information exists with which to establish acceptable\nbiological catches (ABCs) for the areas of interest. Prior to this amendment, the Aleutian Islands area was not subdivided under the\nFMP. Therefore, groundfish ABCs and catch limits could not be apportioned to smaller areas within the Aleutian Islands (AI) region.\nFor some species, particularly Atka mackerel, fishing effort had traditionally occurred in the eastern end of the AI, nearest Dutch\nHarbor. This situation can result in undesirable effects of highly concentrated effort, such as the potential for localized depletion\nof groundfish, intensified competition with marine predators for fishery resources, and greater possibility of habitat degradation.\nThe purpose of this amendment was to allow ABCs and TACs to be allocated into smaller areas in the AI region, thereby spreading\nout fishing effort over a larger area.\nRegulation Summary: Under Amendment 28,\nthe Aleutian Islands region was split into three\n524\nmanagement districts at 177° W longitude and 177° E\nlongitude. The eastern, central, and western AI districts\n514\nare shown in the adjacent figure and are denoted as\n521\n58N\nstatistical areas 541, 542, and 543.\nBering Sea\nDonut Hole\n512\n513\n57N\n509\nAnalysis: A 93-page EA/RIR (final draft dated June\n56N\n517\n8, 1993) was prepared for this amendment. Three\n523\n530\n55N\nalternatives including the status quo were considered.\n519\n518\nBesides the status quo, the other alternative that was not\n54N\n543\n542\n541\nchosen would have split the AI into only two districts\nwith the dividing line at 177° E longitude. The\nalternative chosen was more conservative in that defining\nGulf of Alaska\nAleutian Islands\nsmaller areas for ABC and TAC allocation may reduce\nthe potential for localized depletion and competition with\n175W\n170W\n165W\n160W\n180W\nmarine mammals.\nRevised 5/29/96\nResults:\nSince the amendment was approved, ABCs\nStatistical and regulatory areas for the Bering Sea and Aleutian\nand TACs for Atka mackerel and Pacific Ocean Perch\nIslands groundfish fisheries.\nhave been allocated among the three AI districts based on\nbiomass distribution.","BSAI Amendment 29\nSalmon Bycatch Accounting (withdrawn)\nDates: Amendment 29 was evaluated by the Council in June and September 1993.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of this amendment was to reduce salmon bycatch in trawl fisheries. The incidental salmon\nfishing mortality experienced in the groundfish fisheries is one of several competing uses of the fully utilized salmon resource.\nSalmon are also used as catch and bycatch in directed commercial, subsistence, and sport salmon fisheries and as bycatch in other\nnon-salmon fisheries. The groundfish fisheries may result in reduced escapement or harvest in the salmon fisheries, thereby imposing\na cost on other salmon users.\nIf sufficient incentives exist for a vessel operator to move to another area or take other action to reduce the possibility of continued\nhigh bycatch rates, then incidence of repeated high salmon bycatch rates on a haul by haul basis may be curtailed. Nonetheless, some\nsalmon bycatch is unavoidable in the groundfish trawl fisheries, as a degree of unpredictability is associated with salmon bycatch.\nDifficulties may exist for individual vessel operators to take action that will predictably reduce salmon bycatch rates on a haul by\nhaul basis. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce salmon bycatch by holding individual vessel operators responsible for the\namount of salmon bycatch their vessel takes.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment was never adopted and the vessel incentive portion was never implemented. NMFS\nexpressed reservations about obtaining statistically valid estimates of salmon bycatch amounts for use in enforcing a vessel incentive\nprogram. Additionally, there were concerns raised about establishing a haul by haul vessel incentive program because the possibility\nof a vessel randomly encountering large numbers of salmon in a single haul, as well as vessels that deliver unsorted cod ends to\nshoreside operations. In both cases, violators would be unable to take action to avoid a violation. Notwithstanding these issues, it\nwas felt that significant staff resources would need to be shifted to monitor salmon bycatch, enforce, and prosecute salmon bycatch\nviolators.\nGiven the difficulties presented in establishing a regulatory solution to individual vessel bycatch accounting, amendment\ndevelopment was put on hold while industry representatives developed their own voluntary program named the Salmon Foundation.\nParticipants assessed themselves a $20 fee per chinook and raised a total of $120,000 in 1994. The purpose of the Foundation was\nto use income generated from salmon bycatch assessment payments to develop a salmon bycatch avoidance program for the BSAI\ntrawl fisheries and to fund research on stock origin of salmon taken as bycatch. After the Council adopted the time area closures in\nApril 1995, the industry stopped the bycatch assessment fees, so the research monies were spent and the Foundation dissolved.\nAnalysis: A 45-page EA/RIR/FRFA (public review draft dated May 14, 1993) plus a 39-page addendum was prepared for this\namendment. Two primary alternatives including the status quo, together with five options for Alternative 2 were considered. The\noptions considered would implement a salmon vessel incentive program similar to the halibut program (bycatch standards with\ncompliance based on observer samples), and various configurations of a salmon incentive program that is independent of observer\nsampling procedures. The suboptions of an observer independent program included counting all salmon, extrapolation based on\nproduct recovery or landed weights, and mandatory retention of salmon for observer counting.\nResults: The amendment was never approved. Portions of the salmon bycatch control initiatives were adopted under Amendment\n21b (time/area closures for chinook salmon), Amendment 35 (time area closures for chum salmon), and Amendment 26 (voluntary\nretention of salmon for foodbanks). Also, regulations were implemented that authorize disclosure of vessel specific observer\ninformation on prohibited species bycatch.","Community Development Quota: Increasing the\nBSAI Amendment 30\nAllocation Limit for Sablefish\nDates: BSAI Amendment 30 (GOA Amendment 34) was adopted by the Council in April 1994. NMFS published the proposed\nrule on May 31, 1994 (59FR28048). The final rule was published August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43502) Effective date of implementation\nwas September 23, 1994.\nPurpose and Need: A 12% limit for allocation to individual CDQ applicants was placed in the FMPs for the BSAI and the\nGOA and in the implementing regulations in 1992. The purpose of the original 12% limit was to prevent monopolization of CDQ\nsablefish allocations and ensure an adequate distribution of benefits from the\nCDQ program. The 12% limit was set in the development phase, when there\nwere potentially 55 communities initially determined to qualify. Had the limit\nbeen set too high, communities would have expended resources unnecessarily to\ncompete for large portions of a limited sablefish reserve. Subsequently, the 55\nFOR\ncommunities formed six geographical groups, in order to pool their efforts in\nproducing Community Development Plans and managing the CDQ harvest. The\nsix groups are: Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association;\nBristol Bay Economic Development Corporation; Central Bering Sea\nFisherman's Association; Coastal Villages Fisheries Cooperative; Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation; and Yukon\nDelta Fisheries Development Association. The reduction in the number of CDQ groups, combined with the 12% limit, resulted in\nan inability to allocate the entire CDQ reserve (6 groups X 12% = 72% of CDQ reserve). This amendment raised the allocation limit\nof the sablefish CDQ reserve from 12% to 33% in the FMP for the BSAI, so that the total sablefish CDQ reserve could be allocated,\nproviding for a more efficient use of the public resource. Full allocation is also consistent with the Council intent and the resource\nmanagement objectives of the Magnuson -Stevens Act. Amendment 34 to the FMP for the GOA corrected the inadvertent inclusion\nof the CDQ program in the FMP by removing and reserving section 4.4.1.1.8.\nThe sablefish CDQ program was designed to promote the revitalization of rural communities in Western Alaska by providing those\ncommunities access to nearby fishery resources. The purpose of the amendment is to further the Council intent of the program by\nfully allocating the CDQ reserve.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved raised the sablefish Community Development Quota allocation\nlimit for qualified applicants from 12% to 33% in order to allow total allocation of the sablefish CDQ reserve; removed the\ninadvertent inclusion of the CDQ program in the FMP for the GOA; and expanded the types of evidence that may be used to verify\nvessel leases for the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota program. It was emphasized that this action did not change the\namount of sablefish available for harvest by persons participating in the Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ program.\nAnalysis: A 20-page Regulatory Impact Review (final draft dated March 1994) was prepared for this amendment. Two\nalternatives including the status quo were considered. The status quo did not require an environmental assessment because it was\npreviously analyzed in the environmental documentation for the Individual Fishing Quota program, of which the CDQ program is\na part. The status quo would require the communities to apply individually, and not as the six groups they had already formed. The\nproposed alternative would raise the sablefish allocation limit to 33%, and therefore fully allocate the CDQ reserve and more\nefficiently use the resource. The alternative chosen was also shown to be less obtrusive than the current process, in that groups formed\nfor distribution can apply in their present form and alleviate excessive and needless competition between the 55 communities.\nResults: The result of Amendment 30 is that the CDQ reserve is fully allocated and harvested. The 2000 CDQ sablefish allocation\nwas 1,127,873 pounds in the BSAI which equaled 20% of the fixed gear total allowable catch. Since approval of Amendment 30,\nthe CDQ allocation has been harvested as indicated in the box below.\nBSAI CDQ Sablefish Allocations and Landings\nTotal Allocation\nPercent of Allocation\nLanded\nTotal Catch (pounds)\n(pounds)\nYear\n1,080,449\n55\n593,833\n1995\n65\n416,686\n639,334\n1996\n639,334\n77\n490,002\n1997\n56\n742,950\n416,107\n1998","BSAI Amendment 31\nQuota Share Blocks\nDates: The amendment was approved by the Council in September 1993, along with GOA Amendment 35 and a regulatory\namendment affecting the Pacific halibut fishery in and off the State of Alaska. NMFS published the proposed rule for Amendment\n31 on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 33272). Effective date of implementation for most sections was November 7, 1994 (59 FR 51135;\nOctober 7, 1994).\nPurpose and Need: The IFQ program, implemented in 1995, assigned the privilege of harvesting a percentage of the sablefish\nand halibut quota (in the form of quota shares) to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the fisheries. Quota shares (QS)\ncould be transferred, allowing people who did not receive an initial allocation to buy into the fishery. Concern over the potential for\nexcessive consolidation of quota shares, the projected reduction of the longline fleet, and the social and economic effects on coastal\ncommunities, shore-based processors, and fishermen, was the impetus for Amendment 31. Amendment 31 implemented the Modified\nBlock Proposal, which was intended to reduce the maximum potential consolidation relative to the existing IFQ program by\nsignificantly increasing the theoretical minimum number of quota share holders and thereby easing the transition from open access\nto IFQs.\nThe purpose of this amendment was to provide for the long-term productivity of the sablefish and halibut fisheries, as specified in\nthe Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut Act. In addition to sustaining the health of the fisheries, the Council needed to address\nthe issue of protecting small producers, part-time participants, and entry-level participants who tend to disappear because of potential\nexcessive consolidation under an IFQ program. The amendment is intended to protect the viability of these small entities without\ninterfering with the opportunities currently available under the IFQ program for larger operations.\nRegulation Summary: The Modified Block Proposal provided that initial allocations of QS that represent less than 20,000\nlb of IFQ in the implementation year will be issued as a block, 2) QS that represents 20,000 lb or more of IFQ in the implementation\nyear will be \"unblocked\", and 3) QS in a block cannot be separated and must be transferred as a block. Fishermen can own up to two\nblocks of halibut and two blocks of sablefish QS in each area, but persons holding any amount of unblocked QS are limited to one\nblock of QS per area. A sweep-up provision allowed fishermen to combine small amounts into fishable amounts: halibut blocks can\nbe combined to a sum of less than 1,000 lbs and sablefish blocks can be combined until the sum reaches 3,000 lbs. The amendment\nalso clarified that blocked and unblocked quota share would be transferable subject to the approval of the NMFS Regional Director.\nBecause the Modified Block Proposal created the potential that some QS would become non-transferable because the size would\nexceed the quota share use limits established in prior regulations (50 CFR 676.22 (e)(f)); the alternative also allowed for the transfer\nof a quota share block exceeding the use limits by providing that one block could be divided into two blocks.\nAnalysis: A 283-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated May 25, 1994) was prepared for this amendment and adjoining GOA\nAmendment 35. The analysis reported that without a block amendment (no action), the IFQ program could potentially reduce the\nnumber of halibut and sablefish quota share fishermen to 200 and 100, respectively. Three separate block proposals were considered\nto ameliorate this problem. The two alternatives that were not chosen would have created unique, variable size blocks or partial\nblocks that could be transferred across catcher vessel classes, resulting in increased search and transaction costs of persons who want\nto sell or buy additional quota share. The alternative chosen also allows persons to purchase relatively small amounts of unblocked\nquota share, but lowers the associated transaction costs.\nResults: Amendment 31 created both blocked and unblocked quota shares based on the 1994 quota. As anticipated, there has been\nsome consolidation of quota share to fewer persons than received quota share by initial issuance, but significantly less so than if the\nblock proposal had not been added. The total number of initial issuees (unique number of people) in the halibut fishery in 1995 was\n4,827, reduced to 3,795 by the end of 1998. The total number of issuees in the sablefish fishery was 1,048, reduced to 919 by the\nend of 1998. The number of unique vessels landing halibut and sablefish before the IFQ program was 3,450 and 1,139 in 1994, and\nby 1998 the number of vessels was reduced to 1,601 and 449, respectively.","Transfer of Community Development Quota\nBSAI Amendment 32\nCompensation Quota Shares\nDates: BSAI Amendments 32 and 36 were approved by the Council in January 1995. NMFS published a proposed rule for BSAI\nAmendment 32 ( GOA Amendment 36) on October 13, 1995 (60 FR 53331). The final rule was published January 24, 1996 (61 FR\n1844). Effective date of implementation was February 23, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: The Community Development Quota (CDQ) program was proposed in conjunction with the IFQ program\nfor sablefish and halibut management. The CDQ program apportioned designated percentages of the annual fixed gear total allowable\ncatch (TAC) of sablefish and halibut to eligible Western Alaska communities, intending to provide near-shore communities with\nlong-term, stable employment and access to the fishery resource. Apportioning part of the fixed gear TAC to communities reduced\nthe amount of that TAC available for harvest by persons receiving annual allocations of IFQ. As a result, CDQ compensation quota\nshares (QS) were issued as partial compensation to persons who received (reduced) quota shares in CDQ areas.\nTwo problems were identified that inhibited the current transfer of CDQ compensation quota shares. Firstly, most CDQ compensation\nQS would be issued in allocations of less than 20,000 lbs and therefore would be blocked under the non-severable block provision\n(see BSAI Amendment 31/GOA Amendment 35). The block provision was added to the IFQ program to prevent excessive\nconsolidation of fishing privileges. Blocked quota share, especially small blocks such as the CDQ compensation QS, is difficult to\nmarket because of the two-block limit. The second problem is that the IFQ program allowed transfer of quota shares only within the\nsame vessel category, to prevent significant consolidation into large vessel operations. However, residents of CDQ areas traditionally\nemployed smaller vessels than non-residents who received initially issued QS in the CDQ areas, making it difficult for residents of\nCDQ areas to increase their holdings as they must purchase larger vessels as well as initially issued QS in the larger vessel categories.\nAmendments 32/36 were proposed to relieve the unintended consequences of the IFQ transfer restrictions, which are contrary to the\noriginal purpose of providing CDQ compensation quota shares. Relieving transfer restrictions on initial recipients of CDQ\ncompensation QS effectively increases the remunerative value of those shares and facilitates the full utilization of the allocated\nresources managed under the IFQ program.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment exempted some CDQ compensation QS from the block provision and allowed for\na one year period of relief (one-time transfer) from the restriction against transferring CDQ compensation QS across vessel length\ncategories. Regulations state that if a person is issued CDQ compensation QS for an area where the person already has regular QS,\nthen their CDQ compensation QS is combined with their existing QS and is either \"blocked\" or \"unblocked\" depending on the sum\ntotal of their QS (this makes much of the CDQ compensation QS unidentifiable after issuance). If a person is issued CDQ\ncompensation QS for an area in which the person doesn't have other QS, the QS is left unblocked. The exemption does not include\nCategory \"A\" vessels (vessels of any length authorized to process IFQ species).\nAnalysis: A 21-page Regulatory Impact Review (final draft dated January 1995) was prepared for this amendment. Including\nthe status quo, two alternatives addressing the block provision and three alternatives addressing the transfer across vessel length\nclasses were considered. The option that was not chosen would have allowed \"pooling\" of quota shares with other compensation\nshare holders, as opposed to exempting CDQ compensation QS from the block provision in perpetuity. With regard to transfer across\nvessel length classes, the other alternative not chosen would have allowed a one-time trade across vessel classes as defined by a\ntransaction involving initially issued large vessel QS in CDQ areas and small vessel CDQ compensation QS in non-CDQ areas. The\nalternative chosen is more flexible by not defining the type of transaction allowed.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, coastal communities that rely on the small vessel fleet have benefitted by having\nIFQ in more accessible areas. The action did not significantly change the overall character of the fleet because CDQ compensation\nquota share accounted for only 3.5% of the total amount of quota share issued in the non-CDQ areas of the Gulf of Alaska. A report\nexamining the distribution of all QS by block status shows that 69.2% of the QS in the BSAI was blocked at the end of 1998. In the\nGulf of Alaska, percentage of blocked QS ranged from 7.6% in the Central Gulf to 20.1% in the Western Gulf. In addition, the\namount of swappable CDQ compensation QS-catcher vessel QS that can be fished on any size vessel until its first transfer-declined\nsharply by year-end 1998, even though there were very few actual swaps of this type of QS to other vessel categories. Most of the\ndecline came from regular transfers, where CDQ compensation QS also loses its swappable status. Over the 1995-98 time period there\nwere only five swaps in Southeast area, four in West Yakutat, and three each in the Central and Western Gulf.","BSAI Amendment 33\nProcessing of Non-IFQ Species\nDates: Amendments 33 and 37 were approved by the Council in October 1995. NMFS published a proposed rule that would\nimplement BSAI Amendment 33 (GOA Amendment 37) on April 2, 1996 (61 FR 14547). The final rule was published June 27, 1996\n(61 FR 33382). Effective date of implementation was July 26, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: The IFQ program was designed to promote the conservation and management objectives of the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act and Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The program was implemented in 1995 and assigned the privilege of\nharvesting a percentage of the sablefish and halibut quota to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the fisheries. Persons\nreceive an annual allocation of IFQ and are authorized to harvest IFQ species.\nIncluded in the IFQ program is a provision prohibiting the processing (freezing) of fish, other than IFQ halibut or sablefish, on board\na harvesting freezer vessel if, along with that fish, IFQ sablefish were harvested by a person who has catcher vessel quota shares of\nsablefish. The Council's intent in allowing the use of catcher vessel quota share on freezer vessels was to increase the fishing\nopportunities of IFQs held by crew members. The prohibition on freezing non-IFQ species came out of a Council concern that, if\nthe owners of large, industrial-type processing vessels could harvest IFQ species with IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, and\nD while processed fish are on board, these operators could acquire the majority of the \"catcher vessel\" quota share that would\nnormally be harvested by smaller boats without processing capabilities. These smaller vessels usually use shoreside local processors\nin coastal communities. The Council did not want to dramatically change the character of the fisheries and deprive coastal\ncommunities of the revenue generated by small vessel deliveries of IFQ species.\nThe combination of allowing catcher vessel quota share to be used on freezer vessels with the prohibition on processing non-IFQ\nspecies resulted in unanticipated waste of non-IFQ species caught incidentally to sablefish. Persons are required to retain all Pacific\ncod and rockfish caught incidentally to IFQ sablefish. Pacific cod and rockfish have a shorter \"shelf life\" than sablefish, and a typical\nsablefish fishing trip is too long to maintain sufficient quality of incidentally caught non-IFQ fish. Without the ability to freeze the\nnon-IFQ species, the fish was often landed in poor condition, decreasing the market value of the fish significantly.\nThe purpose of Amendments 33 and 37 was to address the lost revenue and waste that occurs because fish other than IFQ halibut\nand sablefish are discarded, or if not discarded, become a low quality product, due to the prohibition on processing fish other than\nIFQ halibut and sablefish. The amendments were necessary to allow fuller use of the fishery resources in and off of Alaska.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved authorized the processing of fish other than IFQ halibut or\nIFQ sablefish on board the harvesting vessel by persons authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ\nassigned to vessel categories B or C. This authorization is not extended to persons authorized to harvest IFQ halibut, due to the fact\nthat halibut is characteristically prosecuted by local vessels that do not have onboard processing capabilities. Several modifications\nwere also made to the regulations implementing the IFQ program in order to accommodate the new provision. In addition, while non-\nIFQ species could be frozen onboard, the freezing of IFQ sablefish caught with catcher vessel quota share on a freezer vessel would\ncontinue to be prohibited.\nAnalysis: A 14-page EA/ RIR (final draft dated March 8, 1996) was prepared for these amendments. The analysis determined\nthat the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and would not adversely\neffect shore-based plants because most of the bycatch of non-IFQ species would be discarded as the period of marketability of\nunprocessed product is typically exceeded. Two alternatives including the status quo were considered. The alternative chosen allows\nfor the freezing of non-IFQ species when catcher vessel quota share is used on freezer vessels.\nResults: In 1996, only thirty-eight sablefish quota share recipients in the freezer vessel category were eligible to use catcher vessel\nquota share from the 188 quota share holders in the less than 60 feet vessel class and 763 quota share holders in the greater than 60\nfeet vessel class. Allowing non-IFQ species caught incidentally to IFQ sablefish to be frozen onboard freezer longliners has\nsignificantly enhanced product quality and has allowed for the recovery of revenue otherwise lost to discards. The following is an\nestimate of commercial non-IFQ species landed by weight, for each 100 mt of sablefish landed in the BSAI longline sablefish fishery\nin 1999: 33 mt of Greenland turbot, 14 mt of rockfish, 2 mt of Pacific cod, and 4 mt of shortraker/rougheye (1999 Blend data). This\nequates to approximately half the weight of the targeted IFQ sablefish harvest-fish which would have potentially been discarded or\nin non-marketable condition had the prohibition on processing continued.","Atka Mackerel Jig Allocation\nBSAI Amendment 34\nDates: Amendment 34 was adopted by the Council in June 1997. NMFS published the final rule on December 31, 1997 (62 FR\n68228). Effective date of implementation was January 30, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of this amendment was to provide more opportunity for a local small-vessel jig gear fleet\nto fish for Atka mackerel in late spring and summer months without direct competition from the large, high-capacity trawl fleet that\ntypically harvests the Eastern BSAI Atka mackerel TAC early in the fishing year. Jig gear harvests of Atka mackerel have been\nconstrained to late spring and summer months in the BS near the port of Dutch Harbor because of the physical limitations of a small\nboat fleet. In 1997, the directed fishery for Atka mackerel in the Eastern BSAI was closed February 4. Atka mackerel became a\nprohibited species on February 28 when the fast-paced trawl fisheries harvested the TAC. As a result, the jig gear fleet did not have\nan opportunity to fish for this species in 1997. Based on Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) fish tickets, 15 and 19\nvessels using jig gear in the BS harvested 36 and 13 metric tons (mt) of Atka mackerel in 1994 and 1995, respectively. These\namounts equate to 0.22 percent and 0.09 percent of the Atka mackerel harvest in the Eastern BSAI during these 2 years. Information\nfrom jig gear fishermen indicates that most of the Atka mackerel harvested by the jig gear fleet is used as bait in the jig gear fishery\nfor Pacific cod, although interest exists to develop a fresh fish product for this species.\nRegulation Summary: The Council adopted Amendment 34 to the FMP at its June 1997 meeting in response to concerns\nabout the fast-paced nature of the Atka mackerel trawl fishery and the resulting preemption of the small-scale jig gear fishery. The\nCouncil's action would allocate up to 2 percent of the Atka mackerel TAC specified for the Eastern AI/BS to vessels using jig gear.\nThe Council also voted to specify the jig gear allocation annually during the groundfish specifications process based on recent and\nanticipated harvests. This action was taken in consideration of the small amount of Atka mackerel annually harvested in recent years\nand to respond to trawl industry concerns about allocating more Atka mackerel to the jig gear fleet than could be harvested.\nAmendment 34 allowed for a ramp up provision, such that 1-percent of the Eastern AI/BS Atka mackerel TAC would be allocated\nto vessels using jig gear to begin the program. Once the jig gear fleet proved it could harvest that amount of TAC, the allocation could\nbe increased to 2%.\nAnalysis: A 35-page EA/RIR/FRFA (final draft dated\nNovember 1997) was prepared for this amendment. Three\nalternatives including the status quo were considered. The other\nCatch (mt) of Atka mackerel by gear type in the eastern\nalternative that was not chosen would have established a jig gear\nAleutian Islands and Bering Sea, 1994-1999.\nonly fishery for Atka mackerel in the eastern AI and Bering Sea.\nThe alternative chosen allowed vessels using jig gear to harvest\nPot\nmore Atka mackerel than they had previously ever harvested, but\nYear\nJig\nTrawl\nLongline\nstill allowed most of the TAC to be harvested, thereby minimizing\n6\n1994\n36\n15,350\n41\nimpacts to vessels targeting mackerel with other gear.\n46\n80\n1995\n13\n14,069\n1996\n0\n28,091\n28\n54\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the jig gear fishery\n26\n50\n1997\n0\n16,242\nhas not harvested any Atka mackerel TAC to speak of. The\n15\n1998\n0\n12,219\n36\nadjacent table shows the harvest of Atka mackerel in the Eastern\n6\n11\n1999\n0\n16,231\nAleutian Islands / Bering Sea area in recent years.","BSAI Amendment 35\nChum Salmon Savings Area\nDates: Amendment 35 was adopted by the Council in January 1995. The proposed rule was published April 25, 1995 (60 FR\n20253), and the final rule was published on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34904). Effective date of implementation was August 1, 1995.\nPurpose and Need:\nSalmon are a target species in salmon\nfisheries, but are taken as incidental bycatch in groundfish trawl\nfisheries. The objective of the alternatives considered in the\nBering Sea\nanalysis is to provide the Council with the means to control chum\nsalmon bycatch in the BSAI groundfish trawl fisheries. Chum\nsalmon bycatch control measures were thought to be needed for two\n58N\nreasons. First, many chum salmon stocks are fully utilized, and\nChum Salmon\nuncontrolled bycatch constitutes an additional, unaccounted for\n57N\nSavings Area\nallocation of the resources. Second, uncontrolled bycatch levels\n56N\nexceeding recent highs may lead to conservation problems for\nChinook\nSalmon\nAlaskan chum salmon populations. During the previous 10 years,\nSavings\n55N\nseveral major river systems had experienced low levels of returns,\nAreas\nparticularly the Nushagak, Yukon, and Kuskokwim rivers.\n54N\n2\nGulf of Alaska\nRegulation Summary: Amendment\n35\nestablished\nmeasures to control the amount of chum salmon taken as bycatch in\n175W\n170W\n165W\n160W\nBSAI trawl fisheries. Specifically, the alternative adopted would\nclose an area in the BSAI to all trawling from August 1 though\nLocation of the chinook and chum salmon\nAugust 31 (the time of year when bycatch is highest). In addition,\nthe area would remain closed or re-close after September 1, upon the\nsavings areas in the BSAI.\nattainment of a bycatch limit of 42,000 \"other\" salmon taken within\nthe catcher vessel operational area (CVOA), through October 14. The chum salmon savings areas is the area bounded by a straight\nline connecting the following pairs of coordinates in the order listed:\n56°00'N., 167°00'W.;\n56°00'N., 165°00'W.;\nNumber of chum salmon\n55°30'N., 165°00'W.;\ntaken as incidental bycatch\n55°30'N., 164°00'W.;\nin BSAI trawl fisheries,\n55°00'N., 164°00'W.;\n1989-1999. Note that >95%\n55°00'N., 167°00'W.;\n56°00'N., 167°00'W.\nof the \"other\" salmon is\nchum salmon.\nAnalysis: A 132-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated March 21, 1995) was prepared\nOther\nfor this amendment. Four alternatives including the status quo were considered, along\nYear\nSalmon\nwith seven options for closure areas. The other alternatives not chosen would have\n1989\n5,545\nestablished a year-round closure in hotspot areas, or changed the starting date for the\n1990\n16,661\npollock 'B' season. The alternative chosen allowed for a time/area closure that would be\n1991\n31,987\nexpected to have high bycatch of chum salmon, and allowed for continuation of the\n1992\n38.919\nclosure if salmon bycatch remained high.\n1993\n243,246\n1994\n94,508\nResults:\nAlthough more than 42,000 chum salmon were taken over the course of a year\n1995\n21,780\nfrom 1995 through 1999, closure of the area has not been triggered because the cap was\n1996\n77,926\nnot attained within the CVOA during the accounting period. Total number of chum\n1997\n67,536\nsalmon taken annually as bycatch in BSAI groundfish fisheries is shown in the adjacent\n1998\n69,237\ntable.\n1999\n46,624\nDespite these actions, salmon populations in western Alaska remain in relatively poor\nshape, and have not yet recovered to earlier levels.","Forage Fish Protection\nBSAI Amendment 36\nDates: BSAI Amendment 36 (GOA Amendment 39) was adopted by the Council in April 1997. NMFS published the proposed\nrule on December 12, 1997 (62 FR 65402) and the final rule on March 17, 1998 (63 FR 13009). Effective date of implementation\nwas April 16, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: Forage fish are generally small, abundant fishes that are preyed upon by marine mammals, seabirds and\ncommercially important groundfish species. Forage fish perform a critical role in the complex ecosystem functions of the BSAI and\nthe GOA by providing the transfer of energy from the primary or secondary producers to higher trophic levels. Significant declines\nin marine mammals and seabirds in the BSAI and GOA have raised concerns that decreases in the forage fish biomass may contribute\nto the further decline of marine mammal, seabird and commercially important fish populations. Forage fish are the principal diet\nof more than two thirds of Alaskan seabirds. In addition, many seabirds can subsist on a variety of invertebrates and fish during\nnonbreeding months but can only raise their nestlings on forage fish. Small forage fish such as capelin, herring, sandlance and\neulachon also have been recognized as important prey items for a variety of marine mammal species including: Northern fur seal,\nSteller sea lion, harbor seal, spotted seal, bearded seal, humpback whale and fin whale.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 36 defined a forage fish species category and authorized that the management of this\nspecies category be specified in regulations in a manner that prevents the development of a commercial directed fishery for forage\nfish which are a critical food source for many marine mammal, seabird and fish species. Forage fish species are not included in a\ntarget species category. Management measures for the forage fish category will be specified in regulations and may include\nprohibitions on directed fishing, limitations on allowable bycatch retention amounts, or limitations on the sale, barter, trade or any\nother commercial exchange, as well as the processing of forage fish in a commercial processing facility.\nThe forage fish species category would include all species of the following families:\nOsmeridae (eulachon, capelin and other smelts),\nMyctophidae (lanternfishes),\nBathylagidae (deep-sea smelts),\nAmmodytidae (Pacific sand lance),\nTrichodontidae (Pacific sand fish),\nPholidae (gunnels),\nStichaeidae (pricklebacks, warbonnets, eelblennys, cockscombs and shannys),\nGonostomatidae (bristlemouths, lightfishes, and anglemouths),\nand the Order Euphausiacea (krill).\nAnalysis: A 59-page EA/RIR (final draft dated January 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including the\nstatus quo were considered, along with four options for the non-status quo alternative. The options not chosen would have put forage\nfish in the other species category or the prohibited species category. The alternative chosen would protect forage fish by prohibiting\na directed fishery and the sale and barter of forage fish. The preferred alternative would also reduce waste by allowing retention (up\nto a maximum retainable bycatch amount as set in regulations) and processing (into fishmeal) those forage fish caught incidentally\nin groundfish fisheries.\nResults: No commercial fishery has been allowed to develop on forage fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska.","Red King Crab Protection Measures\nBSAI Amendment 37\nDates:\nAmendment 37 was first adopted by the Council in September 1995, then rescinded and re-adopted as revised in June 1996.\nThe final rule was published on December 16, 1996 (61 FR 65985). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1997.\nPurpose and Need: The 1995 NMFS bottom trawl survey indicated that exploitable biomass of Bristol Bay red king crab is\nat about one-fifth record levels. The stock was at its lowest level since\nthe fishery was closed after the first stock collapse in 1983. In 1994\nand 1995, Bristol Bay was closed to red king crab fishing because the\nnumber of female red king crab had declined below the threshold of 8.4\nBering Sea\nmillion crab. In addition, the annual trawl surveys indicated little\nOpen April 1 -June 15\nprospect for increased recruitment of mature males or females, and low\n58N\nNearshore\nfemale spawning biomass. The purpose of Amendment 37 was to\nBristol Bay\nClosure Area\n57N\nreduce the impacts of groundfish fisheries on the red king crab stock,\nBristol Bay RKC\nSavings Area\nthus assisting recovery of this crab stock\nPribilof Islands Habitat\n56N\nConservation Area\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 37 implemented the\n55N\nfollowing measures:\n54N\nGulf of Alaska\n(1) A year round bottom trawl closure in the Bristol Bay Red king\nCrab Savings Area to directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using\nnon-pelagic trawl gear. The southern edge of the Savings Area\n175W\n170W\n165W\n160W\nbetween 56° and 56°10 N. lat., however, would open if a guideline\nharvest level for Bristol Bay red king crab is established. A portion of\nLocation of trawl closure areas to protect\nthe annual PSC limit would be specified for the subarea;\nred and blue king crab habitats.\n(2) A year round closure to all trawling in the nearshore waters of\nBristol Bay, with the exception that a portion of this area-\nbetween 159° and 160°W long. and between 58° and 58°43'\nN. lat. - would remain open to trawling during the period April\nPSC limits for red king crabs in trawl fisheries (in # of\n1 to June 15 each year;\ncrabs).\n(3) Increased observer coverage on all vessels, including\nvessels using pot, jig, and longline gear fishing for groundfish\nCrab Abundance\nPSC Limit\nin the Savings Area and on trawl vessels fishing in the\nBelow threshold or 14.5 million lbs\n35,000\nseasonal open area of the Bristol Bay nearshore waters closure;\nof effective spawning biomass (EBS)\nand\nAbove threshold, but below\n100,000\n(4) Adjustments to the Zone 1 PSC limit for red king crab\n55 million lbs of EBS\ntaken in trawl fisheries. The PSC limit would be specified\nAbove 55 million lbs of EBS\n200,000\nannually based on the abundance and biomass of Bristol Bay\nred king crab, as shown in the adjacent table.\nAnalysis: A 268-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated June\n21, 1996) was prepared for this amendment. Three primary management measures were\nNumber of red king crab\nanalyzed, each having at least three alternatives, including the status quo, as well as several\ntaken in Zone 1 as\noptions. The other alternatives and options not chosen would have defined slightly different\nincidental bycatch in BSAI\ntime/area closures, and established PSC limits of 180,000 crabs or a PSC limit that fluctuated\ntrawl fisheries, 1994-1999.\nannually with crab abundance. The alternative chosen was more conservative because a larger\narea may offer more protection.\nYear\nCrabs\n1994\n232,933\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, bycatch of red king crab has been greatly\n1995\n32,615\nreduced, and the Bristol Bay red king crab stock has rebuilt to levels that supported directed\n1996\n18,449\ncrab fisheries in 1996-1999, but is again declining due to lack of recruitment. In 1998, the\nCouncil adopted a provision to reduce the bycatch limit by an additional 3,000 red king crab\n1997\n46,918\nas part of the regulation prohibiting the use of bottom trawl gear for pollock fisheries\n1998\n38,224\n(Amendment 57).\n1999\n83,024","Inshore/Offshore Allocations\nBSAI Amendment 38\nDates: NMFS published a proposed rule to amend the BSAI and GOA FMPs on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48087). Upon Council\napproval in June 1995, the final rule for BSAI Amendment 38 and GOA Amendment 40 was published on December 12, 1995 (60\nFR 63654). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: Amendments 38 and 40 extended the provisions of Amendment 18 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment\n23 to the GOA FMP, which expired on December 31, 1995. Amendments 18 and 23 (57 FR 23321; June 3, 1992) set inshore and\noffshore processor allocations of pollock in the BSAI and pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA, respectively, as a response to an early\nclosure in 1989 when several catcher/processors harvested substantial amounts of pollock in the BSAI and GOA and forced an early\nclosure of the GOA pollock fishery. Amendment 18 allocated 35% of the 1992 non-roe pollock season TAC to the inshore sector,\nand the remainder to the offshore sector. Shortly after, a 35-65% inshore/offshore split was set in a revised amendment for the years\n1993-1995. Amendment 23 provided for an allocation of 90% of the Pacific cod TAC and 100% of the pollock TAC in the GOA\nto the inshore sector. In addition, the Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA) and the Community Development Quota (CDQ)\nprogram in the BSAI were established. The CVOA limited access to pollock within the area to catcher vessels delivering to either\ninshore or offshore processors. The CDQ program allocated 7.5% of the BSAI pollock TAC to CDQ fisheries.\nAmendments 38 and 40 were necessary to extend the inshore/offshore allocations set in Amendments 18 and 23 through December\n31, 1998. The purpose of the amendments was to keep the fishery from turning back into the \"free-for-all\" it represented previously.\nSince the original inshore/offshore allocation, the Council had been working toward developing a long-term, comprehensive plan\nfor rationalizing all the groundfish and crab fisheries in and off of Alaska. By the end of 1995, when it was evident that the plan\nwould not be ready for implementation before the inshore/offshore allocations expired, the Council determined it was necessary to\nextend the provisions of Amendments 18 and 23 for an additional three years in order to maintain stability in the industry, facilitate\nfurther development of the comprehensive management regime, and allow for the realization of the goals and objectives of the\npollock CDQ program.\nIn addition to the original need for this action, there was an industry request to move the western CVOA boundary eastward, based\non the fact that part of the CVOA was not being used by catcher vessels delivering to inshore processors, and the area was not critical\nfor protected species.\nRegulation Summary: The provisions of BSAI Amendment 18 became the basis of Amendment 38, and the provisions of\nGOA Amendment 23 became the basis for Amendment 40. Thus, in the BSAI the apportionments of pollock in each subarea and\nseason would be allocated 35% for processing by the inshore sector and 65% by the offshore sector. In the GOA, the apportionment\nof pollock would be allocated entirely for processing by the inshore sector, and the apportionment of Pacific cod would be allocated\n90% for the inshore sector, 10% for the offshore sector. The amendments also reauthorized the CDQ pollock program with a few\nminor changes to the regulations. The only two substantive changes from the original plan amendments were: 1) movement of the\nwestern CVOA boundary 30 minutes to the east, and 2) allowing catcher/processors to use the CVOA if the pollock quota for\nprocessing by the inshore sector had already been harvested for the year.\nAnalysis: A 268-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated August 1, 1995) and several appendices were prepared for this amendment.\nTwo alternatives were considered: 1) No action, and 2) continuation of the current program for a period of three additional years\n(1996-1998), including the pollock CDQ program as an unseverable element of the overall package. The analysis reiterated the\nCouncil's intent not to consider alternative inshore/offshore allocation percentages, as that would likely require significant new and\ncomplex economic analyses, create unnecessary delays in implementing an allocation scheme, and be inconsistent with the overall\nintent to develop a more long-term solution through the Comprehensive Management Plan process.\nResults: This amendment simply retained the existing inshore/offshore pollock processing allocations for an additional three year\nperiod, through 1998. Stability within and among industry sectors, and associated communities and participants, was maintained\nby this amendment.","BSAI Amendment 39\nLicense Limitation Program\nDates: NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 39 to the BSAI FMP on August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43866). The\namendment was adopted with Amendment 41 to the GOA FMP and Amendment 5 to the Commercial King and Tanner Crab\nFisheries FMP. NMFS published the final rule on October 1, 1998 (63 FR 52642). Effective date of implementation was January\n1, 1999, except for some parts effective January 1, 2000.\nPurpose and Need: In 1992, the Council committed to rationalize the groundfish and crab fisheries and begin development\nof a Comprehensive Rationalization Plan (CRP). The CRP was prompted by concerns that expansion of the domestic harvesting\nfleet, in excess of that needed to efficiently harvest the optimum yield, was burdening compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act\nand severely deteriorating the economic benefits derived from the crab and groundfish fisheries. The Council examined several\nmanagement alternatives including, license limitation programs, individual fishing quotas (IFQs), and more traditional measures,\nand determined that a limited entry program had the most potential to address the immediate overcapitalization problems of the\nindustry. As a result, the Council approved the License Limitation Program (LLP) in 1995, recognizing the need for further\nrationalization in the future.\nThe overall purpose of the LLP is to help resolve the competing and oftentimes conflicting needs of the domestic fisheries that\ndeveloped under open access and to close the gap between fishing capacity and the available fishery resource. The LLP limits the\nnumber, size, and specific operation of vessels fishing crab and groundfish in the BSAI and GOA based on historical participation.\nDuring the design and refinement of the LLP, the Vessel Moratorium Program (VMP) was implemented to provide industry stability\nand curtail interim increases in fishing capacity. The intent was for the LLP to replace the VMP upon implementation.\nAmendment 39 also expanded the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program by including in CDQ allocations a percentage\nof the total allowable catch (TAC) of groundfish and crab species in the BSAI that was not previously included in the existing CDQ\nprograms for pollock, halibut, and sablefish.\nRegulation Summary: The final rule limited access to the commercial groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA and\ncommercial crab fisheries in the BSAI, except for demersal shelf rockfish east of 140° W. longitude and sablefish managed under\nthe IFQ program. The rule provided for the following: issuance of a single type of groundfish license; LLP is not applicable to\nwaters of the State of Alaska; licenses would be issued to current owners (as of 6/17/95) of qualified vessels; licenses would be\ndesignated as catcher vessel or catcher/processor and with one of three vessel length classes; the crab and groundfish base qualifying\nperiod is 1/1/88-6/27/92 and the groundfish area endorsement qualifying period is 1/1/92-6/17/95; endorsement areas are defined\nas Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, Western Gulf, Central Gulf, and Southeast Outside, or state waters shoreward of those endorsement\nareas; landing requirements for general license and area endorsement qualifications by vessel class; and additional provisions\naddressing crossover vessels, transfers, and vessel linkages. The rule also included in CDQ allocations 7.5% of the TAC of\ngroundfish and crab in the BSAI that was not originally included in the CDQ programs for pollock, halibut, and sablefish.\nAnalysis: A final EA/RIR (dated September 1997) and several supplemental analyses considered the status quo and a general\nlicense limitation alternative. Out of a comprehensive list of elements and options the Council considered during the debates on\nLLP, the analysis identified one option for each component of a license limitation program to create the preferred alternative\ndescribed above in the final rule. A supporting document also analyzed the differences between the vessel moratorium program\nand the license limitation program passed by the Council. The vessel moratorium was more liberal in terms of qualification criteria\nand the areas a vessel could fish. Under the moratorium a vessel was only required to make one landing of a qualifying species\nbetween 1/1/88 and 2/9/92, and having met that criteria the moratorium permit holders could fish groundfish in any federal waters\noff Alaska. Therefore, because the LLP had dual qualification criteria, many fewer vessels were expected to qualify than did for\nthe moratorium.\nResults: The LLP went into effect on January 1, 2000, thus an evaluation of the program and the final number of license holders\nis not yet available. The LLP continues to be refined through subsequent amendments. The Council recently approved BSAI\nAmendment 60, GOA Amendment 58, and BSAI Crab Amendment 10 which amended the LLP to include: a crab recency\nrequirement of one landing during 1/1/96-2/7/98 in addition to the general license and area endorsement qualifications; a\nrequirement that the vessel name is included on the license; license designations for the type of gear authorized to harvest LLP\ngroundfish as either \"trawl\" or \"non-trawl\" gear (or both); and a requirement that the vessel itself would be a specific characteristic\nof the license and could not be severed (i.e., the license could not be used on any other vessel). In addition, Amendment 67 to the\nBSAI FMP was approved by the Council in April 2000. This amendment requires a Pacific cod species and gear endorsement to\nfish in the BSAI fixed gear Pacific cod fishery, including recent participation criteria for the period 1995-1999, in addition to the\ngeneral license and area endorsement qualifications.","BSAI Amendment 40\nOpilio Bycatch Limits\nDates: Amendment 40 was adopted by the Council in December 1996. The proposed rule was published August 13, 1997 (62\nFR 43307), and the final rule was published December 22, 1997 (62 FR 66829). Effective date of implementation was January\n21, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: Recruitment of Bering Sea C. opilio (snow crab)\nstock was at a relatively low level, based on NMFS bottom trawl survey\ndata. The 1996 C. opilio season produced only 64.6 million lb for the 235\nBeringsica\nvessels participating. This was the lowest catch since 1984. Survey data\nfrom 1996 indicated that adult males were abundant, but females and pre-\n58N\nrecruits were becoming less abundant. The groundfish fisheries incidentally\nDanu Hole\n57N\ncatch crab. An objective of the FMP is to minimize the impact of\ngroundfish fisheries on crab and other prohibited species while providing\n56N\nSnow Crab Bycatch\nfor rational and optimal use of the region's fishery resources. All gear types\nLimitation Zone\n55N\nused to catch groundfish have some potential to incidentally catch crab, but\n54N\nthe large majority of crab bycatch occurs in trawl fisheries for flatfish.\nGulf of Alaska\nByatch limits for C. opilio had never been established for Bering Sea trawl\nfisheries. The objective of this amendment was to control snow crab\nAleution Islands\nbycatch in trawl fisheries and provide some protection for the snow crab\n185W\nTRANS\n175W\n170W\n165W\n160W\nstock.\nRegulation Summary: Under Amendment 40 of the BSAI\nLocation of the C. opilio bycatch limitation zone.\nGroundfish FMP, PSC limits for snow crab (C. opilio) taken in groundfish\nfisheries are based on total abundance of opilio crab as indicated by the NMFS standard trawl survey (NPFMC 1996). The snow\ncrab PSC cap is set at 0.1133% of the Bering Sea snow crab abundance index, with a minimum PSC of 4.5 million snow crab and\na maximum of 13 million snow crab. Snow crab taken within the \"C. Opilio Bycatch Limitation Zone\" (COBLZ) accrue towards\nthe PSC limits established for individual trawl fisheries. Upon attainment of a snow crab PSC limit apportioned to a particular trawl\ntarget fishery, the COBLZ would be closed to directed fishing for species in that trawl fishery category, except for pollock with\nnonpelagic trawl gear. The COBLZ within the EEZ is an area defined as that portion of the Bering Sea Subarea north of 56°30'\nN. latitude that are west of a line connecting the following coordinates in the order listed:\n56°30' N. lat.,\n165°00' W. long.\n58°00' N. lat.,\n165°00' W. long.\n59°30' N. lat.,\n170°00' W. long.\nand north along 170°00' W. longitude to its intersection with the U.S.-Russian Boundary.\nAnalysis: A 41 page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated December 26, 1996) was prepared for this amendment. Four alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered. The other alternatives and options that were not chosen would have established a fixed\nPSC limit of 6 million or 11 million crab, or a PSC limit that fluctuated with abundance at all stock sizes. The alternative chosen\nincorporated fixed limits at high and low stock sizes, and fluctuating levels at intermediate stock sizes.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, bycatch of C. opilio crab has been greatly reduced. In 1998, the Council adopted\na provision to reduce C. opilio crab bycatch by an additional 150,000\ncrab as part of the regulation prohibiting the use of bottom trawl gear\nfor pollock fisheries (Amendment 57).\nIS\n13 million\nThe C. opilio crab stock was deemed \"overfished\" on September 24,\n93\n94\n1999, because the survey estimate of spawning stock biomass fell\nbelow the minimum spawning stock threshold established for this\n10\n0.133%\ncrab stock. The Council is developing a rebuilding plan that\nconsiders reducing the PSC limit at low stock sizes.\n95\n97\n4.5 million\n96\n99\n5\n10\n15\n11.474\n3.972\nOpilio Abundance (billions)\nSnow crab PSC limits relative to observed levels.","BSAI Amendment 41\nReduced Bairdi Bycatch Limits\nDates: Amendment 41 was adopted by the Council in September 1996. The proposed rule was published on Jnauary 2, 1997 (62\nFR 85), and the final rule was published on March 24, 1997 (62 FR 13839). Effective date of implementation was April 23, 1997.\nPurpose and Need: The Bering Sea Tanner crab (C. bairdi) stock was measured to be at near historically low levels, based\non NMFS bottom trawl survey data. The fishery was also in trouble. The 1995 Tanner crab season produced only 4.5 million lb\n(2017 mt) for the 196 vessels participating. This amount was the lowest catch since the fishery reopened in 1988. Preliminary 1996\nsurvey data indicated that the stock decline would continue. Tanner crab PSC limits for trawl fisheries established under Amendment\n10 were 1,000,000 crab in zone 1 and 3,000,000 crab in\nzone 2. The objective of this amendment was to reduce\nTanner crab bycatch in trawl fisheries, particularly at\nPSC limits for C. bairdi Tanner crab established by Amend. 41.\nlow stock sizes, to assist in recovery of this stock.\nSpecies\nZone\nCrab Abundance\nPSC Limit\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted\nTanner\nZone 1\n0-150 million crabs\n0.5% of abundance\nand approved under Amendment 41 provides for the\nCrab\n150-270 million crabs\n750,000\nannual specification of the revised PSC limits based on\n270-400 million crabs\n850,000\nthe total estimated abundance of C. bairdi as shown in\nover 400 million crabs\n1,000,000\nthe adjacent table. C. bairdi taken as bycatch within the\nzones accrue towards the PSC limits established for\nindividual trawl fisheries. Upon attainment of a PSC\nTanner\nZone 2\n0-175 million crabs\n1.2% of abundance\nlimit apportioned to a particular trawl target fishery, that\nCrab\n175-290 million crabs\n2,100,000\nfishery is prohibited from fishing within the specified\n290-400 million crabs\n2,550,000\nzone. Note that in 1998, the Council adopted a\nover 400 million crabs\n3,000,000\nprovision to reduce opilio crab bycatch by an additional\n50,000 C. bairdi crab as part of the regulation\nprohibiting the use of bottom trawl gear for pollock\nfisheries.\nAnalysis: A 41-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated November 20, 1996) was\nNumber of C. bairdi crabs taken\nprepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the status quo were considered.\nas incidental bycatch in BSAI\nThe other alternative that was not chosen would have reduced the PSC limits to a fixed\ntrawl fisheries, 1994-1999.\nlevel regardless of stock size (900,000 crab in Zone 1 and up to 2,100,000 crab in Zone\n2). The alternative chosen was more conservative in that defining a larger area may offer\nmore protection.\nYear\nZone 1\nZone 2\n1994\n748,848\n1,709,724\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, bycatch of Tanner crab has been\n1995\n900,036\n1,288,895\nreduced. Nevertheless, the Tanner crab stock continued to decline, and was deemed\n1996\n840,389\n969,103\n\"overfished\" on March 3, 1999 because the survey estimate of spawning stock biomass\n1997\n821,173\n1,062,618\nfell below the minimum spawning stock threshold established for this crab stock. In\n1998\n564,320\n901,134\nOctober 1999, the Council adopted a rebuilding plan for this stock, but determined that\n1999\n360,200\n494,360\nbycatch limits established under Amendment 41 were sufficiently conservative.","IFQ Vessel Buy Down\nBSAI Amendment 42\nDates: Amendment 42 to the BSAI (GOA 42) FMP was initiated by the Council in 1995. The proposed rule was published on\nJune 25, 1996 (61 FR 32767) and the final rule, on August 22, 1996 (61 FR 43312). Effective date of implementation was August\n16, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: During the first year of fishing under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program in 1995, IFQ fishermen\nreported that the prohibition against using or transferring QS across vessel categories limited their ability to improve the profitability\nof their operations. Many fishermen had received QS that represented far fewer pounds than their catch history prior to the IFQ\nprogram. Small boat fishermen reported the scarcity of medium- and large-size QS blocks 5,000 lb (2.3 mt)) available to smaller\nvessels and requested that the Council enable them to purchase shares from QS holders in larger vessel size categories. Also, category\nB vessel operators reported difficulties in using or marketing small category B blocks and requested the opportunity either to\ndownsize operations or to sell smaller QS blocks to owners of smaller vessels.\nAmendment 42 was intended to relieve certain restrictions in the IFQ Program by increasing the flexibility of QS use and transfer\nwhile maintaining the management goals of the IFQ Program and to provide small boat fishermen with more opportunities to improve\nthe profitability of their operations.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 42 and a regulatory amendment to the IFQ Program for fixed gear Pacific halibut and\nsablefish fisheries in and off Alaska allowed QS initially assigned to a larger vessel category to be used on smaller vessels, while\ncontinuing to prohibit the use of QS or its associated IFQ assigned to smaller vessel categories on larger vessels. QS will continue\nto be assigned to vessel categories by existing criteria at Sec. 679.40(a)( (i) through (vi) and will retain original vessel category\nassignments. However, halibut and sablefish QS and their associated IFQ assigned to vessel Category B, can be used on vessels of\nany size and halibut QS assigned to vessel Category C likewise can be used on vessels of categories C and D. The regulations\ncontinue to prohibit the use of QS and IFQ on vessels larger than the maximum length on average (LOA) of the category to which\nthe QS was originally assigned. It does not apply to halibut in IFQ regulatory areas 2C or to sablefish east of 140°. W. long. Halibut\nQS assigned to vessel Category B in IFQ regulatory areas 2C and sablefish QS east of 140° W. long. are prohibited from use on\nvessels less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA except in QS blocks equivalent to less than 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) based on the 1996 Total\nAllowable Catch (TAC).\nAnalysis: A 31-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated August 5, 1996) examined two alternatives to the status quo. The\nCouncil ultimately recommended an alternative that included an exemption for Southeast Alaska. Allowing the \"buydown\" to occur\nonly for category B blocks < 5,000 lb in Southeast still benefits crewmen and small vessel owners who would be able to use small\ncategory B blocks on smaller vessels without affecting the market price of category B medium and large blocks and unblocked QS.\nResults: Amendment 42 is assumed to have attained its goal of increasing the availability of QS's to owners of smaller vessels,\nhowever, no systematic evaluation has been performed.","BSAI Amendment 43\nIFQ Sweep Up Provisions\nDates: Amendments 43/43 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs were initiated by the Council in 1995. The proposed rule was published\non September 27, 1996 (61 FR 50797) and the final rule on December 26, 1996 (61 FR 67962). Effective date of implementation\nwas December 20, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: This amendment along with a regulatory amendment to effect the same regulatory change for halibut was\ndeemed necessary to increase the consolidation (\"sweep-up\") levels for small quota share (QS) blocks for Pacific halibut and\nsablefish managed under the IFQ program. The IFQ longline industry reported that current sweep-up levels do not equal the harvest\nof a viable fishing trip and proposed a moderate increase in these levels to allow greater amounts of QS to be swept-up into\neconomically \"fishable\" amounts, without overly increasing consolidation or allowing the creation of large-sized blocks. This action\nis intended to maintain consistency with the objectives of the IFQ program (i.e., prevent excessive consolidation of QS, maintain\ndiversity of the fishing fleet, and allow new entrants into the fishery), while increasing the program's flexibility by allowing a\nmoderately greater amount of QS to be \"swept-up\" into larger amounts that can be fished more economically.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 43 increased the sweep-up levels for small QS blocks for Pacific halibut and sablefish\nfrom a 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) maximum for Pacific halibut and 3,000 lb (1.4 mt) maximum for sablefish to a 3,000 lb mt) maximum\nand a 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) maximum, respectively. Two other changes were recommended to accompany these increases:\n1) The base year TAC for\ndetermining the pounds would be\nSablefish\nHalibut\nthe 1996, rather than 1994, TAC\n(i) Southeast Outside district: 33,270 QS\n(i) Area 2C: 19,992 QS\nwhich was used for the first\n(ii) West Yakutat district: 43,390 QS\n(ii) Area 3A: 27,912 QS\nsweep-up levels;\n(iii) Central Gulf area: 46,055 QS\n(iii) Area 3B: 44,193 QS\n2)\nOnce QS levels are established for\nthe appropriate regulatory areas\n(iv) Western Gulf area: 48,410 QS\n(iv) Subarea 4A: 22,947 QS\nbased on the 1996 TAC, those QS\n(v) Aleutian Islands subarea: 99,210 QS\n(v) Subarea 4B: 15,087 QS\nlevels would be fixed and\n(vi) Bering Sea subarea: 91,275 QS\n(vi) Subarea 4C: 30,930 QS\ncodified. This would eliminate\n(vii) Subarea 4D: 26,082 QS\nany confusion as to the\nappropriate sweep-up level in\n(viii) Subarea 4E: 0 QS\npounds, which would fluctuate\nwith changes in the annual TAC.\nThe maximum number of QS units that may be consolidated into a single QS block in each IFQ regulatory area is shown in the above\ntable.\nAnalysis: A 32-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated November 27, 1996) included a range of alternatives of setting the\nsweep-up level at 1,000, 3,000, and 5,000 lb for halibut and 3,000, 5,000, and 7,000 lb for sablefish. The Council rejected the status\nquo levels (the lowest) and the highest levels. The analysis concluded that a moderate increase in the sweep-up levels would likely\nincrease the transfer of very small, blocked QS to crew and small boat fishermen who seek to increase their holdings. While some\nprice increases in small block shares might have occurred, a price differential was projected to remain between smaller and larger\nQS blocks. If the ability to transfer and consolidate small blocks would increase, then the number of unfished blocks would decrease.\nAt much larger sweep-up levels than currently allowed, the price differential between blocked and unblocked shares was projected\nto be lost. The effectiveness of the Block Program may be reduced at large sizes since large blocks and unblocked shares have been\nreported to sell at roughly the same price and would eliminate entry level QS. Price structure goals of the Block Program would be\nlost, as well. The differential pricing of larger blocked and unblocked QS would be further exacerbated by the paucity of financing\nfor the IFQ industry at the time, particularly for crew and new entrants without capital or assets.\nResults: Relatively few sweep-up transactions occurred in 1995 and 1996. Following implementation of Amendment 43, the\nnumber of sweep-up transactions increased substantially related to the higher sweep-up limits. In 1998, the number decreased to\nlevels closer to those similar to 1995 and 1996. In total, the number of sweepable blocks declined by 693 for halibut and 151 for\nsablefish from 1995 through 1998.","BSAI Amendment 44 Overfishing Definitions\nDates: Amendments 44/44 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs were adopted\nby the Council in June 1996. The notice of approval for this amendment\nTiers used to determine ABC and OFL for BSAI\nwas published on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2656). Effective date of\ngroundfish stocks under Amendment 44.\nimplementation was January 9, 1997.\n(1) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B\nPurpose and Need: In response to the national standards\nand BMSY and reliable pdf of FMSY\nestablished in the Magnuson Act and advisory guidelines, the Council\n1a) Stock status: B/BMSY 1\ndeveloped an objective and measurable definition of overfishing and, in\nFOFL = MA, the arithmetic mean of the pdf\n1991, implemented that definition under Amendments 16 (BSAI) and 21\nF ABC MH, the harmonic mean of the pdf\n(GOA) to the FMPs. In the years since implementation of that definition,\n1b) Stock status: a < B/BMSY 1\nfishery scientists had the opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of these\n- a)/(1 a)\ndefinitions of ABC and overfishing. In light of that experience and with\nFABC S M - a)/(1 a)\nthe increased understanding of the reference fishing mortality rates used\n1c) Stock status: B/BMSY\nto define ABCs and overfishing, fishery scientists had raised several\nFOFL=0\nconcerns about the definitions and the extent to which they reflect and\nFABC=0\naccount for levels of uncertainty about fish populations. Consequently,\n(2) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nNMFS's Overfishing Definitions Review Panel and the Council's\nBMSY, FMSY, F30%, and F40%\nScientific and Statistical Committee recommended redefining ABC and\n2a) Stock status: B/BMSY 1\noverfishing to facilitate more conservative, risk-averse management\nFore=\nmeasures when stock size and mortality rates are not fully known. The\nF ABC F MST\npurpose of this Amendment was to revise the ABC and overfishing\n2b) Stock status: a<B/BMSY 1\ndefinitions to be consistent with these recommendations.\nFOFL=FMSY X - a)\nRegulation Summary: Amendments 44/44 provided for more\n2c) Stock status: B/BMSY\nconservative definitions of ABC and OFL. The fishing mortality rate\nFOFL=0\nused to calculate ABC was capped by the overfishing rate. The\nFABC=0\nmaximum allowable fishing rates were prescribed through a set of 6\n(3) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B,\ntiers which are listed in descending order of preference, corresponding\nB40% F30%, and F(%)\nto descending information availability. These tiers are shown in the\n3a) Stock status: B/B 40% >\nadjacent table. Harvest rates used to establish ABCs are reduced at low\nFOFL F 30%\nstock size levels, thereby allowing rebuilding of depleted stocks. If the\nF ABC F40%\nbiomass of any stock falls below Bmsy or B40% (the long-term average\n3b) Stock status: 1\nbiomass that would be expected under average recruitment and F=F40%),\nFoFL=F30%(B/B40%-a)/(1 -a)\nthe fishing mortality is reduced relative to stock status. This serves as an\nF ABC S F 40% X\nimplicit rebuilding plan should a stock fall below a reasonable\n3c) Stock status: B/B 40% S\nabundance level.\nFOFL=0\nFABC=0\n(4) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nAnalysis: A 60-page EA (final draft dated January 6, 1997) was\nF30% and F 10% .\nprepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including the status quo\nFOFL F30%\nwere considered. The alternative chosen was more conservative for\nF ABC F40%\nseveral reasons. First, the overfishing rate varies with biomass. Second,\n(5) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B\nthe ABC fishing rate is reduced when biomass is below levels that\nand natural mortality rate M.\nproduce maximum sustainable yields. Lastly, more caution is\nFOFL=M\nincorporated into establishing fishing rates when less information is\nF ABC 0.75 X M\navailable; this is particularly true of tier 1.\n(6) Information available: Reliable catch history from\n1978 through 1995.\nResults: The amendment resulted in lower (more conservative)\nOFL= the average catch from 1978 through 1995,\nABCs; consequently, total allowable catch levels were reduced for many\nunless an alternative value is established by the SSC on\nspecies. The definitions adopted under Amendments 44/44 were further\nthe basis of the best available scientific information\nrevised under Amendments 56/56. Further changes to the ABC and\nABC S 0.75 x OFL\noverfishing definitions are expected under a proposed amendment\nscheduled for final action in late 2000.","BSAI Amendment 45\nReauthorize CDQ Fisheries\nDates:\nAmendment 45 was adopted by the Council in June 1998. The final and interim emergency rules were published on January\n26, 1999 (64 FR 3877). Effective date of implementation was January 21, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: The allocation of pollock TAC to the CDQ program from 1992 through 1998 had been instrumental in\nproviding the revenues, employment, and training benefits to achieve the Council's goals of helping western Alaska communities\nto develop and support commercial fishery activities that result in ongoing, regionally based commercial fisheries or related\nbusinesses. The 1996 amendments to section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act require the Council and the Secretary to \"establish\na western Alaska community development quota program under which a percentage of the total allowable catch of any Bering Sea\nfishery is allocated to the program.\" An amendment to the FMP was necessary to continue the allocation of pollock to the CDQ\nprogram.\nAmendments 18 and 38 authorized the allocation of 7.5% of pollock total allowable catch (TAC) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian\nIslands (BSAI) to the Western Alaska Community Development Program for the groundfish and crab fisheries for three years periods\nbetween 1993 and 1998. Amendment 45:\n1)\npermanently extended the CDQ allocation which was to sunset December 31, 1998;\n2) removed the pollock CDQ program from the inshore/offshore section of the FMP and reorganized three separate CDQ-related\nsections of the FMP;\nincreased the pollock allocation to 10% through December 31, 2004 to comport with the provisions of the American Fisheries\n3)\nAct of 1998.\nRegulation Summary: Ten percent of pollock and 7.5% of all other groundfish and crab TACs are set aside for the Western\nAlaska CDQ program.\nAnalysis: A 146-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated December 1, 1998) considered the economic impacts of the first\n6 years of the pollock CDQ program in western Alaska. The analysis estimated that 249 entities are affected by regulations governing\nthe BSAI pollock fishery, of which 130 are small entities. Sixty-five Alaska villages near the Bering Sea formed six CDQ groups\nand established partnerships with fishing corporations. Five communities whose residents participate in the BSAI pollock fisheries\nbut are not eligible for the CDQ program, 140 trawl catcher vessels, 31 trawl catcher/processors, three motherships, and eight\nshoreside processing plants were also affected.\nThe EA/RIR/IRFA estimates that in 1997, over 200 people from CDQ communities were employed directly in the pollock harvesting\nand processing industry, and a total of about 1,200 CDQ program related jobs had been created. These jobs are in CDQ program\nmanagement % of jobs), pollock harvesting and processing (27%), other fisheries harvesting and processing (50 %), and other\nemployment (17%).\nNMFS considered two alternatives to minimize economic impacts on the small entities negatively affected by this action. The first\nalternative would be to allocate 3.5% of pollock TAC to the CDQ reserve. Although this alternative would benefit the small entities\nnot receiving CDQ allocation, the benefits accruing to the (then) 56 CDQ communities would have been considerably less. Those\ncommunities have limited opportunities for generating income and investment such that the reduction from 7.5% to 3.5 %\nreserve\nwould have likely produced significant negative economic impacts on these small entities. The second alternative would have let\nthe present reserve of 7.5 % of pollock TAC expire at the end of 1998. This action would result in a further shift of impacts from\none set of small entities to another. It would benefit the non-CDQ participants in the fishery while cutting revenues of the CDQ\ngroups.\nResults: The pollock CDQ allocations have led to training and employment opportunities for community residents. Since the\ninception of the program in 1992, the program has provided approximately 1,000 jobs annually for Western Alaska residents. Total\nwages exceeded $30 million during the 1992-1999 period. The CDQ program has also contributed to infrastructure development\nprojects within the region as well as loan programs and investment opportunities for local fishermen. The six CDQ groups have\nearned over $20 million per year from contracts with their industry partners that harvest the pollock CDQ quotas on behalf of\nthe\nCDQ groups. The value of the CDQ groups' equity ownership in fishing vessels, on-shore development projects, loan portfolios, and\nIndividual Fishing Quota holdings has increased an average of 37 per year since 1992, and totaled approximately $64 million\nin\n1997.","Pacific Cod Allocation (II)\nBSAI Amendment 46\nDates: Amendment 46 was adopted by the Council in June 1996. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment\n46 to the Fishery Management Plan for the groundfish of the BSAI on August 22, 1996 (61 FR 43325). The final rule was published\non November 20, 1996 (61 FR 59029). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1997.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 46 was proposed to extend the management measures authorized by Amendment 24 beyond\n1996. Amendment 24 authorized the explicit allocation of BSAI Pacific cod among vessels using trawl, hook-and-line or pot gear,\nand jig gear. The amendment also authorized the seasonal apportionment of the amount of Pacific cod allocated to vessels using\nhook-and-line or pot gear and the reallocation of the unused portion of one gear's allocation to other gear types.\nAmendment 24 was proposed in response to socioeconomic concerns of the fishing industry and the need for stability in the trawl\ngear and fixed gear (longline, pot, and jig) fleets. The fishery was exhibiting numerous overcapitalization problems such as\ncompressed fishing seasons, high bycatch and waste, gear conflicts, and an overall reduction in benefit from the fishery. At the April\n1993 meeting, the Council developed a problem statement that focused on resolving overcapitalization in the BSAI Pacific cod\nfishery, and in June recommended the Amendment 24 management measures to be implemented through 1996. The alternative\napproved allocated the BSAI Pacific cod TAC to the jig gear (2%), hook-and-line or pot gear (44%) and trawl gear (54%) fleets.\nThe Council's action was intended to provide industry and community stability by directly allocating to gear groups approximately\nthe average percent of Pacific cod taken with these gear types during 1991-1993. In addition, the intent of the seasonal apportionment\nin the fixed gear sector was to allow for a first and third season fishery when halibut bycatch rates, product quality, and markets are\nmost advantageous. Upon the expiration of Amendment 24, the Council began an analysis to extend the allocations. At the December\n1995 Council meeting, it was noted that while the action provided the necessary stability to the various gear sectors, significant\nregulatory, economic, and biological changes had occurred in the Pacific cod fishery since the amendment was implemented in 1994.\nThese changes were incorporated into the original analysis with a specific focus on reducing prohibited species mortality, impacts\non habitat, and cod discards by the different gear sectors. The analysis examined a range of possible allocations, and the Council then\ntasked an industry-based negotiating committee to agree on a new allocation regime that would be acceptable to all sectors of the\nfishery. The final percentages were chosen based on the current harvest percentage taken by the trawl and fixed gear sectors under\ncurrent halibut PSC limits while retaining the 2% allocation for jig gear.\nRegulation Summary:\n1) BSAI Pacific cod TAC Apportionments:\nTrawl sector: 47% (The trawl apportionment will be split between catcher vessels and catcher processors 50/50.)\nFixed gear sector: 51%\nJig gear sector: 2%\n2) Roll-overs:\nOn September 15 of each year, the Regional Director shall reallocate 100% of any projected unused amount of the\nPacific cod allocated to jig vessels to the fixed gear vessels.\nIf, during a fishing year, the Regional Director determines that vessels using trawl gear or hook-and-line or pot gear will\nnot be able to harvest the entire amount of Pacific cod allocated to those vessels, then NMFS shall reallocate the\nprojected unused amount of Pacific cod to vessels using the other gear type(s).\n3) Halibut PSC Mortality Caps:\nThe trawl halibut PSC mortality cap for Pacific cod will be no greater than 1,600 mt.\nThe hook-and-line gear halibut PSC mortality cap for Pacific cod will be no greater than 900 mt.\n4. Review:\nNo sunset provision, but the Council will review this agreement in four years following the date of implementation.\nAnalysis: A 173-page EA/RIR (final draft dated October 1996) was prepared for this amendment. Six alternative allocation splits,\nincluding no action, were considered. While the specific allocation preferred by the negotiating group and approved by the Council\nwas not explicitly identified in the analysis, it was well within the range of alternatives considered. Thus, the Council had sufficient\ninformation on the impacts of the alternative to make a decision.\nResults: The allocations established in Amendment 46 have continued to stabilize the BSAI cod fishery as the Council continues\non the path towards comprehensive rationalization. However, since the amendment was passed, there have been further allocation\nand limited entry measures imposed on the BSAI Pacific cod fishery by Amendments 64 and 67.","Third Party Observer Program\nBSAI Amendment 47\nWITHDRAWN - At the December 1997 meeting the Council was scheduled to take action approving an alternative observer program\nstructure - a Joint Partnership Agreement (JPA) between NMFS and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), which\nwould have established PSMFC as a third party procurement point for observers. This was being considered as a replacement for\nthe repealed Research Plan (Amendment 30), in an effort to address conflict of interest and other issues in the existing pay-as-you-go\nprogram structure. Due to legal concerns of PSMFC this amendment was not approved by the Council and was never forwarded for\nSecretarial review. Instead, the existing pay-as-you-go program was extended for an additional time period, through year 2000.\nCurrently, NMFS and Council staff are working on revised program structure alternatives, including a fee-based plan, and the current\nprogram will be extended through 2002.","TAC Streamlining-Tabled\nBSAI Amendment 48\nDates: The BSAI and GOA Plan Teams first proposed streamlining the groundfish specifications process in 1996. The Council\ninitiated Amendments 48 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs in December 1996 to address administrative and public notice issues. The\nCouncil's preferred action to rollover harvest specifications from one year to the next was approved in June 1998. ABCs, TACs, and\nPSC amounts would remain unchanged from year to year until revised in a final rule. In July 1999, the NMFS Regional Administrator\nnotified the Council that the Council's preferred alternative was not in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the\nAdministrative Procedures Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. However, the Council and NMFS acknowledge the continuing\nneed to revise the existing TAC specification process to meet the following objectives:\n1) manage fisheries based on the best available information;\nmake adjustments to TAC amounts to respond to new information or conservation concerns;\n2)\ncomply with NEPA, ESA, and RFA provisions while minimizing unnecessary disruption to fisheries;\n3)\n4) provide adequate opportunity for public review and comment on new information leading to annual TAC recommendations;\nand\n5) promote administrative efficiency while minimizing public confusion regarding proposed and interim specifications.\nPurpose and Need: The annual specification process for the Alaska groundfish fisheries needs to be improved to serve the\npublic better, by:\n1) eliminating the publication of proposed and possibly misleading information in proposed and interim specifications;\n2) enhancing the ability of NMFS to adjust the TAC and PSC amounts inseason;\nremoving obsolete references to foreign and joint venture management measures.\n3)\nRegulation Summary: This amendment was not formally submitted to the Secretary and no regulations have been\nimplemented.\nAnalysis: A 13-page analysis concluded that the existing specification process could be improved. Proposed specifications may\nbe outdated by the time they are published for public review. Interested parties realize that those numbers will change, sometimes\nconsiderably, after release of the final SAFE reports and December Council meeting. The Federal Register publication of proposed\nspecifications, therefore, may no longer serve a useful purpose.\nRejected alternatives included:\n1) scheduling the Council and Plan Team meetings to occur earlier in the year to allow more time to publish proposed and final\nspecifications; interim specifications would be unnecessary. A limiting factor to the specification process is the time needed\nby the Plan Teams to analyze data and produce final SAFE documents. Survey data is not available until late summer or early\nfall, and it is unlikely that assessments of the fisheries could be made any earlier. The Plan Teams and the Council prefer to\nbase their recommendations on the most current possible information. A minimum of two weeks is needed between the\nNovember Plan Team meeting and the December Council meeting for the SAFE reports to be released for public review. It\nwould be impracticable, therefore, for the specification process to occur any earlier in the year.\nchange the fishing year to an April 1-March 31 cycle so that the final specifications could be published in enough time to\n2)\neliminate the need for interim specifications. This change in fishing year could also benefit the Plan Teams if they were allowed\nmore time to analyze fishery data. However, NMFS is required to provide annual statistics to other organizations, such as the\nUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Coordination with State-managed fisheries, which operate on the calendar\nyear would be difficult. Finally, some biologists believe that the calendar year is the best time period in which to manage\ntemperate species, since they reproduce early in the spring and a measure of year class strength and recruitment is available to\nthe scientists each year in time to do annual stock assessments. If the fishing year were changed, fish year classes may be split\ninto different years, complicating the determination of recruitment, growth, and mortality.\nResults: The Council is scheduled to take final action on a revised Amendment 48 in late 2000.","Improved Retention/Improved Utilization\nBSAI Amendment 49\nDates: Amendment 49 was approved by the Council in September 1996. The proposed rule was published on June 26, 1997 (62\nFR 34429). The final rule was published December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63880). Effective date of implementation was January 3, 1998.\nAmendment 49 to the GOA FMP was implemented as separate rulemaking.\nPurpose and Need: To reduce discards, the Council adopted an improved retention and utilization program (IR/IU) for all\ngroundfish target fisheries. This action was deemed necessary to address one of the Council's comprehensive fishery management\ngoals, adopted in 1984, to \"minimize the catch, mortality, and waste of non-target species and reduce the adverse impacts of one\nfishery on another.\" The Council also recognized that fish caught as bycatch in one fishery represent an allocation away from any\ntarget fishery for the bycatch species. In addition, a priority objective of the FMP is to \"provide for the rational and optimal use, in\na biological and socioeconomic sense, of the region's fisheries resources as a whole.\"\nThe IR/IU program was intended to improve utilization and effective control/reduction of bycatch and discards in the fisheries off\nAlaska to address the following problems:\n1) bycatch and discard loss of groundfish, crab, herring, salmon, and other non-target species;\n2) economic loss and waste associated with the discard mortality of target species harvested but not retained for economic reasons;\n3) inability to provide for a long-term, stable fisheries-based economy due to loss of fishery resources through wasteful fishing\npractices;\nthe need to promote improved retention and utilization of fish resources by reducing waste of target groundfish species to\n4)\nachieve long-term sustainable economic benefits to the nation.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 49 required all vessels fishing for groundfish in the BSAI to retain all pollock and Pacific\ncod beginning January 1, 1998, and all rock sole and yellowfin sole beginning January 1, 2003. It established a 15-percent minimum\nutilization standard for all at-sea processors.\nAnalysis: A 200-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated September 3, 1997) reviewed a variety of bycatch reduction plans\nthat had been discussed by the Council since 1993. While other alternatives were discussed, primary focus was given to these three\nalternative programs:\n1) individual fishing quotas for groundfish species;\na \"Harvest Priority\" program that would provide for quota set-asides for vessels exhibiting low bycatch rates of non-target\n2)\nspecies;\nretention and utilization mandates, with built-in incentives for fishing operations to avoid unwanted species.\n3)\nIn the 1997 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries, a total of 258,000 mt of groundfish was discarded, equating to about\n15% of the total groundfish catch. The analysis determined that pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole represent\napproximately 76 percent of the total discards of allocated groundfish in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The Council concluded that\nby requiring 100 percent retention of these four species, initially pollock and Pacific cod, and subsequently yellowfin and rock sole,\nthe Council's objective of \"substantially reducing discards of unprocessed groundfish\" in these fisheries could be achieved.\nResults: Beginning in 1998, 100% retention of pollock and Pacific cod was required, regardless of how or where it was caught.\nOnly fish not fit for human consumption can be legally discarded. This measure has dramatically reduced overall discard of\ngroundfish. For example in 1997, about 22, 100 mt of cod (8.6% of the cod\ncatch) and 94,800 mt of pollock (8.2% of the pollock catch) were\ndiscarded. In 1998, discard amounted to only 4,300 mt of cod (2.2%) and\n20\n16,200 mt of pollock (1.6%). Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands rock sole\nand yellowfin sole retention will be required beginning in 2003; the delay\nwill allow for development of new markets and gear technological\n15\nFull retention of\nresponses by the vessels engaged in these fisheries. These retention\ncod & pollock\nFull retention\nrequirements are expected to reduce overall discard rates (all species) from\n10\nof flatfish\nabout 15% to about 5%.\n5\n0\n1993\n2003\n95\n97\n99\n2001\nYear\nTotal discard rates of Alaska groundfish, all areas\nand species combined, 1993-1998, projections\nthrough 2003.","Halibut Donation Program\nBSAI Amendment 50\nDates: Amendment 50 was adopted in April 1997 and implemented in June 1998, after administrative difficulties were addressed\nin the design of the program initiated in 1993. It expanded the existing Salmon Donation Program (SDP) to create a Prohibited\nSpecies Donation (PSD) program that would include halibut as well as salmon. The final rule for BSAI and GOA Amendments 50/50\n(63 FR 32144) was published on June 12, 1998. The effective date of implementation was July 13, 1998 (63 FR 32144). This rule\nwas effective only for a 3-year period ending December 31, 2000, to allow the Council to assess its success. (In June 2000 the\nCouncil extended the program for three years with a review, but no sunset.)\nPurpose and Need: Approximately 6,500 metric tons of halibut were taken incidentally to the Alaska groundfish fisheries\nduring 1999. Vessels participating in these fisheries typically use trawl, hook-and-line, or pot gear, with trawl gear accounting for\nmost of the groundfish catch and halibut bycatch. A portion of this bycatch is landed dead at shoreside processing facilities and must\nbe returned to Federal waters for disposal as a prohibited species. The Council's intent was to:\n(1) reduce regulatory discards and protein waste in the groundfish trawl fisheries;\n(2) provide additional opportunity to collect biological samples or scientific data; and\n(3) support an industry initiative to reduce regulatory discards and provided a healthy alternative to the diets of needy people.\nThe purpose of this amendment was to reduce the waste of dead, but wholesome, fish, and in doing so provide public benefit by\nallowing fish that would otherwise be discarded to be retained for processing and delivery to food bank organizations. Any costs\nassociated with this recommended action would be borne by the voluntarily participating shoreside processors and the NMFS\nauthorized distributor.\nRegulation Summary: This action authorized the voluntary donation of Pacific halibut taken as bycatch in specified\ngroundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska to economically disadvantaged individuals. Under the prohibited species donation program,\nNMFS expanded the existing salmon donation program to also authorize distributions by tax-exempt organizations through a NMFS-\nauthorized distributor. The program is limited to dead halibut landed by trawl catcher vessels to shoreside processors.\nAnalysis: The Council discourages the discard of incidental catches of fish as wasteful. Managing halibut incidentally caught\nin the groundfish fisheries as a prohibited species is an appropriate short term bycatch measure. Except under the prohibited species\ndonation program, retention of prohibited species captured while harvesting groundfish is prohibited to prevent covert targeting on\nthese species. The prohibition removes the incentive that groundfish fishermen might otherwise have to target on the relatively high\nvalued prohibited species, and thereby, results in a lower incidental catch. It also eliminates the market competition that might\notherwise exist between domestic halibut fishermen and groundfish fishermen who might land halibut in the absence of the\nprohibition.\nA 20-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated September 12, 1997) determined that no changes in fishing activities that would\naffect the amount of groundfish harvested nor the amount of halibut taken as bycatch in the Alaska trawl fisheries was expected by\nthe preferred alternative. The total burden to processors resulting from the preferred alternative could not be estimated because\nparticipation would be voluntary; however, based on information acquired through the SDP, costs were estimated at approximately\n20 cents per pound for donated halibut.\nResults: Waste of salmon and halibut has been reduced by allowing bycatch to be donated to food banks. The food banks in turn\ndistribute the fish to needy people in the northwestern United States. Many fishing companies voluntarily participate in the donation\nprogram. Through 1998, over 3 million pounds of donated salmon have produced an estimated 12 million meals for needy persons.\nTo date, two of three plants in Dutch Harbor have donated halibut. Although limited to no more than 50,000 lb, the actual donated\namount was 21,196 lb in 1998 and 4,476 lb in 1999. Inconsistency in reporting and enforcement may have led to the decline in\nparticipation in 1999.","Inshore/Offshore Allocations\nBSAI Amendment 51\nDates: Amendment 51 was approved by the Council in June 1998. NMFS published a proposed rule to amend the BSAI and GOA\nGroundfish FMPs on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 57996). The final rule for BSAI Amendment 51 and GOA Amendment 51 was\npublished on January 25, 1999 3653). Effective date of implementation was January 20, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: The TACs for pollock in the BSAI and for pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA have been allocated\nbetween the inshore and offshore components of the groundfish fisheries since 1992. Amendments 51/51 were proposed to extend\nthe provisions of Amendment 38 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 40 to the GOA FMP, which expired on December 31, 1998.\nAmendments 38 and 40 previously extended BSAI Amendment 18 and GOA Amendment 23, respectively. The original amendments\nset processor allocations of the pollock TAC in the BSAI and pollock and Pacific cod processor allocations in the GOA, as a response\nto an early closure in 1989 when several catcher/processors harvested substantial amounts of pollock in the BSAI and GOA and\nforced an early closure of the GOA pollock fishery. The amendments allocated 35% to the inshore and 65% to the offshore processing\nsector of the BSAI pollock fishery, and allocated 90% of the cod and 100% of the pollock to the inshore processing sector in the\nGOA. The Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA) and the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program were also established.\nThe CVOA limited access to pollock within the area to catcher vessels delivering to either inshore or offshore processors. The CDQ\nprogram allocated 7.5% of the BSAI pollock TAC to CDQ fisheries.\nAt its meeting in June 1998, the Council took final action to adopt Amendments 51/51 to the FMPs. By proposing these FMP\namendments, the Council intended to change the inshore/offshore allocations in the BSAI but continue the existing allocations in\nthe GOA. However, on October 21, 1998, the President signed the American Fisheries Act (AFA) into law (Pub. L. 105-277). The\nAFA, among other things, allocated the BSAI pollock TACs differently than the Council had recommended. The Council held a\nspecial meeting November 10-13, 1998, in part to discuss the effects of AFA on its inshore/offshore proposal and other management\nprograms. In light of the AFA, the Council recommended specific changes to its Amendment 51/51 proposal, and on December 15,\n1998, NMFS partially approved BSAI Amendment 51 and fully approved GOA Amendment 51. The decision not to approve parts\nof BSAI Amendment 51 is consistent with the Council's intent for achieving consistency with the AFA as expressed at its meeting\nin November 1998.\nSection 206 of the AFA specifically mandates an allocation of 10% of the pollock TAC to a directed fishing allowance for the CDQ\nprogram plus an additional allocation of pollock for incidental catches in all non-pollock fisheries. Of the remaining pollock TAC,\nthe law stipulates the following allocations: 50% to the inshore component, 40% to the offshore component (catcher processors),\n10% to the offshore component (motherships). The effective period of the inshore/offshore allocations specified in the AFA is\nJanuary 1, 1999, through December 31, 2004 (sec. 206 and 213).\nRegulation Summary: As adopted by the Council in June 1998, the BSAI amendment contemplated four changes to the\ncurrent inshore/offshore allocation regime. In light of the AFA, the BSAI inshore/offshore pollock allocations were disapproved,\nand the only change (partially) approved related to the Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA). The original Amendment 51 would\nhave changed the existing CVOA rules by excluding from the CVOA all catcher vessels that deliver pollock to the offshore\ncomponent (catcher/processors and motherships). Motherships had previously been allowed to operate within the CVOA, receiving\nand processing pollock harvested by catcher vessels. Catcher/processor vessels had not been allowed to harvest pollock in the CVOA\nduring the B season. In recommending the CVOA portion of Amendment 51, the Council attempted to create parity between\nmotherships and catcher/processor vessels. NMFS approved all of the proposed amendment maintaining the CVOA with the\nexception of that component. This is because the AFA specifies separate allocations of the pollock TACs for the mothership and\ncatcher/processor sectors, thereby achieving the parity intended by the Council. Hence, the exclusion of catcher vessels from the\nCVOA that deliver to the offshore component was an unnecessary duplication of an AFA provision, and as such, was inconsistent\nwith National Standard 7. Note that although the approved CVOA provisions are effectively the same as they were for 1996-98,\nfurther restrictions on fishing in the CVOA were implemented in 1999 to mitigate the effects of pollock fishing on Steller sea lions\nand their critical habitat, within which much of the CVOA lies.\nAnalysis: A 299-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated December 9, 1998) was prepared for Amendment 51/51. Five alternatives were\nconsidered, including: the no action alternative; a rollover of the existing inshore/offshore program; several options to revise the BSAI pollock\nprocessing inshore/offshore percentages; a set-aside for catcher vessels less than 125' length overall; and a set-aside for catcher vessels\nless\nthan 155' length overall. The Council's preferred alterative was to allocate 39% of the BSAI pollock TAC inshore and 61% offshore (after\nCDQs are deducted from the BSAITAC), and to maintain the current GOA allocations of 90% Pacific cod and 100% pollock to the inshore\nsector. The Council also adopted a 2.5% set-aside for BSAI catcher vessels less than 125' length overall delivering to processors in the inshore\nsector. While the Council's preferred BSAI allocation split was not a specified alternative, it was well within the range of BSAI allocation\npercentages evaluated in the analysis-the analysis evaluated options to allocate 25%, 30%, 40%, and 45% of the BSAI pollock TAC to the\ninshore sector. With the passage of the AFA, however, the portions of the amendment stipulating BSAI pollock allocations became\nimmaterial, thus only the GOA portions of the amendment and the provisions relevant to the CVOA were approved.\nResults: The major provisions of this amendment (primarily the percentage allocations of the TAC for pollock processing) were\ndisapproved given the passage of the AFA. The AFA instituted a different allocation among sectors, and instituted a fundamentally\ndifferent management program for BSAI pollock including the formation of fishery cooperatives (see Amendment 61/62).","Vessel Registration Program-Tabled\nBSAI Amendment 52\nDates: The Council initiated an analysis of two complementary management actions in Amendments 52 to the BSAI and GOA\nFMPs in December 1997 and approved it in February 1998. A plan amendment to authorize NMFS to establish a vessel registration\nprogram for \"at risk\" fisheries that met certain criteria has been tabled because of changes in the fisheries as a result the American\nFisheries Act and Amendment 61. Only a regulatory amendment for a stand down for trawl vessels transiting between the BSAI and\nGOA was submitted to the Secretary and approved. The final rule for BSAI and GOA Amendments 52/52 was published on\nSeptember 11, 1998 ( 63 FR 48641). Effective date of implementation for the standdown was September 8, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: Management of the inshore pollock and Pacific cod fisheries of the Western and Central (W/C)\nRegulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) had become increasingly difficult.\nThe risk of harvest overruns had grown due to TAC amounts that are small\nrelative to the potential fishing effort. The problem has been most acute in the\nREPORTING AREAS\nWestern Regulatory Area due to the constant potential pressure that numerous\nOF THE GULF OF ALASKA\nlarge catcher vessels based in the Bering Sea (BS) could cross into the GOA to\nparticipate in pollock and Pacific cod openings that have relatively small TACs.\nNMFS lacked a pre-season vessel registration program that could gauge\npotential effort in these fisheries prior to openings, and inseason catch\nGO'N\ninformation in these fisheries was neither timely nor accurate enough to allow\n640\n650\n630\nEASTERN\nadequate management.\n620\n55'N\nCENTRAL\n650\n610\nThe objective of Amendment 52 was to create a vessel registration program to\nWESTERN\n690\nrequire vessels to announce their participation in either the BSAI or GOA\n(GOA Outside the U.S. EEZ)\n50'N\npollock and Pacific cod fisheries before the fishery commenced. This action is\nnecessary to prevent unexpected shifts of fishing effort between BSAI and GOA\n170'W\n159°W\n154'W\n147'W\n140'W\nfisheries that can lead to overharvests of total allowable catch (TAC) in the\nWestern and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. It is intended to further the\nstated goals and objectives of the BSAI and GOA FMPs.\nRegulation Summary: Under a vessel registration program, NMFS would establish criteria to determine which fisheries\nwould require registration. Based on these criteria, NMFS would create a roster of \"registration fisheries\" that would be announced\nat the beginning of each year and supplemented as necessary on an inseason basis throughout the year. Criteria for establishing a\nregistration requirement for a fishery could include:\n1) the size of the TAC amount or PSC limit specified for the fishery relative to the degree of interest in that fishery,\n(2) a fishery for which the TAC or PSC limit was exceeded by a significant amount in the previous year and the current year's quota\nand expected effort are similar,\n(3) a fishery for which the above two criteria may not apply but an expanded interest has developed inseason, and\n(4) a \"mop-up\" fishery.\nVessel operators would be required to register with NMFS a certain number of days before beginning directed fishing in a registration\nfishery and penalties would be established for non-compliance.\nAnalysis: A 25-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft dated January 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Two\ncomplementary management actions were considered by the Council, in addition to the status quo alternative. The analysis concluded\nthat the fleet as a whole would benefit if NMFS is able to manage \"at risk\" fisheries so that quotas are more fully harvested and the\noverhead costs associated with re-crewing and transiting to the fishing grounds for short term \"mop-up\" openings could be avoided.\nA registration requirement would reduce the flexibility of vessel operators to enter and leave fisheries at will. In some cases, this\ncould pose costs for certain operations if they realize mid-course that they would prefer to be participating in a short term fishery\nfor which they have not registered. Nevertheless, while a registration requirement for certain \"at risk\" fisheries will increase the\nconstraints on the fleet, it will serve to increase the ability of NMFS to manage such fisheries to obtain optimum yield and provide\nthe greatest net benefit to the nation.\nResults: Due to higher priorities, the vessel registration program was not developed by NMFS. As a result of the American\nFisheries Act of 1998, the structure of the pollock fisheries in the BSAI has been significantly altered, obviating the need for the\nvessel registration program as originally envisioned by the Council. A broader vessel registration program in conjunction with\nelectronic reporting requirements may be developed in the future.","BSAI Amendment 53\nShortraker/Rougheye Rockfish Allocation\nDates: Amendment 53 was adopted by the Council in February 1999. The final rule for this amendment was published on July\n28, 1998 (63 FR 40190). Effective date of implementation was July 22, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: Shortraker rockfish and rougheye rockfish (SR/RE) are commercially valuable species which are managed\ntogether as a complex. However, amounts available to the commercial fisheries are limited by a relatively small total allowable catch\n(TAC) amount that is fully needed to support incidental catch or bycatch needs in other groundfish fisheries. As a result, the directed\nfishery for SR/RE typically is closed at the beginning of the fishing year. Bycatch of SR/RE is highest in the Pacific ocean perch\n(POP) and Atka mackerel trawl fisheries, but SR/RE also are taken in non-trawl fisheries.\nIn 1997, unanticipated high harvest rates of SR/RE in the POP and Atka mackerel trawl fisheries undermined the effectiveness of\ninseason management and resulted in harvest amounts that exceeded the acceptable biological catch. Estimates of SR/RE bycatch\nthrough mid-1997 indicated that the overfishing level would be reached if fisheries that took these species in the AI were not closed.\nAs a result, NMFS prohibited the retention of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and rockfish by vessels using trawl gear and retention of\nPacific cod and Greenland turbot by vessels using hook-and-line gear. Thus, although overfishing concerns stemmed primarily from\nthe bycatch of SR/RE in the POP and Atka mackerel trawl fisheries, non-trawl fisheries that also take incidental amounts of these\nrockfish also were closed, or threatened with closure, to prevent overfishing of SR/RE. These overfishing closures disrupted fishing\nplans and resulted in a loss of economic opportunity for the trawl and non-trawl fishing industry. To get at this problem, separate\nmaximum retainable bycatch (MRB) percentages were established for SR/RE that would minimize the impact that \"topping off\"\nbehavior may have on the rate at which the SR/RE TAC is reached. \"Topping off\" occurs when vessel operators alter fishing\noperations to catch more of these species up to the amount under MRB constraints. To minimize this practice, a separate MRB\npercentage was established for SR/RE of 7 percent relative to certain deepwater species (primarily POP) and 2 percent relative to\nall other species except arrowtooth flounder, which cannot be used as a species against which SR/RE may be retained.\nIn spite of the proposed MRB percentages, overall bycatch amounts of SR/RE still could pose concern because the TAC amounts\nannually specified for SR/RE are small in comparison to the high volume POP and Atka mackerel trawl fisheries. Consequently,\nrepresentatives of the trawl and non-trawl industries recommended that the Council adopt an FMP amendment to allocate SR/RE\nbetween gear groups.\nRegulation Summary: At its February 1998 meeting, the Council approved Amendment 53 to the FMP. After subtraction\nof reserves, this amendment would allocate 30 percent of the remaining SR/RE TAC to non-trawl gear and 70 percent of the\nremaining SR/RE TAC to trawl gear.\nAnalysis: A27-page EA/RIR (final draft dated June 1998) was prepared\nTable showing catch of shortraker and\nfor this amendment. Two alternatives including the status quo were\nrougheye rockfish in the Aleutian Islands\nconsidered. The alternative adopted and approved was based on an industry\nregion, by gear type.\nrecommended allocation of SR/RE TAC between trawl and non-trawl\nYear\nTrawl\nLongline\nPot\nvessels, which was intended to provide an allocation to the non-trawl fleet\n1994\n764\n159\n3\nin excess of actual relative harvest in recent years. Trawl industry\nrepresentatives endorsed this split, recognizing that trawl bycatch rates\n1995\n459\n99\n0\nlikely will decrease as a result of the proposed reduction in the MRB\n1996\n771\n189\n0\npercentages for SR/RE. A gear allocation based solely on historical catch\n1997\n946\n96\n0\nbetween gear groups would not adequately account for the fact that non-\n1998\n414\n269\n0\ntrawl fisheries have been preempted in the past by closures resulting from\n1999\n340\n144\n0\ntrawl bycatch of SR/RE. The gear-specific allocation of SR/RE will allow\nmore effective management of SR/RE in both fisheries and minimize the\npotential for over harvest of the SR/RE TAC.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, more SR/RE has been landed by vessels using longline gear, and less by those using\ntrawl gear. Also, the inseason management issues relative to unanticipated effort in this fishery have been resolved.","Indirect Ownership and Use Caps (IFQ)\nBSAI Amendment 54\nDates: The Council approved Amendments 54 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs in October 1998. The analysis for BSAI and GOA\nAmendments 54/54 is under NMFS Regional review and has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of Commerce.\nPurpose and Need: During the 1995-97 IFQ seasons, NMFS broadly interpreted the FMP and regulatory language to allow\npersons holding initial allocation QS to hire skippers to fish their IFQ on vessels owned by other \"persons,\" provided that the QS\nholder could show a corporate association to the owner of the vessel. This policy allows individual QS holders to hire skippers to\nfish their IFQ on vessels owned by corporations or partnerships in which the individual QS holders are shareholders or partners. The\npolicy also allows corporations or partnerships holding QS to fish the collectively held QS on a vessel owned by individuals who\nare shareholders or partners in the corporation or partnership. At the beginning of the 1997 IFQ season, NMFS announced to the IFQ\nfleet that this policy of broadly interpreting the term \"person\" as it pertains to IFQ hired skipper provisions would continue until the\nCouncil could clarify its original intent. Two other clarifying FMP language changes were also included in this action.\nThree actions proposed for this plan amendment were:\n(1) Revise the FMP to allow a QS holder's association to a vessel owner, through corporate or other collective ties, to substitute for\nthe QS holder's vessel ownership per se for purposes of hiring a skipper to fish the QS holder's IFQ. (This document analyzes a\nproposal to revise the current FMP language and pertinent regulations to authorize a QS holder's indirect vessel ownership, through\ncorporate or other collective ties, to serve as a substitute for direct vessel ownership per se for purposes of the IFQ program's hired\nskipper provisions.)\n(2) Revise the definition of \"a change in the corporation or partnership\" in the FMPs to include language specific to estates. Estates\nare included under the definition of the term \"Person\" in the FMPs and 50 CFR 679.2 as \"corporations, partnerships, associations,\nor other entities.\" The FMPs and IFQ implementing regulations require that upon any change in a corporation, partnership, or other\nentity that holds QS the QS transfer to a qualified individual. A \"change\" in a corporation, partnership, or other entity is defined\nas the addition of a shareholder or partner to the corporation, partnership, or collective entity. This definition is not applicable to\nestates, because estates are not collective entities which may acquire additional shareholders, partners, or members. Nevertheless,\nbecause an estate's QS would not automatically transfer to an heir once the estate is probated, the FMPs and IFQ regulations need\nto define the point at which estates must transfer their QS to a qualified individual.\n(3) Change sablefish use limits from percentages of the total number of QS units in the QS pool for each area to a specific number\nof QS units. In June 1996, the Council approved a regulatory amendment to increase the Bering Sea (Area 4) halibut use caps from\n1/2 percent to the QS equivalents of 1 1/2 percent based on 1996 QS pools. This amendment also revised the halibut use limits to\nbe expressed as a fixed number of QS units rather than as a percentage, in order to provide QS holders with a more stable reference\nfor measuring their holdings against area use caps. Sablefish IFQ use limits are set in the FMPs. Consequently, the regulatory change\nto the halibut use limits could not at the same time change the calculation of sablefish use limits to a fixed number of QS units for\nconsistency. This FMP amendment would effect that revision to calculate the sablefish in QS units based on the appropriate\npercentage of the 1996 QS pools. This change would standardize the application of use caps for both halibut and sablefish fisheries\nand would provide the same level of predictability for sablefish QS holdings as currently exists for halibut QS.\nRegulation Summary: Regulations have not yet been drafted.\nAnalysis: A 17-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft dated September 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Three separate\nmanagement actions were considered. One status quo and one proposed alternative were considered for each action.\nResults: The amendment has not yet been implemented.","Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)\nBSAI Amendment 55\nDates: NMFS published EFH guidelines as interim final rule on December 19, 1997 (62 FR 66531). Amendment 55 was adopted\nby the Council in June 1998 along with EFH amendments for other FMPs (groundfish, salmon, scallops, crab). The final rule for\nBSAI and GOA Amendments 55/55 was published on April 26, 1999 (64 20216). Effective date of implementation was January\n20, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: The Magnuson -Stevens Act was amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The new Act\nmandated that any FMP must include a provision to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, minimize to\nthe extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and\nenhancement of such habitat. Essential fish habitat has been broadly defined by the Act to include \"those waters and substrate\nnecessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity\". All eight regional councils are required to amend their\nfishery management plans by October 1998 to:\nidentify and describe EFH for species managed under a fishery management plan;\ndescribe adverse impacts to that habitat from fishing activities and non-fishing activities;\nrecommend conservation and enhancement measures necessary to help minimize impacts, protect, and restore that habitat;\nand\ninclude conservation and enhancement measures necessary to minimize to the extent practicable, adverse impacts from\nfishing on EFH.\nThe purpose of this amendment is to provide for improved long-term productivity of the fisheries, to allow NMFS and the Council\nto be more proactive in protecting habitat areas, and by alerting other federal and state agencies about areas of concern. Federal\nagencies engaging in activities that may adversely affect EFH must consult with NMFS regarding those activities. NMFS must, and\nthe Council may, make suggestions on how to mitigate any potential habitat damage. The Council will be required to comment on\nany project that may adversely affect salmon habitat or habitat of any other anadromous fish (smelt, steelhead, etc.).\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved defined EFH as all habitat within a general distribution for\na species life stage, for all information levels and under all stock conditions. A general distribution area is a subset of a species range.\nFor any species listed under the Endangered Species Act, EFH includes all areas identified as \"critical habitat\". EFH was described\nin text, tables, and maps. Habitat areas of particular concern were identified as living substrates in shallow and deep waters, and\nfreshwater habitats used by anadromous fish.\nAnalysis: A 364-page EA (final draft dated January 1999) and a background assessment report were prepared for this amendment.\nThree alternatives including the status quo were considered. The other alternative that was not chosen would have defined EFH only\nas areas of high concentration for each life stage. The alternative chosen was more conservative in that defining a larger area may\noffer more protection.\nResults:\nSince the amendment was approved, NMFS has been sued by a coalition of plaintiffs (Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund,\nCenter for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, and others) who allege that the EFH amendment failed to meet statutory\nrequirements (did not analyze the effects of fishing on habitat, and did not\nimpose practicable measures to minimize impacts of fishing gear) and\nviolated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).\nWalleye pollock\nIn February 2000, the Council reviewed the first draft analysis for\n(Adults)\nGeneral distribution\nmanagement measures that would identify additional habitat areas of\nKnown conc.\nparticular concern (HAPC) types and areas, and take additional measures to\nprotectHA from potential effects caused by fishing activities. Alternative\nmanagement actions that were considered included making HAPC biota\n(e.g., mussels, kelp, sponges) a prohibited species, and prohibiting bottom\nfishing in areas shown to have concentrations of Gorgonian coral, which\nhave been shown to be long lived (500 yrs), vulnerable to fishing gear, and\nimportant habitat for rockfish. Based on public testimony, and input from\nits advisory committees, the Council voted to split the amendment and\nassociated analysis into two parts. Part one, which the Council adopted as\nfinal action in April 2000, prohibits the commercial harvest, sale and\nprocessing of sponges and corals. Part two of the HAPC amendments,\nExample of EFH distribution map.\nwhich will require a longer time line, will be to develop a more\ncomprehensive and iterative process for HAPC identification and habitat protection involving researchers, stakeholders, and\nmanagement agencies.","Revised Overfishing Definitions\nBSAI Amendment 56\nDates: Amendments 56/56 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs\nwere adopted by the Council in June 1998. The notice of\napproval for this amendment was published on March 8, 1999\n(64 FR 10952). Effective date of implementation was January\n27, 1999.\nTiers used to determine ABC and OFL for BSAI\ngroundfish stocks under Amendment 56.\nPurpose and Need: The 1996 amendments to the\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B and BMSY and reliable\n(1)\nMagnuson-Stevens Act defined the terms \"overfishing\" and\npdf of FMSY\n1a)\nStock status: B/BMSY> 1\n\"overfished\" to mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that\nFOFL = MA, the arithmetic mean of the pdf\njeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum\nF ABC S MH, the harmonic mean of the pdf\nsustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. Additionally, it\n1b)\nStock status: a <B/BMSY s 1\nrequires that all FMPs specify objective and measurable criteria\nfor identifying when the fishery is overfished and, in the case of\nMH *(B/Busy-a)((1-a)\na fishery which is approaching an overfished condition or is\n1c)\nStock status: B/B MSY a\noverfished, contain conservation and management measures to\nFOFL=0\nprevent overfishing and rebuild the fishery. The Magnuson-\nF ABC 0\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B, BMSY FMSY, F30%\n(2)\nStevens Act further required regional fishery management\nand F4096\ncouncils to submit amendments, by October 11, 1998, that\n2a)\nStock status: B/BMSY>\nwould bring fishery management plans into compliance.\nFOFL=FMSY\nF ABC FMSY (F40%/F3596)\nThe Magnuson-Stevens Act and the revised guidelines indicate\n2b)\nStock status: a <B/BMSY S 1\nthat MSY, treated as a target strategy under the current FMP\ndefinition of overfishing, should represent a limit rather than a\nStock status: B/Busy Sc\n2c)\ntarget. This means that \"limit\" harvest strategies (such as the\nFOFL=0\nrules used to specify overfishing levels [OFL]) should result in\nF ABC\n0\na long-term average catch that approximates MSY, and that\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B, B 4096 F30% and F40%\n(3)\n\"target\" harvest strategies (such as the rules used to specify\n3a)\nStock status: B/B.oo > 1\nABC) should result in catches that are substantially more\nFOFL=F35%\nF ABC S F 40%\nconservative than the limit. Because tiers 2-4 of the current\n3b)\nstatus: <B/B 4046 1\nFMP definition could be interpreted as treating MSY as a target\nrather than as a limit, Amendment 56 revised tiers 2-4 by\nchanging the default fishing mortality rate value from F30% to\n3c)\nStock status: B/B 4096 a\nthe more conservative estimate of F35%\nFOFL=0\nFABC=0\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B, F30% and F4096.\n(4)\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 56 revised the\nFOFL=F3596\nABC and overfishing definitions set under Amendment 44 to be\nF ABC S F4096\nmore precautionary. Like Amendment 44, the maximum\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B and natural\n(5)\nallowable rates are prescribed through a set of six tiers which\nmortality rate M.\nare listed below in descending order of preference,\nFOFL M\n0.75 x M\ncorresponding to descending order of information availability.\nInformation available: Reliable catch history from 1978 through 1995.\n(6)\nFor most tiers, ABC is based on F40%, which is the fishing\nOFL= the average catch from 1978 through 1995, unless an alternative\nmortality rate associated with an equilibrium level of spawning\nvalue is established by the SSC on the basis of the best available\nper recruit (SPR) equal to 40% of the equilibrium level of\nscientific information\nspawning per recruit in the absence of any fishing. To further\nABC S 0.75 x OFL\nminimize the possibility of catches jeopardizing a stock's long\nterm productivity, there is a buffer established between ABC\nand OFL. Amendment 56 modified the OFL definition from\nF30% to F35% for stocks having tiers 2-4 information.\nAnalysis: A 24-page EA (final draft dated June 23, 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including the\nstatus quo were considered. The alternative chosen was more conservative in that it consistently treats MSY as a limit rather than\na target.\nResults: A followup amendment is being prepared to define minimum stock size thresholds for groundfish.","BSAI Amendment 57\nPollock Bottom Trawl Gear Prohibition\nDates: Amendment 57 was adopted by the Council in June 1998. The proposed rule for this amendment was published on\nDecember 29, 1999 (64 FR 73003). Effective date of implementation was March 1999.\nPurpose and Need: The Magnuson Act was\nDefinition of pelagic and nonpelagic trawl gear.\namended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The new\n(§ 672.2 Parts 5 and 7)\nAct emphasized the importance of reducing bycatch to\n(5) Nonpelagic trawl means a trawl other than a pelagic trawl;\nmaintain sustainable fisheries. National Standard 9 of the\n(6)\nMagnuson-Stevens Act mandates that conservation and\n(7) Pelagic trawl means a trawl that:\nmanagement measures shall minimize bycatch, to the extent\n(I)\nHas no discs, bobbins, or rollers;\npracticable, and shall minimize mortality where bycatch\n(ii)\nHas no chafe protection gear attached to the foot rope or fishing line;\n(iii)\nExcept for the small mesh allowed under paragraph (7)(ix) of this\ncannot be avoided. The objective of Amendment 57 is to\ndefinition:\nreduce bycatch in the BSAI pollock fishery.\n(A) Has no mesh tied to the fishing line, head rope, and breast lines with\nless than 20 inches (50.8 cm) between knots, and has no stretched\nmesh size of less than 60 inches (152.4 cm) aft from all points on the\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 57 prohibited the\nfishing line, head rope, and breast lines and extending past the\nuse of non-pelagic trawl gear when participating in the BSAI\nfishing circle for a distance equal to or greater than one half the\npollock fisheries. The definition of a pelagic trawl is relatively\nvessel's length overall; or\ncomplex, whereas non-pelagic trawls are all other trawls not\n(B) Has no parallel lines spaced closer than 64 inches (162.6 cm), from\nall points on the fishing line, head rope, and breast lines and\nmeeting the pelagic trawl definition. Regulations that define\nextending aft to a section of mesh, with no stretched mesh size of\npelagic trawl gear are listed in the accompanying table. In\nless than 60 inches (152.4 cm), extending aft for a distance equal to\naddition, regulations prohibit any vessel engaged in directed\nor greater than one half the vessel's LOA;\npollock fishing from having 20 crabs larger than 1.5 inches\n(iv)\nHas no stretched mesh size less than 15 inches (38.1 cm) aft of the\ncarapace width onboard the vessel at any time. Crabs were\nmesh described in paragraph (7)(iii) of this definition for a distance\nequal to or greater than one half the vessel's length overall;\nchosen for the standard because they inhabit the seabed, and\n(v)\nContains no configuration intended to reduce the stretched mesh\nif caught, provide proof that a trawl has been in contact with\nsizes described in paragraphs (7)(iii) and (iv) of this definition;\nthe bottom. Vessels fishing for CDQ pollock were exempted\n(vi)\nHas no flotation other than floats capable of providing up to 200\nfrom the non-pelagic trawl gear prohibition.\npounds (90.7 kg) of buoyancy to accommodate the use of a\nnet-sounder device;\nAmendment 57 also reduced the bycatch limits for halibut and\n(vii)\nHas no more than one fishing line and one foot rope for a total of no\nmore than two weighted lines on the bottom of the trawl between the\ncrab due to the bottom trawl prohibition. Halibut bycatch\nwing tip and the fishing circle;\nmortality was reduced by 100 mt, and the PSC allowance for\n(viii)\nHas no metallic component except for connectors (e.g., hammerlocks\nred king crabs was reduced by 3,000 animals, for C. bairdi\nor swivels) or net-sounder device aft of the fishing circle and forward\ncrabs by 50,000 animals, and for C. opilio crabs by 150,000\nof any mesh greater than 5.5 inches (14.0 cm) stretched measure;\nanimals. For C bairdi crabs, the limit was lowered by 20,000\n(ix)\nMay have small mesh within 32 feet (9.8 m) of the center of the head\nrope as needed for attaching instrumentation (e.g., net-sounder\nin Zone 1 and by 30,000 in Zone 2.\ndevice); and\n(x)\nMay have weights on the wing tips;\nAnalysis: A 72-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated\nNovember 1999) was prepared for this amendment. Two\nalternatives including the status quo were considered. In\naddition, three options for PSC reductions were evaluated. The alternative chosen prohibited the use of bottom trawls for pollock\nfishing as FMP language, and the option chosen resulted in the most reduced bycatch of halibut and crabs.\nResults: The trawl fisheries were prosecuted under lower crab and halibut PSC bycatch limits in 1999 and 2000.\nRegulation on Trawl Performance Standard (679.7.14).\nIt is unlawful for any person to use a vessel to participate in a\ndirected fishery for pollock with trawl gear and have on board the\nvessel, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species that have\na width of more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) at the widest dimension when\ndirected fishing for pollock with nonpelagic trawl gear is closed.","Reduced Chinook Salmon Bycatch Limits\nBSAI Amendment 58\nDates: Amendment 58 was adopted by the Council in February 1999. NMFS published a notice of availability on November 4,\n1999 (64 FR 60157) and a proposed rule on December 21, 1999 (64 FR 71390). NMFS gave final approval on February 2, 2000.\n170°W\n167°W\n165°W\nPurpose and Need:\nChinook salmon bycatch control\nChinode Salmon Savings Area\nmeasures, originally implemented under Amendment 21b, were\nthought to be needed for two reasons. First, many chinook salmon\nstocks are fully utilized, and uncontrolled bycatch constitutes an\nadditional, unaccounted for allocation of the resources. Second,\n56'00'N\nBering\nuncontrolled bycatch levels exceeding recent highs may lead to\nconservation problems for Alaskan and Canadian chinook salmon\n55'00N\npopulations.\n56'00'N\nIn 1996, the Magnuson -Stevens Act was amended in 1996 by the\n54*00'N\nSustainable Fisheries Act. The new Act emphasized the\n55*00'N\nimportance of reducing bycatch to maintain sustainable fisheries.\nNational Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that 53'00'N\nconservation and management measures shall minimize bycatch,\n54'00N\nto the extent practicable, and shall minimize mortality where\n>\nbycatch cannot be avoided. The objective of Amendment 58 is to\n167°W\n170°W\n165°W\nreduce chinook salmon bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.\nLocation of the chinook salmon savings areas\nin the BSAI, as modified by Amendment 58.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 58 reduced\nthe\namount of chinook salmon allowed to be taken as bycatch in BSAI trawl fisheries. Specifically, the alternative adopted did the\nfollowing (1) reduced the chinook salmon PSC bycatch limit from 48,000 to 29,000 chinook salmon over a 4-year period, (2)\nimplemented year-round accounting of chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery, beginning on January 1 of each year, (3)\nrevised the boundaries of the Chinook Salmon Savings Areas, and (4) set new closure dates.\nIn the event the limit is triggered before April 15, the Chinook Salmon Savings Area closes\nNumber of chinook salmon\nimmediately. The closure would be removed on April 16, but would be reinitiated September\ntaken as incidental bycatch\n1 and continue through the end of the year. If the limit were reached after April 15, but before\nSeptember 1, then the areas would close on September 1. If the limit were reached after\nin BSAI trawl fisheries,\nSeptember 1, the areas would close immediately through the end of the year.\n1989-1999.\nAnalysis: A 238-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated September 29, 1999) was prepared\nChinook\nfor this amendment. Five primary alternatives including the status quo were considered along\nSalmon\nYear\nwith several options for seasonal allocation, area closures, and applicable fisheries. The\n1989\n40,354\nalternatives not chosen would have established a time/area closure but without a PSC limit that\n1990\n13,990\ntriggered a closure, or established a closure based on an annual limit of 36,000 salmon. The\n1991\n35,766\npreferred alternative was the most conservative in that it reduced the PSC limit to only 29,000\n1992\n37,372\nchinook salmon taken in the pollock fisheries.\n1993\n45,964\n43,636\n1994\nTotal number of chinook salmon taken annually as bycatch in BSAI groundfish\nResults:\n1995\n23,079\nfisheries is shown in the adjacent table. Because the amendment has not been in effect for this\n1996\n63,179\ntime series, the effects on bycatch cannot yet be evaluated.\n1997\n50,218\n1998\n58,966\n12,918\n1999","BSAI Amendment 59\nMoratorium Extensions\nDates: On November 13, 1998, NMFS published the proposed rule for Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP)\nfor the Groundfish of the BSAI, Amendment 57 to the FMP for Groundfish of the GOA, and Amendment 9 to the FMP for the\nCommercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the BSAI (63 FR 63442). Amendments 59, 57 and 9 were approved jointly by the\nCouncil in June 1998. The final rule was published on January 25, 1999 (64 FR 13651). Effective date of implementation was January\n19, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: In 1987, concerned with excess harvesting capacity in the groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries of the\nBSAI and GOA, the Council established a committee to examine the problem of overcapitalization. Upon conclusion that allocation\nconflicts and overcapitalization would worsen under the current open access system, the committee recommended a limited access\nmanagement approach for these three fisheries. Concerned with the potential for speculative entry into the fisheries during discussions\nof management alternatives, the Council adopted Amendment 23 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 28 to the GOA FMP, which\nrequired a moratorium permit for vessels within specific vessel categories that harvest groundfish and BSAI crab resources off\nAlaska. Generally, a vessel qualified for a moratorium permit if it made a legal landing of any moratorium species during the\nqualifying period of January 1, 1988 through February 9, 1992.\nThe purpose of Amendments 23 and 28 was to provide for an interim measure to slow significant increases in the harvesting capacity\nof the groundfish and crab fishing fleets until additional measures, such as the License Limitation Program (LLP) could be\nimplemented. The LLP is part of a developing Comprehensive Rationalization Plan intended to resolve the overall issue of\novercapitalization on a long-term basis, and transition the fisheries from an open access management system to a more market-based,\nlimited access system. Without a moratorium, the Council feared that potentially unlimited new entry into the fishery would\nexacerbate overcapitalization and hinder the ultimate development of a successful Comprehensive Rationalization Plan.\nThe original amendments instituting the moratorium (Vessel Moratorium Program) were scheduled to expire on December 31, 1998.\nThe License Limitation Program, intended to replace the Vessel Moratorium Program, would not be in effect until January 1, 2000.\nTherefore, regulatory action was necessary to extend the moratorium in order to eliminate the one year lag time between the\nexpiration of the moratorium and the beginning of the LLP.\nRegulation Summary: The final rule simply extended the Vessel Moratorium Program and the existing moratorium permits\nthrough December 31, 1999. The regulation also provided that no person could apply for a new moratorium permit after the original\nmoratorium program expiration date of December 31, 1998, unless the application was based on a moratorium qualification that was\nused as a basis for obtaining a moratorium permit issued on or before that date.\nAnalysis: A 10-page RIR (final draft dated August 1998) was prepared for Amendments 59, 57, and 9. Two alternatives were\nconsidered: 1) allowing the Vessel Moratorium Program to expire (no action alternative), and 2) extending the program for one year.\nThe analysis determined that although all of the impacts of a one-year lapse between the moratorium program and the LLP were not\nknown, one potentially significant impact could be speculative entry into the affected fisheries by persons who would not qualify\nto fish under the moratorium program or the LLP. Because allowing new entry would exacerbate overcapitalization and the race for\nfish, the analysis determined that the no action alternative was inconsistent with the overall intent of comprehensive rationalization.\nThe preferred alternative extended the moratorium for one year, allowing time for NMFS to complete the design and implementation\nof the LLP.\nResults: As anticipated, the LLP to limit entry into the groundfish and crab fisheries off of Alaska went into effect January 1,\n2000, effectively replacing the Vessel Moratorium Program (The authorization for the LLP is contained in BSAI Amendment\n60/GOA Amendment 58/BSAI Crab Amendment 10). For general licenses, the base qualifying period established was January 1,\n1988, through June 27, 1992, approximately four months longer than the moratorium qualification period, in order to be consistent\nwith the Council's published cutoff date for qualification under the Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. The LLP also required an\narea endorsement for the BS, AI or the GOA, to provide for present participation in the fisheries (the qualifying period being January\n1, 1992 through June 17, 1995). The moratorium established by Amendments 23 and 28 and extended by Amendments 59, 57, and\n9 limited speculative entry into the fisheries while the LLP was being developed and approved, and kept the overcapitalization\nsituation from worsening.","License Limitation Program\nBSAI Amendment 60\nDates: Amendment 60 was approved by the Council in October 1998, but has not been formally submitted for Secretarial review.\nPurpose and Need: Following the approval of the original LLP program, industry members requested that the Council revise\nseveral of the provisions and qualification criteria, including adding a recent participation criteria for crab. BSAI Amendment 60,\nGOA Amendment 58, and BSAI Crab Amendment 10 encompass a package of changes focusing primarily on further capacity\nreductions and transferability restrictions, to tighten up the License Limitation Program before implementation.\nRegulation Summary: Five changes were adopted and approved under these amendments: 1) a requirement that the vessel\nitself would be a specific characteristic of the license and could not be severed (i.e., the license could not be used on any other vessel);\n2) license designations for the type of gear authorized to harvest LLP groundfish as either \"trawl\" or \"non-trawl\" gear (or both); 3)\nrescission of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) exemption and thus the requirement that CDQ vessels hold a crab or\ngroundfish license; 4) the addition of a crab recency requirement which requires one landing during 1/1/96-2/7/98 in addition to the\ngeneral license and area endorsement qualifications; and 5) allowance of limited processing (1 mt) for vessels <60' LOA with catcher\nvessel designations. The most significant addition under these amendments was the recent participation requirement of at least one\nlanding in the king and Tanner crab fisheries between January 1, 1996 and February 7, 1998, which applied only to the base\nqualifying period under the crab LLP.\nAnalysis: A 203-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 1999) was prepared for these amendments. Six proposed actions were\nanalyzed along with the status quo for each alternative, and the five changes outlined above were adopted. The change that was not\napproved would have clarified the Council's intent that catch history transfers be recognized, except those occurring after June 17,\n1995, and where the owner of the vessel at that time was unable to document a vessel under Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C NOAA\nGeneral Counsel advised the Council that this action may violate foreign reciprocity agreements listed in the Magnuson-Stevens Act;\ntherefore, the Council decided not to proceed with this proposed action.\nResults: Amendment 60 is pending submittal for Secretarial review. If approved it is expected to reduce the number of vessels\neligible to participate in the overcapitalized crab fisheries, and provide further capacity restrictions in the groundfish fisheries.","BSAI Amendment 61\nAmerican Fisheries Act Implementation\nDates: Amendment 61 was approved by the Council in June 1999, and implemented by NMFS via two emergency rules: (1) AFA\npermit requirements published on January 5, 2000, with an effective date of December 30, 1999, and (2) all other provisions of the\nAFA published on January 28, 2000 with an effective date of January 21, 2000. A permanent rulemaking to implement the\nprovisions of the AFA, for 2001 and beyond, is expected to be implemented in the fall of 2000, following completion of an\nenvironmental impact statement (EIS).\nPurpose and Need: In October 1998 the U.S. Congress passed the American Fisheries Act to achieve the following primary\nobjectives: (1) remove excess capacity in the offshore pollock sector through the retirement of 9 factory trawlers (through a\ncombination of appropriated funding and a loan to the onshore sector); (2) establish U.S. ownership requirements for the harvest\nsector vessels; (3) establish specific allocations of the BSAI pollock quota as follows - 10% to the western Alaska CDQ program,\nwith the remainder allocated 50% to the onshore sector, 40% to the offshore sector, and 10% to the mothership sector; (4)identify\nthe specific vessels and processors eligible to participate in the BSAI pollock fisheries; (5) establish the authority and mechanisms\nby which the pollock fleet can form fishery cooperatives; and, (6) establish specific measures to protect the non-AFA (non-pollock)\nfisheries from adverse impacts resulting from the AFA or pollock fishery cooperatives.\nIn addition, the AFA included provisions for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to enact measures as necessary to further\nprotect non-AFA fisheries from adverse impacts resulting from the AFA and pollock fishery cooperatives. In addition to\nimplementing the prescribed portions of the AFA, Amendment 61 contains various specific protective measures developed by the\nCouncil which limit the pollock industry's participation in other fisheries - these are referred to as 'sideboards'.\nRegulation Summary: Regulations establish the sector allocations of pollock, define the eligible vessels and processors,\ndefine the vessel/processor co-op linkages (which vessels are eligible for which co-ops), make allocations of the pollock TAC among\neach of the co-ops, and define the sideboard amounts of crab and non-pollock groundfish (based on historical share) that can be\nharvested and processed by the AFA operators, in both the BSAI and the GOA.\nAnalysis: The original analysis for Amendment 61, upon which the emergency rules are based, is 320 pages plus several\nappendices. That analysis focuses on alternatives for establishing sideboard limits for the AFA harvesters and processors, and also\nexamines alternatives for the structure of inshore sector co-ops (the relationship between harvest vessels and the shore plants to which\nthey deliver pollock). Primarily, the alternatives analyzed cover a wide range of options for determining the amount of the sideboard\nlimits for each sector, whether such sideboards are applied at the sector level vs individual vessel/plant level, and whether and to what\nextent there may be exemptions from the sideboards. The analysis also examines the ownership structure of the pollock industry\nto determine the entities and companies to which sideboards will be applied. Implementation and monitoring aspects of the various\nalternatives are also considered. A pending EIS will further examine these issues as well as the prescribed measures of the AFA,\nincluding the specific sector allocations and limited entry aspects of the Act.\nResults:\nThe AFA was fully implemented in 2000 via the emergency rules, with permanent implementing regulations (through\nat least 2004) expected in the fall of 2000. Several issues continue to consume a significant amount of NMFS and Council resources,\nwith various changes and regulatory amendments in the pipeline. Included are further consideration of the issues of inshore co-op\nstructure, processing sideboards for crab and groundfish, recalculation of sideboard amounts, and consideration of further exemptions\nfrom sideboards. One indirect impact of the AFA is that other industry sectors are now pushing for co-op style management in their\nfisheries, through either Congressional mandate or through the Council process.","Pacific Cod Fixed Gear Allocations\nBSAI Amendment 64\nDates: Amendment 64 was adopted by the Council in October 1999. NMFS published a notice of availability and requested\npublic comment regarding BSAI Amendment 64 to the Fishery Management Plan for the groundfish of the BSAI on April 11, 2000\n(65 FR 19354). A proposed rule (65FR34133) was published on May 26, 2000. NMFS approved Amendment 64 on July 13, 2000.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 64 was developed to further refine the BSAI fixed gear Pacific cod allocation established\nin BSAI Amendment 46. Amendment 46, approved by the Council in June 1996, effectively allocated the BSAI Pacific cod Total\nAllowable Catch (TAC) to the jig gear (2%), fixed gear (51%), and trawl gear (47%) sectors.\nThe fixed gear fishery is fully utilized in the BSAI, and competition has been increasing for a variety of reasons, including increased\nmarket value of cod products, a declining cod TAC, and the recent decline of the opilio crab stock. Amendment 64 is based on a\nproblem statement which focuses on the need to stabilize the BSAI fixed gear cod fishery and protect those who have made\nsignificant long-term investments and are dependent on the fishery from others who have limited history and wish to increase their\nparticipation in the fishery. The action is intended to help stabilize the fixed gear fleet until comprehensive rationalization can be\ncompleted for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI.\nAlthough the fixed gear (hook-and-line or pot gear) fleet has a direct allocation of 51% of the fixed gear Pacific cod TAC, a further\nsplit was deemed necessary to stabilize the growing hook-and-line and pot fleets. If approved, the amendment would establish\nseparate Pacific cod directed fishing allowances for different sectors of vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear. Under the proposed\namendment, the Pacific cod fixed gear TAC (excluding the amount of BSAI Pacific cod taken as incidental catch in other directed\ngroundfish fisheries by fixed gear vessels) would be allocated as indicated:\nThe allocation approved by the Council reflects the\napproximate average harvest of the fixed gear TAC by each\n80%\nHook-and-line catcher processors\nsector since the mid-1990s. In effect, hook-and-line and pot\nHook-and-line catcher vessels\n0.3%\nvessels less than 60 feet would first utilize the 0.3% and\n18.3%\nPot gear vessels\n18.3% allocations open to all length classes of their gear\nCatcher vessels (hook-and-line or\ngroup, respectively, and then utilize the 1.4% allocation\nwhen those fisheries close. Managing the allocations in this\npot) less than 60 feet length overall\n1.4%\nway is consistent with the Council's desire to provide fishing\nopportunities for smaller catcher vessels, ensuring that\nPacific cod is available to the smaller catcher vessels even\nafter the larger vessels in their gear sector have taken their allocation.\nRegulation Summary: Specific provisions for the accounting of these directed fishing allowances and the transfer of\nunharvested amounts of these allowances to other vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear would be set forth in the implementing\nregulations. As proposed, Amendment 64 would expire December 31, 2003, based on the reasoning that three years is sufficient time\nto address the issue of increasing competition in the BSAI cod fishery before reconsidering the issue in light of other proposed\nimpending changes, including proposed BSAI Pacific cod fixed gear and species endorsements on permits issued under the license\nlimitation program (see BSAI Amendment 67).\nAnalysis: A 76-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated March 2000) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including\nthe status quo were considered. While the specific allocation percentages chosen by the Council were not independently analyzed,\nthe percentages chosen fall within the range of the alternatives considered. Therefore, the Council felt they had sufficient information\nto judge the relevant impacts of selecting their preferred allocation percentages.\nResults: Amendment 64 will be implemented initially in 2001.","BSAI Amendment 65\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern: Harvest\nControl Measures (Proposed)\nDates: NMFS published essential fish habitat (EFH), including habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) guidelines as an interim\nfinal rule on December 19, 1997 (62 FR 66531). Amendment 65 was adopted by the Council in April 2000.\nPurpose and Need: The Magnuson -Stevens Act was amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The new Act\nmandated that any FMP must include a provision to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, minimize to\nthe extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and\nenhancement of such habitat. Essential fish habitat has been broadly defined by the Act to include \"those waters and substrate\nnecessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity\".\nAmendment 55 defined EFH as all habitat within a general distribution for a species life stage, for all information levels and under\nall stock conditions. Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) were identified as living substrates in shallow and deep waters,\nand freshwater habitats used by anadromous fish. Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) are those areas of special importance\nthat may require additional protection from adverse effects. HAPC is defined on the basis of its ecological importance, sensitivity,\nexposure, and rarity of the habitat.\nThe purpose of amendment 65 is to provide for improved long-term productivity of the fisheries by controlling harvest on\ninvertebrates (corals, sponges, mussels, rockweed and kelp), which provide important habitat for fish, but have the potential to be\ndeveloped into large-scale commercial fisheries.\nRegulation Summary: At the February 2000 meeting, the Council reviewed an initial draft of a proposed amendment that\nwould consider identifying additional HAPC, and two management measures to protect HAPC from fishing effects. The first measure\nconsidered would potentially prohibit directed fishing for certain HAPC biota (corals, sponges, kelp [including rockweed] and\nmussels). The second measure would establish several marine protected areas where Gorgonian corals are found in abundance.\nGorgonian corals have been shown to be important shelter for rockfish and other fish species, are very long lived, easily damaged\nby fishing gear, and slow to recover from damage. Based on public testimony, and input from its advisory committees, the Council\nvoted to split the amendment and associated analysis into two parts. Part one, which the Council took final action on in April, would\nallow for control on the harvest of HAPC biota, based on the following problem statement.\nThe Council recognizes that some invertebrates (corals, sponges, mussels, rockweed and kelp), which provide important\nhabitat for fish have the potential to be developed into large-scale commercial fisheries. The Council currently has little\nor no controls on the harvesting of these invertebrates. Adopting management measures as a precautionary approach would\nallow the Council to control any commercial fishery that might develop.\nAnalysis: A 67-page EA (draft dated March 6, 2000) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the status\nquo were considered. The alternatives include establishing HAPC biota as a prohibited species, or establishing a new HAPC category\nto allow for a controlled fishery to develop. Various options would allow some HAPC species (e.g., coral and sponges) to be\nprohibited from harvest, while allowing controlled fisheries to occur on the remaining species (e.g., kelp and mussels).\nResults: The Council took final action on a preferred alternative in April 2000. Sponges and coral were placed in the prohibited\nspecies category. Commercial harvest, sale, and processing of coral and sponges will be prohibited. Retention for personal use will\nbe allowed. A proposed rule is being prepared.","Pacific Cod Species and Gear Endorsements\nBSAI Amendment 67\nDates: As of April 18, 2000, a proposed rule has not yet been published by NMFS regarding Amendment 67 to the Fishery\nManagement Plan for the groundfish of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The Council identified the preferred alternative at the April\n2000 meeting, and the amendment package was subsequently submitted for Secretarial review.\nPurpose and Need: In June 1995, the Council approved the License Limitation Program (LLP) for vessels operating in Federal\nwaters off Alaska's coast (BSAI Amendment 39/GOA Amendment 41). Vessels began fishing under that program on January 1, 2000.\nSince the LLP was approved, changes in the fixed gear fisheries prompted industry to petition the Council to further allocate Pacific\ncod in the BSAI among the various sectors of the fixed gear fleets. BSAI Amendment 64, adopted at the October 1999 Council\nmeeting, encompassed these changes and established separate Pacific cod directed fishing allowances for different sectors of vessels\nusing hook-and-line or pot gear. The Pacific cod Total Allowable Catch (excluding the amount of BSAI Pacific cod taken as incidental\ncatch in other groundfish fisheries by fixed gear vessels) was allocated as follows: 80% to freezer longline vessels; 0.3% to longline\ncatcher vessels; 18.3% to pot gear vessels; and 1.4% to catcher vessels (longline or pot) less than 60 feet length overall. Amendment\n64 was approved by NMFS on July 13, 2000.\nParticipants in the BSAI fixed gear cod fishery include longline and pot fishermen with extensive catch histories. However, given the\neconomics of the current cod fishery, persons may be tempted to bring vessels into the fishery that have little or no history in the BSAI\ncod fishery. Public testimony and implementation of the original LLP has shown that there is considerable latent capacity in the fixed\ngear Pacific cod fishery, especially in the pot fleet (many vessels are qualified under the LLP but to date have not participated to a\ngreat degree in the cod fishery) and freezer longline fleet. This action is in response to concerns that the stability of this fully utilized\nfishery is threatened by new entrants, driven in part by recent increases in the market value of cod and the decline of the opilio crab\nresource. At the April 1999 meeting, the Council initiated an analysis to add a Pacific cod endorsement to BSAI fixed gear licenses\nas a follow-up amendment to the recent allocations.\nAmendment 67 would establish participation and harvest requirements to qualify for a BSAI cod endorsement for fixed gear vessels\nin the directed commercial BSAI Pacific cod fishery. It is intended to provide a mechanism that would limit entry into the fishery by\nsubstantial numbers of fixed gear vessels that have not participated, or have not participated at a level that could constitute significant\ndependence on the fishery, in the past. Without the management action, a potential of 67 catcher processors and 365 catcher vessels\ncould prosecute the fixed gear Pacific cod fishery under the LLP. This is approximately fifty-seven more vessels than have participated\nin the fishery to any degree since 1995.\nRegulation Summary: The preferred alternative identified by the Council consists of different qualification criteria for freezer\nlongliners, longline catcher vessels, pot catcher processors, and pot catcher vessels, as outlined below. Additional provisions\naddressing the combining of catch histories, hardships, multiple endorsements, and bait landings will be detailed in the proposed rule\nupon Secretarial approval.\nHarvest Requirement\nParticipation Years\nVessel Type\n270 mt in any one year\nAny one year 1996-1999\nFreezer longline vessels\nNo action for vessels <60 feet LOA\nLongline catcher vessels\nVessels >60 feet: any one year 1995-1999\n7.5 mt in any one year*\n300,000 lbs in each two years\nAny two years 1995-1998\nPot catcher processors\nNo action for vessels <60 feet LOA\nPot catcher vessels\nVessels >60 feet: any two years 1995-1999\n>100,000 lbs in each two years\n*Jig landings of cod (by vessels of any length) count towards qualification for the endorsement as if they had been made with longline gear.\nAnalysis: A 105-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated March 2000) and an appendix were prepared for this amendment. The\nanalysis outlined several participation and harvest options for each gear sector of the fixed gear fleet, as well as the no action\nalternative. The analysis also noted that while the official number of LLP qualified vessels was not yet finalized at the time of review,\nthe analysis presented both the maximum number of qualifying vessels under the recent participation criteria and the estimated number\nof LLP qualified vessels to provide a comprehensive look at the effect of limiting entry into the fishery. The Council considered a wide\nrange of alternatives, and the chosen alternative was well within the range of alternatives analyzed.\nResults: The Council took final action on a preferred alternative in April 2000, and the amendment package has been submitted\nfor preliminary NMFS review.","APPENDIX B\nGulf of Alaska Fisheries Management Plan Amendment\nSummaries","Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish\nin the Gulf of Alaska\nPrepared by the staff of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council\nNovember 21, 2000","Gulf of Alaska\nAmendment Summaries\nThis document contains 1-page summaries of more than sixty amendments to the\nFishery Management Plan for Groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska that were\napproved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and implemented by\nthe National Marine Fisheries Service from when the plan was implemented in\n1978 through 1999.","This document contains 1-page summaries of more than sixty amendments to the Fishery\nManagement Plan for Groundfish in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands that were approved\nby the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and implemented by the National\nMarine Fisheries Service from when the plan was implemented in 1981 through 1999.","Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish\nin the Gulf of Alaska\nAmendment Number\nAmendment Title\nExtension of the FMP Time Period\n1\nJoint Venture Reserve\n2\nForeign Apportionment of Pacific Cod in Chirikof Area\n3\nRemoval of Gear and Area Restrictions\n4\nEstablishing Species Category for Grenadiers\n5\nReduction of Domestic Annual Harvest\n6\nExtension of the Fishery Management Plan\n7\nSpecies Categories\n8\nKodiak Gear Area\n9\nPOP Rebuilding and Foreign Closures\n10\nDomestic Annual Processed catch/Joint Venture Processed catch Framework\n11\nPot Gear Prohibition for Sablefish\n12\nIncrease Optimum Yield for Pollock\n13\nSablefish Gear Allocation\n14\nOptimum Yield/Total Allowable Catch Framework and Kodiak Trawl Closures\n15\nCatcher/Processor Reporting Requirements\n16\nPermit Requirements\n17\nDomestic Observer Program\n18\nPollock Roe Stripping\n19\nSablefish and Halibut Individual Fishing Quotas\n20\nInterm Harvest Levels and PSC Management\n21\nExperimental Fishing Permits\n22\nInshore/Offshore I\n23\nBycatch Control Measures\n24\nSteller Sea Lion Buffer Zones\n25\nPermanent Kodiak Crab Protection Zones\n26\nTrawl Test Zones\n27\nMoratorium\n28\nSalmon Retention for Food Banks\n29\nResearch Plan\n30\nAtka Mackerel Separation\n31","Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan\n32\nAmendment Title\nAmendment Number\nKodiak Pelagic Trawl Closures\n33\nCommunity Development Quota Program\n34\nQuota Share Blocks\n35\nTransfer of CDQ Compensation Shares\n36\nProcessing of Non-IFQ Species\n37\nRevised Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan\n38\nForage Fish Category\n39\nInshore/Offshore Allocations II\n40\nLicense Limitation Program\n41\nIFQ Vessel Buy Down\n42\nIFQ Sweep Up Provisions\n43\nOverfishing Definitions\n44\nPollock Trimester Allowances\n45\nRemove Black and Blue Rockfishes\n46\nThird Party Observer Program\n47\nTAC Streamlining\n48\nImproved Retention/Improved Utilization\n49\nHalibut Donation Program\n50\nInshore/Offshore Allocations III\n51\nVessel Registration Program\n52\nFull Retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish\n53\nIndirect Ownership and Use Caps (IFQ)\n54\nEssential Fish Habitat\n55\nRevised Overfishing Definitions\n56\nMoratorium Extentions\n57\nLicense Limitation Program Changes\n58\nSitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve\n59\nAmerican Fisheries Act Implementation\n61\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern\n65","Extension of the FMP Time Period\nGOA Amendment 1\nDates: NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish of the Gulf\nof Alaska on August 7, 1978 (43 FR 34825). The notice of availability for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was\npublished in the Federal Register on July 18, 1977, and notice of the final EIS was published on October 28, 1977.\nPurpose and Need: The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) was prepared by the Council and published by the\nSecretary of Commerce on April 21, 1978 (43 FR 17242). The FMP established the conservation and management measures for both\nthe foreign and domestic groundfish fisheries in the GOA under the authority of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act\n(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Proposed regulations were published on April 21, 1978 (43 FR 17013 for foreign vessels; 43 FR 17242\nfor U.S. vessels). The FMP only managed fisheries in the GOA during 1978.\nThe purpose of Amendment 1 was to:\n1) extend the timeframe of the FMP SO that the management measures would be in effect through October 31, 1979; and\n2) change the fishing year to November 1-October 31.\nIn addition, this amendment extended the optimum yields (OYs) and total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), without\nchange, through October 31, 1979.\nRegulation Summary: The regulation revised the original FMP only slightly, extending the measures through October 31,\n1979, to coincide with a fishing season start of November 1.\nAnalysis: An impact analysis was developed which evaluated the overall impact of this amendment on the fishery resource,\neconomic and social factors, and physical environment. The analysis determined that the amendment is necessary to continue the\nplan and maintain the current OY and TALFF.\nResults: The amendment maintained the OY and TALFF through October 31, 1979.","GOA Amendment 2\nJoint Venture Reserve\nDates: NMFS published a notice of approval and proposed rule for Amendment 2 on October 6, 1978 (43 FR 46349). The final\nrule was published December 1, 1978, and the effective date was December 1, 1978 (43 FR 56238).\nPurpose and Need: The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) was prepared by the Council and published by the\nSecretary on April 21, 1978 (43 FR 17242). Among other things, the FMP established the amount of fish set aside as reserve, to\nensure that an adequate supply of fish was available for potential harvest by U.S. vessels in joint venture operations (the sale of U.S.\ncaught fish to foreign processors). The original FMP also established a procedure for apportioning amounts of fish from the reserve\nto the total allowable levels for foreign fishing (TALFFs) during the fishing year.\nAmendment 2 was proposed to 1) increase the amount of pollock held in reserve to 133,800 mt, with appropriate increases in the\nreserves of species taken incidental to fishing for pollock, and 2) modify the method used to determine the portion of each species'\noptimum yield (OY) set aside as reserve. The action established a special joint venture reserve wherein: TALFF = (0.8 OY) -\ndomestic annual harvest - special joint venture reserve. The intent was to re-evaluate the remaining 20% of the OY and the joint\nventure reserves beginning January 2, 1979, and reallocate to the domestic or foreign fisheries following reassessment of U.S.\ndevelopment, both in terms of joint venture operations and delivery to U.S. shore-based processors.\nWith such a large piece of the fishery held in reserve, the Council also wanted to ensure that the fishery was apportioned effectively\nso that optimum yield (OY) could be reached and the fishery fully utilized. Amendment 2 provided that 25% of the initial reserve\nwould be allocated to the TALFF every two months, unless it was determined by NMFS that the U.S. fleet could harvest all of the\nremaining reserve in the fishing year. This amendment stemmed from the difficulty of accurately predicting U.S. harvesting capacity\nwhen new joint ventures continued to be initiated. By establishing reserve amounts of fish for domestic harvest that could eventually\nbe available to the foreign fleet, the possibility of overfishing or disrupting the foreign fisheries mid-season would be diminished,\nproviding greater assurance that optimum yield would be achieved.\nRegulation Summary: The regulation increased the amount of pollock held in reserve to 133,800 mt, with appropriate\nincreases in the reserves of species taken incidental to fishing for pollock, and established the special joint reserve and stipulated the\nmethod for calculating the foreign allowance, wherein: TALFF = (0.8 OY) - domestic annual harvest - special joint venture reserve.\nThe regulation also provided for 25% of the initial reserve to be allocated to the TALFF every two months, unless it was determined\nthat the U.S. fleet could harvest all of the remaining reserve in the fishing year. That determination would be based on: 1) reported\nU.S. catch and effort by species and area; 2) projected U.S. catch and effort by species and area; and 3) projected and utilized\nprocessing capacity of U.S. fish processors. The regulation also stipulated that if part of the scheduled 25% apportionment to the\nTALFFs was withheld and the U.S. fleet failed to achieve the anticipated harvest levels in the next period, the amount of fish\npreviously withheld would be made available to the TALFFs on the next bimonthly date.\nAnalysis: Two alternative solutions to the 25% bimonthly apportionment of the reserve to the TALFF were considered: 1)\nestablishing a high, initial U.S. capacity estimate with lower TALFFs; or 2) establishing a low U.S. capacity with higher TALFFs.\nThe first alternative was rejected on the basis that if the initial U.S. harvest capacity was greatly overestimated, there would not be\nadequate time to amend the FMP to increase the TALFF in order to achieve optimum yield. The second alternative was rejected on\nthe basis that if the initial U.S. harvest capacity was underestimated, a relatively high TALFF could result in overfishing or disruption\nof the foreign fishery if an abrupt closure was deemed necessary. The preferred alternative allowed more flexibility to reach the\noptimum yield and prevent overfishing, depending on anticipated and reported U.S. harvest levels.\nResults: The amendment allowed for sufficient flexibility to apportion the reserve and maintain a TALFF that would achieve the\nOY, prevent overfishing, allow for joint ventures to continue, and provide for an expanding domestic fleet.","Foreign Apportionment of Pacific Cod in Chirikof Area\nGOA Amendment 3\nDates: The Council approved Amendment 3 on September 8, 1978. The proposed rule was published on October 13, 1978 (43\nFR 47222) and a final rule was published on December 1, 1978 (43 FR 56238), effective January 1, 1979.\nPurpose and Need: The original FMP subdivided the Chirikof statistical area into two segments at 157° W. The total\nallowable level for foreign fishing (TALFF) for Pacific cod in the entire Chirikof area was established at 1,500 mt, which was further\nsplit to 600 mt and 900 mt for the western and eastern subdivisions, respectively. The foreign quota split between segments of the\nChirikof area was based on the proportion of the area in each segment. For example, 40% of the total Chirikof area is west of the\nsubdividing line, therefore 40% of the total quota for the area was allocated to that segment (40% of 1,500 mt = 600 mt). The division\nwas originally established to limit the amount of Pacific cod taken by foreign longliners, since longline fishing was not allowed in\nthe eastern segment of the Chirikof area. Amendment 2 was proposed to remove the subdivision quotas but maintain the 1,500 mt\ntotal quota, thereby allowing the foreign longline fleet to take the entire ChirikofTALFF for Pacific cod west of 157° W longitude.\nThe amendment was intended to allow an increase in the amount of Pacific cod taken by foreign longliners, within the confines of\nthe overall quota for Chirikof. Since longline gear is more selective than trawl gear, allowing an increase in longline harvest was\nexpected to reduce the amount taken by trawlers, and thus reduce the incidental catch of other species including halibut and shellfish.\nRegulation Summary: The implementing\nregulations allowed for the foreign longline fleet to take\n170°W\n160°W\n150°W\n140°W\n130°W\n60°N\nthe entire Chirikof TALFF for Pacific cod (1,500 mt),\n60°N\nand any apportioned reserves in that fishing area, in the\nChirikof fishing area west of 157° W. longitude.\nYakutat\nAnalysis: Three alternative actions to the preferred\n55°N\n55*N\nalternative were considered, including no action. The\nother two alternatives not chosen entailed: 1) moving the\nKodiak\n147°W\n54*30'\nsubdividing line east of 157° W to enlarge the western\nChirikof\nsegment, and 2) allocating allowable catches and\nShumagin\n50°N\npercentage of reserves to the eastern and western\n154°W\nSoutheastern\n50°N\n159°W\nsegments of the Chirikof area on other than a\n170°W\nproportional basis. Moving the subdividing line was\nrejected because it would increase the longline quota and\nproduce potential gear conflicts with domestic and\n45°N\nGulf of Alaska Regulatory Areas (INPFC)\n45°N\nforeign trawlers. Changing the allowable catch\npercentages was rejected because there was no supporting\n140°W\n160°W\n150°W\nevidence to refute an assumption of a uniform\ndistribution of Pacific cod throughout the Chirikof area.\nThe preferred alternative was chosen because it decreased bycatch of other species and because no information existed to indicate\nthat the Pacific cod distribution was so localized that this action would deplete the stock west of 157° W longitude.\nResults: The amendment allowed for a greater portion of the foreign Chirikof quota to be taken by the longline fleet.","Removal of Gear and Area Restrictions\nGOA Amendment 4\nDates: The proposed rule for Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska was\npublished on July 9, 1979 (44 FR 40099). NMFS published a final rule on August 27, 1979 (44 FR 50042). The effective date was\nAugust 22, 1979.\nPurpose and Need: The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska was effective April 21, 1978 (43 FR 17242). After a year of\npractical experience implementing the management measures in the plan, the Council identified several omissions and superfluous\nprovisions in the plan. The purpose of Amendment 4 was to fix these small omissions and to correct excessive or redundant\nprovisions that were originally included to protect the halibut fishery but were later found to be unnecessary.\nRegulation Summary: The regulations implemented the following provisions:\nReduce the number of fishing areas in the GOA from five to three (Western, Central, Eastern), to reduce the regulatory burden\n1)\non the fisheries while still preventing localized depletion.\n2) Allow foreign fishing within the 3-12 mile zone between 169° and 170°\nW longitude to correct an omission in the FMP.\n3) Remove the restriction which allowed only 25% of the total allowable\nREPORTING AREAS\nlevel of foreign fishing (TALFF) to be taken from December 1 to May\nOF THE GULF OF ALASKA\n31. The restriction was proved unnecessary since foreign trawl\noperations use pelagic trawls in the winter.\nAllow foreign longlining for sablefish seaward of 400 meters (instead\n4)\nGO'N\nof 500 meters) from May 1 to September 30 in the area between 140°\n649\nand 170° W longitude. Because incidental halibut catch by longliners is\n640\n651\n630\nEASTERN\nlow during the summer, this change increased areas for foreign nations\n620\n55'N\nCENTRAL\n650\nto catch sablefish while adequately protecting halibut stocks.\n610\nWESTERN\nPermit a directed longline fishery for Pacific cod between 140° and 157°\n5)\n690\n(GOA Outside the U.S. EEZ)\nW longitude seaward of 12 miles, except during the U.S. halibut season.\n50'N\nBy encouraging longlining instead of trawling for Pacific cod, the\nincidental mortality of halibut would be reduced.\n170°W\n159'W\n154°W\n147'W\n140'W\n6) Exempt foreign vessels from the requirement that fishing by all vessels\nof a nation in a fishing area cease when the allocation for any species\nhas been taken. The exemption does not apply if the allocation reached is for a target species of the longliners. This was to\nprevent the foreign longline fishery from being closed by the foreign trawl fishery.\n7) Increase the squid optimum yield to 5,000 mt (from 2,000 mt) to allow a sufficient incidental catch for foreign nations.\n8) Increase the Atka mackerel optimum yield to 26,800 mt (from 24,800 mt), based on new data indicating higher historical\ncatches.\nRemove the domestic one-hour tow restriction. This was deemed unnecessary protection for halibut given the separate incidental\n9)\ncatch quota on halibut for domestic fisheries.\n10) Remove the domestic requirement for the use of off-bottom trawls from December May 1. This measure was also considered\nunnecessary for halibut protection.\n11) Require domestic permits to be renewed annually and domestic reporting (fish tickets) to be submitted within 7 days (instead\nof 3 days). This would make the Federal and State regulations consistent.\nAnalysis:\nTwo alternative actions to the preferred alternative were considered, including no action. The other alternative not\nchosen would have imposed more restrictions on the foreign and domestic fleets and retained regulations that were unnecessary.\nBased on revised stock assessments, new observer information, and new foreign and domestic fishery data, the proposed actions were\nconsidered the best overall balance between biological considerations and social and economic impacts.\nResults: Many of the management measures provided for in the original FMP were designed to protect the halibut resource and\nfishery. After experiencing how the fisheries operated under the plan for a year, it was evident that several provisions could be\nremoved without compromising halibut conservation goals. New data and practical experience indicated that instituting the above\nchanges would allow for a less burdensome regulatory environment for fishermen.","Species Category for Grenadiers\nGOA Amendment 5\nDates: The notice of availability and proposed rule for Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish\nof the Gulf of Alaska was published on July 20, 1979 (44 FR 42738). The final rule was published September 18, 1979, effective\ndate was September 12, 1979 (44 FR 54064).\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 5 was prompted by a previously unrealized bycatch of grenadiers in the longline fishery for\nsablefish. Grenadiers, otherwise known as rattails for their slim, pointed appearance, are an abundant, deepwater fish caught\nincidental to other deepwater roundfish. Although grenadiers are not a commercially valuable species, by 1979 they had comprised\nas high as 66% of the total foreign sablefish catch in the Gulf of Alaska and were recognized as a significant bycatch problem.\nThe original FMP identified three separate species\ncategories: 1) prohibited; 2) specific species or species\ncomplexes; and 3) other species. The FMP would place\ngrenadiers in the \"Other Species\" category, which had a\nMaximum Sustainable Yield/Optimum Yield (MSY/OY)\nGrenadier (genus Coryphaenoides)\nof 16,200 mt as a whole. Including the grenadier catch in\nthe total catch assessed for \"Other Species\" that are also\ntaken incidentally in the longline and trawl fisheries would\ncause the fisheries to quickly exceed the \"Other Species\" MSY/OY and potentially close the directed fisheries before the allocation\nfor the target species was reached. Amendment 5 would establish a new, distinct category for grenadiers with a separate MSY/OY.\nThe Council, noting the need for a long-term solution, also began developing a fourth FMP species category that would include all\nfish caught incidental to other species and not used commercially for any purpose. Eventually this category would include grenadiers,\nas well as about 20 other vertebrate and invertebrate species of no commercial value. However, because the viability of the foreign\nfisheries was immediately threatened, the Council viewed Amendment 5 as a timely, short-term solution that could be implemented\nwhile a fourth category was being developed.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 5 created a new species category specifically for grenadiers with a separate domestic\nannual harvest, total allowable level of foreign fishing, and MSY/OY of 13,200 mt. The MSY/OY was based on the recorded average\ngrenadier catch for the previous twelve years. Since the grenadier population was not considered in the development of the OY for\nthe \"Other Species\" category, that category's OY remained the same. The deletion of grenadiers from the \"Other Species\" category\nwas published in a separate rule on June 29, 1979 (44 FR 37937)\nAnalysis: Two alternative actions to the preferred alternative were considered, including no action. The other alternative not\nchosen would have created a new species category comprised of fish for which there is no commercial value and which are discarded\nat sea. This alternative was rejected primarily because of the time constraints imposed; the foreign fisheries demanded immediate\nrelief were they to continue to prosecute the target fisheries without the threat of an early closure due to incidental grenadier catch.\nThis alternative remained favorable as a long-term solution, while the preferred action would remedy the current situation.\nResults: The amendment created a new species category in the FMP for grenadiers, and thus reduced the threat of an early closure\nin the foreign longline and trawl fisheries. Grenadiers were placed in the non-specified category under Amendment 8. The \"other\nspecies\" management category has further evolved over time, complicating the management measures associated with these species.\nCurrently, the other species category includes octopus, sharks, skates, and sculpins. In 1998, a final rule was published which created\na \"Forage Fish\" category beginning in 1999. Smelts, eelpouts, and non-osmerid fishes were placed in the forage fish category. While\nthe catches of these groups were not previously assessed against the \"Other Species\" quota, they have been estimated in the\nassessment in the past (GOA SAFE 1999).\nSubstantial grenadier catches are still reported in all GOA areas, reflecting the distribution of observed deepwater longline fisheries.\nThey continue to warrant additional attention in the sablefish longline fisheries, with estimated catch weights in this fishery alone\nexceeding those of the entire other species category in each year.","GOA Amendment 6\nReduction of Domestic Annual Harvest\nDates: The final regulations for Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska\nwas published on September 27, 1979 (44 FR 55589). NMFS published the final rule on November 7, 1979 (44 FR 64410). The\neffective date was November 1, 1979.\nPurpose and Need: The original FMP for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) (43 FR 17242; April 21, 1978) set domestic annual\nharvest (DAH) estimates, Optimum Yields (OY), and the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) in order to balance fishing\neffort between domestic and foreign fleets, including joint venture operations. After the FMP had been in place a full year, new data\nwas available from NMFS on 1) the total domestic harvest through April 1979, and 2) the processors' intentions to process during\nthe remainder of the fishing year. This information made it possible to adjust downward the domestic annual harvests, by species\nand regulatory area in the GOA, and commensurately increase the TALFFs for all groundfish species, so that the fishery could be\nfully utilized.\nRegulation Summary: The regulations lowered the estimates of domestic annual harvest and reallocated the surplus to the\nTALFF, increasing the 1978 TALFF by 27,700 mt for all species of groundfish combined. Specifications by species are provided\nin the table below.\nTotal Allowable Level of Foreign\n(mt)\nFishing in the GOA Groundfish\nPacific cod\n29,300\nFlounders\n32,025\nAtka mackerel\n26,775\nPacific Ocean perch\n22,750\nPollock\n157,200\nRockfishes\n6,675\nGrenadiers\n11,868\nSablefish\n8,805\nSquid\n4,975\nOther species\n15,570\nResults: The regulations adjusted the domestic annual harvest and corresponding TALFF to reflect the best information\navailable from the observers and domestic processors, and allowed for a fully utilized groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.","Extension of the Fishery Management Plan\nGOA Amendment 7\nDates: The proposed rule for Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska\n(GOA) was published on September 7, 1979 (44 FR 52284). NMFS published a final rule on November 7, 1979 (44 FR 64410).\nThe effective date was November 2, 1979.\nPurpose and Need: The original GOA FMP (43 FR 17242; April 21, 1978) set domestic annual harvest (DAH) estimates,\nOptimum Yields (OY), and the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) in order to balance fishing effort between domestic\nand foreign fleets. During the first year of implementation, reporting accuracy improved and new catch data was available from\nNMFS on the total domestic harvest and processing capabilities. Because implementing regulations for Amendment 1 stipulated\nthat the FMP was only effective through November 1979, another amendment was needed to extend the FMP for the next fishing\nyear. Certain stock assessment data was not available prior to the expiration of the current plan, so the amendment would simply\nrollover the optimum yields in the original plan (as amended), with a few minor exceptions.\nNew data from the 1977 and 1978 trawl surveys and 1979 Soviet surveys indicated increasingly abundant stocks of Pacific cod,\nmuch higher than the estimates used to set the 1978 optimum yield (OY). The domestic trawl surveys estimated maximum\nsustainable yield (MSY) at 88,000 mt, and the Soviet surveys estimated 67,600 mt. On that basis, the Council recommended an\nincrease in the Pacific cod OY from the current 34,800 mt. Previous estimates for Atka mackerel, based on Soviet hydroacoustic\nsurveys, were also low compared to new data from Soviet trawl surveys. Thus, the Council recommended that the Atka mackerel\nOY also be increased.\nIndustry had recommended the Council establish a Gulf-wide OY for thornyhead rockfish (genus Sebastolobus), a species\nhistorically taken incidental to the foreign sablefish longline fishery. The species was not previously reported as thornyhead rockfish\n(a.k.a. \"idiot\" rockfish) or assessed against the \"other rockfish\" category, SO new reporting of the substantial bycatch of idiot\nrockfish meant foreign harvesters were quickly meeting the relatively small \"other rockfish\" quota and were threatened with early\nclosure. The final concern addressed in Amendment 7 dealt with joint venture operations and the need to improve the equitable\ndistribution of the catch between foreign and domestic processors.\nRegulation Summary: The regulations implemented the following six provisions:\n1) Extend the FMP through October 31, 1980;\n2) Implement the provisions of the Processor Preference Amendment (PL 95-354), which would establish a mechanism to\nperiodically review and reassess the domestic annual harvest and the reserve to TALFF;\n3) Increase the Pacific cod OY from 34,800 mt to 60,000 mt and increase the Atka mackerel OY from 26,800 mt to 28,700\nmt;\n4) Create a new category and a Gulf-wide OY of 3,750 mt for thornyhead rockfish;\n5) Establish that the Council will consider, on a case-by-case basis, the possibility of time and area closures to joint venture\noperations to allow a domestic processor to process the catch; (note: this provision was disapproved by the Secretary)\n6) Create new domestic reporting requirements to facilitate better estimates of domestic annual harvesting and processing\ncapabilities.\nAnalysis: Three alternative actions to the preferred alternative were considered, including no action. Taking no action would\nhave ceased all fishing because the current plan expired October 31, 1979. Another alternative would have maintained the current\noptimum yields, an option deemed unacceptable in light of new biological information. The third alternative not chosen would\nhave imposed more restrictive regulations on the foreign and domestic fleets, without appreciable benefit to the resource or the U.S.\nfishery. The preferred actions would remove unnecessary regulations while maintaining a conservative management regime and\nproviding for both domestic expansion and the needs of foreign fisheries.\nResults: The amendment extended the management actions in the FMP and increased the optimum yields for two species,\nallowing for a larger harvest but remaining biologically conservative. The Council also adopted provisions that would better\nsafeguard the expanding domestic harvesters and processors, and started considering additional closures to joint ventures so that\nnew domestic processors could be fully utilized. These were incremental changes that would begin to replace the foreign effort with\ndomestic effort.","GOA Amendment 8\nSpecies Categories\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 8 was adopted by the Council in May 1980. NMFS published the proposed rule on\nSeptember 11, 1980, and a final rule on November 5, 1980, effective November 1, 1980 (45 FR 73486).\nPurpose and Need: This omnibus amendment was designed to conform the Gulf of Alaska groundfish plan to the newly\nadopted Bering Sea plan, enhance management, and protect incidentally caught species. The establishment of four species\ncategories was designed to allow more flexible treatment of species caught incidentally to the target species. Information on squid,\nrockfish, and several other species was found insufficient to warrant optimum yields for the three main regulatory areas in the Gulf\nSO their management was changed to Gulf-wide. Sablefish management also needed changes because the growing U.S. fishery\ntended to fish in too localized an area off Southeast. The Eastern area thus was divided into three smaller areas to spread the fishery\nout. Requiring biodegradable panels reduced ghost fishing by lost sablefish pots.\nThe purpose of modifying the timing of reserve releases was to allow for increased catches by domestic fisheries. The 20% of OY\nreserve for each species of groundfish enabled managers to provide fish to domestic fishermen if they needed it, or release it to\nthe foreigners if the domestic fisheries did not need it. The new schedule of releases was designed to give domestic fishermen more\ntime to demonstrate their needs.\nRegulation Summary:\nThe amendment included six measures:\n1) Change plan management year to January 1-December 31 and remove plan expiration date;\n2) Set Gulfwide OY for squid, thornyhead rockfish, other rockfish, and other species;\n3)\nEstablish four species categories: target species, other species, unallocated species, and nonspecified species;\n4) Establish three regulatory districts for sablefish management- Yakutat, Southeast Outside, and Southeast Inside;\n5)\nAdjust reserve release schedule to 40% in April, 40% in June, 20% in August; allow transfer of domestic allocations to foreign\nTotal Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing (TALFF); and\n6) Require biodegradable panels on sablefish pots.\nA seventh measure which would have authorized the Regional Director to issue field orders to resolve gear conflicts between foreign\nand domestic fishermen, was disapproved by NMFS for lack of specificity on January 11, 1982.\nAnalysis: An 8-page environmental assessment was prepared for this plan amendment. Each of the alternatives was briefly\ncompared to the status quo at the time. Very little was done in the way of economic analysis of the alternatives.\nResults: Parts 1 and 2 mainly were administrative changes that facilitated management of the fisheries. Part 3 replaced three\ncategories with four to alleviate operational problems with fishermen having to report non-target species in the \"other species\"\ncategory. Under that system there was a threat of closure of the groundfish fishery when one of those species of no commercial\nvalue was present in high abundance. The term \"unallocated species\" replaced the term \"prohibited species\". This category later\nwas changed back to \"prohibited species' and included crab, herring, salmon and other species that must be avoided, and if caught,\nmust be returned to the sea immediately. The sablefish management areas subsequently were revised to further divide the Yakutat\narea, but other than that remain mostly intact. The schedule for the release of the 20% reserve was used until the mid-1980s. With\nthe withdrawal of foreign fleets from 1986 on, the reserves were released mainly at the first of the season when the final groundfish\nspecifications are set. Though the use of sablefish pots was banned subsequently in the Gulf of Alaska, biodegradable panels are\nrequired in all groundfish and crab pot gear used elsewhere.","Kodiak Gear Area\nGOA Amendment 9\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 9 was adopted by the Council in July 1980. NMFS published the proposed rule on\nJuly 9, 1981, and a final rule on October 6, 1981, effective October 2, 1981 (46 FR 49128).\nPurpose and Need: Although there were six small areas around Kodiak Island (the \"Kodiak Gear Areas\") closed to foreign\ntrawling from August 10 to June 1, domestic crab fishermen testified at numerous hearings that the loss of gear to foreign trawlers\nand the fear of future losses on the crab fishing grounds outside the small closed areas still were problems. This was a problem only\nwith the foreign fleets because the domestic trawlers avoided domestic crab gear by coordinating their activities with the crab fleet.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment replaced six small fixed gear areas around Kodiak with a larger, single closed area\nto prevent gear conflicts between foreign trawlers and U.S. crab fishermen and to prevent preemption of crab grounds during the crab\nseason by foreign trawlers. It remained closed from 2 days ahead of the Kodiak king crab season, normally September 15th through\nFebruary 15th\nThe Kodiak Gear Area (a.k.a. Lechener Line) is bounded as indicated at right.\nAnalysis: A 4-page environmental assessment was prepared for this plan amendment. Two alternatives to the status quo were\nstudied. A modification of the Kodiak Gear Area to permit unrestricted foreign trawling in two areas east and south of Trinity Island\nwas rejected because the area contained significant numbers of king crab.\nThis closure, also known as the \"Lechner Line\" for the biologist that proposed its boundary, remained in place while\nResults:\nforeign trawlers still worked the grounds off Kodiak. Foreign trawling ceased in the Gulf of Alaska after 1985.\n155°\n153°\n151\n157°\n149°\nKenai Peninsula\nAlaska Peninsula\n59°\n59\"\n57*\n57\n55\n55\n157°\n155°\n153°\n151°\n149°","POP Rebuilding & Foreign Closures\nGOA Amendment 10\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 10 was adopted by the Council in February 1981. NMFS published the proposed rule\non December 7, 1981 (46 FR 59565), and a final rule on June 2, 1982, effective June 1, 1982 (47 FR 23936).\nPurpose and Need: Pacific ocean perch (POP) stocks were subject to intense foreign fishing that began in 1962 and 1963,\npeaking with harvests of over 340,000 mt in 1965. In the late 1970s, foreign harvests of POP were under 15,000 mt and the stocks\nremained severely overfished. The purpose of Amendment 10 was to rebuild the POP stock and to protect domestic halibut fisheries\nin southeast Alaska. Foreign trawlers fishing in Southeast Alaska waters were taking incidental catches of halibut, a prohibited\nspecies for trawlers, but a major target fishery for domestic longline fishermen.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment reduced the acceptable biological catch for POP from 29,000 mt in the Eastern\nRegulatory Area, to 875 mt, the OY from 14,400 mt to 875 mt, and allowed domestic and foreign fisheries 500 mt and 200 mt,\nrespectively, for bycatch purposes. Federal waters east of 140° W were closed to all foreign fishing, and only pelagic trawling with\nrecording net-sonde devices was allowed in waters between 140° and 147° W all year. All domestic fishing sanctuaries east of\n140°W were consequently deleted as they were no longer necessary.\nAnalysis: A 9-page environmental assessment was prepared for this plan amendment. The reduction in POP ABC and OY was\ndesigned to help the POP stocks recover. The closures to all foreign trawling east of 140° W, and to non-pelagic trawling between\n140° and 147° W was designed to protect the halibut resource and reduce gear conflicts between foreign and domestic fishermen.\nThe 1978-79 average incidental halibut catch by foreign fleets was 967 mt, or about 24% of the domestic directed harvest, with an\nex-vessel value of nearly $4 million in the Eastern Regulatory Area. Additionally, there were recorded incidents of conflicts between\nforeign trawlers and domestic longline fishermen that had to be resolved. The Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association estimated\nthat in 1980 alone, gear conflicts with foreign trawlers resulted in losses between $2,500 and $20,000 each.\nResults: These closures and adjustments to the POP harvest specifications helped set the stage for later rebuilding of the perch\nstocks and reduced incident bycatch of halibut. The trawling restrictions on foreign vessels off Southeast were very significant at\nthe time and represented one more step along the way to complete Americanization of Gulf of Alaska fisheries. No foreign vessels\ncaught or processed fish in the Gulf of Alaska after 1988.","DAP/JVP Framework\nGOA Amendment 11\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 11 was adopted by the Council in July 1982. NMFS published the proposed rule on\nJuly 1, 1983, and a final rule on September 21, 1983, effective October 16, 1983 (48 FR 43044).\nPurpose and Need: Domestic fisheries for pollock were expanding rapidly in the Gulf of Alaska because of foreign joint\nventure opportunities. Domestic harvest expanded from only 1,900 mt in 1980 to 17,000 mt in 1981, to more than 75,000 mt in\n1982. Lengthy plan amendments were needed at the time to make changes in allocations of fish to domestic and joint venture\nfishermen, and flexibility was needed for the Regional Administrator to reapportion reserves and domestic allocations to foreign\nfishermen if it was projected that domestic fishermen could not harvest it. The regional administrator also needed some flexibility\nto impose closures for conservation reasons on foreign fleets as had already been done for domestic fisheries. And finally, agencies\nneeded to have good catch reporting, particularly from large factory trawlers that were capable of leaving the state to deliver their\nprocessed product elsewhere.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment made the following changes:\nIncreased OY for pollock in the Central Area of the Gulf from 95,200 mt to 143,000 mt;\n1.\nDivided the Yakutat district into east Yakutat (137°-140° W) and West Yakutat (140°-147° W) for sablefish management;\n2.\nReduced OY for sablefish from 12,300 mt to a range of 7,730-8,900 mt and apportioned it among the regulatory areas and\n3.\ndistricts;\nEstablished a framework procedure for Regional Administrator to annually determine domestic (DAP) and joint venture (JVP)\n4.\ncomponents of domestic annual harvest (DAH) for each species OY;\nEliminated the domestic non-processed (bait and personal consumption) component of DAH, combining it within the purely\n5.\ndomestic component, DAP;\n6. Increased flexibility of Regional Administrator to reapportion reserves and surplus DAH to foreign fishing (TALFF);\n7. Authorized Regional Administrator to impose time-area closures on foreign nations to conserve resources; and\n8. Imposed radio/telephone catch reporting requirements on domestic vessels leaving State waters to land fish outside Alaska.\nAnalysis: A 21-page environmental assessment and 33-page regulatory impact review were completed on this amendment. The\nOY for pollock was increased to 143,000 mt, the midpoint of the MSY range of 95,200 mt to 191,000 mt for the Central Regulatory\narea. The sablefish OY was reduced and apportioned by smaller area to respond to conservation concerns and hasten rebuilding of\nthe stocks. The introduction of the framework mechanism for changing DAP and JVP responded directly to the rapid pace of\ndevelopment in those domestic fisheries. The use of plan amendments was too slow a process. Bait and personal consumption were\nnot being monitored and were better included in DAP rather than remaining a separate category. Authority for the Regional\nAdministrator to reapportion unused domestic set-asides to foreign fisheries would ensure fuller use of OY. The Regional\nAdministrator had authority to impose conservation closures on domestic fishermen. This amendment just established similar\nconsistent authority for the foreign fisheries. This amendment ensured that all catches were reported, even those bound to leave the\nstate for landings elsewhere.\nResults: This omnibus amendment provided for increased pollock catch to match the needs of the growing domestic industry,\nand reduced sablefish harvests for conservation purposes. It increased the ability of the Regional Administrator to respond to needs\nof the domestic fisheries, while promoting fuller use of OY. Additionally, it enhanced the agency's ability to monitor catch.","Pot gear prohibition for Sablefish (withdrawn)\nGOA Amendment 12\nDates: Amendment 12 was adopted by the Council in July 1982. No record of a proposed or final rule was available, as the\namendment was withdrawn after adoption of Amendment 14.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 12 addressed two potential problems in the Southeast sablefish fishery:\n(1) conservation and restoration of the depressed sablefish fishery; and\n(2) fishing grounds preemption and wastage of the existing sablefish resource.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 12 prohibited the use of pot longline gear for sablefish between 140°W longitude and\nCape Addington.\nAnalysis: A 21-page RIR (draft dated April 1983) analyzed three alternatives: 1) the status quo; 2) make sablefish an exclusive\nhook and line fishery between 140°W longitude and Cape Addington (preferred action); and 3) do not include trawl gear in the\nproposed management measure. Pot gear was identified as less suitable for the area, given the bottom topography. Lost pot gear\nentangles hook and line gear, making both unretrievable and leading to ghost fishing. This situation led to a grounds preemption\nproblem that resulted in pot longline gear being prohibited in southeast Alaska. Pot longline gear was used extensively in the mid-\n1970s, but was used to harvest less than one percent of sablefish between 1980-82. Since there was no existing or anticipated trawl\nfishery for sablefish in this area, a restriction on the use of trawl gear for sablefish was not adopted. However, later trawl gear was\nlimited to sablefish bycatch in other directed groundfish trawl fisheries.\nResults: Hook and line is the only allowed gear in the directed sablefish fishery. Amendment 14 prohibited the use of all pot gear\nin this fishery. An individual fishing quota program for sablefish was approved in 1988 and implemented in 1995 in both the GOA\n(Amendment 20) and BSAI (Amendment 15). Pot longline gear continues to be permitted for sablefish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian\nIslands.","Increase Optimum Yield for Pollock\nGOA Amendment 13\nDates: The amendment was approved by the Council in December 1983. The (corrected) proposed rule for Amendment 13 to the\nFishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska was published May 23, 1984 (49 FR 21773). The final\nrule was published on July 17, 1984. The effective date was August 13, 1984 (49 FR 28853).\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 13 was proposed to combine the Western and Central GOA regulatory areas into one unit\nfor pollock management and increase the pollock optimum yield (OY) for the combined area. The amendment was based on new\nscientific information and analysis which indicated that: 1) the pollock resource would be managed more effectively and the\npossibility of over- or under-harvest would be minimized if the Western and Central areas were combined, and 2) the exploitable\nbiomass of pollock and therefore the amount available for harvest have increased substantially for those areas and supports an\nincrease in OY.\nThe amendment was necessary to allow the pollock resource in the Western and Central Gulf to be managed as one stock. It was\nintended to provide optimum harvest of the pollock resource and to prevent undue restriction and economic hardship to the domestic\ngroundfish fishery, by allowing both the harvest of the increased surplus production of the pollock resource and the distribution of\nfishing effort according to pollock availability.\nRegulation Summary: The final regulations contained the following two actions:\n1) Adjusted the management of the pollock resource by combining the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of\nAlaska for managing the pollock fisheries only; and\n2) Increased the optimum yield for the combined area from 200,000 mt to 400,000 mt.\nAnalysis: An RIR/IRFA was prepared for an emergency interim rule to implement Amendment 13. The emergency interim rule\neffected the action on March 23, 1984 (49 FR 10931) and was extended through September 18, 1984 (49 FR 24142). In addition\nto the status quo, the analysis evaluated the impacts of increasing the pollock OY. Projections of exploitable biomass of pollock in\nthe Western and Central Gulf were made for 1984-1986 for five different levels of OY and four different recruitment scenarios.\nResults: The pollock OY was increased to 400,000 mt for the Western/Central Gulf. Since the amendment was passed, the\nWestern and Central regulatory areas have been separated and an allowable biological catch and total allowable catch (TAC) is set\nfor each area. Exploitable biomass and catches of Gulf pollock have varied over the years, and major exploitable concentrations are\nfound primarily in the Western and Central areas. In 2000, the Gulf-wide TAC was 100,000 mt, with the Western and Central areas\napportioned 38,350 mt and 52,850 mt, respectively.","GOA Amendment 14\nSablefish Gear Allocation\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 14 was adopted by the Council in May 1985. NMFS published the proposed rule on\nJuly 26, 1985, and a final rule on October 24, 1985, effective November 18, 1985 (50 FR 43193).\nPurpose and Need: The sablefish fishery traditionally had been a foreign longline fishery off Alaska, but in the eastern Gulf\nof Alaska in the early 1980s, domestic longliners had increased their harvests rapidly as markets developed. With improvements\nin the market for sablefish, two new gear types, pots and sunken gillnets, entered the fishery in 1984. In addition, trawling by foreign\njoint ventures in the Central and Western Gulf also took sablefish. All these gears created an overcapacity problem in the domestic\nsablefish fishery, as well as gear conflicts between longliners and pot fishermen. This amendment was designed to address these\nexcess capacity and grounds preemption problems. They decided that gear and area restrictions and apportionments to gear types\nwould be most effective.\nIn the early 1980s, all Sebastes species other than Pacific ocean perch and four associated slope rockfish species were managed as\n\"other rockfish\" on a Gulfwide basis, and yet a domestic fishery harvesting demersal shelf rockfish in the southeastern area was\nexpanding very rapidly by 1984. Yelloweye and quillback rockfish were the primary targets of this longline fishery. Amendment\n14 was designed to separate out and protect demersal shelf rockfish from the more general \"other rockfish\" category.\nOther parts of Amendment 14 were designed to establish revised optimum yields for several species of groundfish; to establish a\nmechanism for timely reporting of catches by domestic catcher-processors which could stay at sea for long periods, and thus did not\nreport as frequently as catcher vessels that landed their catch ashore and submitted fish tickets; to give more flexibility to managers\nin controlling halibut bycatch in the timely manner in the face of rapidly changing joint venture and domestic fisheries; to respond\nto a new habitat conservation policy of NMFS requiring more emphasis on habitat concerns in developing fishery management plans\nand amendments; and last, to delay the sablefish season opening to address resource allocation, fishermen safety and fish quality\nconcerns.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment made the following changes:\n1. Established gear/area restrictions and OY apportionments to gear types for sablefish;\n2. Established a Central Southeast Outside District with 600 mt OY for demersal shelf rockfish;\nChanged OYs for pollock, Pacific ocean perch, other rockfish, Atka mackerel, and other species;\n3.\n4. Established catcher/processor reporting requirements;\n5. Implemented framework procedure for setting and revising halibut PSC limits;\n6. Implemented NMFS habitat policy; and\n7. Set seasons for hook and longline and pot sablefish fisheries.\nAnalysis: A 44-page environmental assessment, 75-page regulatory impact review (RIR) for sablefish management measures,\nand 65-page RIR for the remaining measures, were completed on this amendment. The most contentious issue was the allocation\nof sablefish to the longline fleet, one of the most heated decisions the Council had had up until then. Longliners had taken the vast\nmajority of the sablefish harvest of all gear types, particularly in the Eastern Gulf. The OY for sablefish was expected to increase\nin coming years, and prices and markets were good, so considerable additional capacity was expected to enter the fishery. The\nalternative chosen slowed the growth in capacity and diminished the possibility of gear conflicts and grounds preemption more than\nthe other alternatives analyzed. The other measures in the amendment allowed for more flexibility in managing the groundfish\nfishery which was undergoing tremendous growth in domestic fisheries and displacement of foreign fleets in the Gulf of Alaska.\nResults: This omnibus amendment provided for the first allocations of a species among domestic fishermen, a management\napproach that would be used in other major species later on. Longliners were allocated 95% of the sablefish in the Eastern Area and\ntrawlers received 5% for bycatch purposes. Pots were excluded the first year. In the Central Gulf, longliners were phased into an\n80% allocation over two years, pots were phased out by the second year, and trawlers ended up with 20%. In the Western Gulf, pots\nwere all phased out over four years, and longliners and trawlers split the harvest 80/20 after a 4-year phase-in. In approving the\nsablefish allocations, NMFS offered to publish a control date of September 26, 1985, the day of final approval, announcing that\nanyone entering the fishery after that date would not be guaranteed future participation should the Council develop an effort control\nregime. As it turned out, it took the Council and NMFS another ten years to develop and implement the individual fishing quota\nsystem by which the sablefish and halibut longline fisheries were managed starting in 1995. The sablefish season was changed from\nJanuary 1 to April 1. The sablefish IFQ season is now tied to the start of the halibut IFQ season, which since implementation in 1995\nhas been March 15 - November 15.","Rockfish management was changed with the separation of the demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) species from other rockfish.\nAdditionally, a new Central Southeast District was established for managing DSR and the State of Alaska was placed in charge of\nmanaging the area. The State regulations applied only to vessels registered under the laws of the State.\nProhibited species catch limits for halibut in the Gulf were placed in a framework procedure for setting limits for domestic and joint\nventure trawl fisheries. Plan amendments would no longer be needed to change PSC limits and the limits would be by area and by\nspecific trawl group (domestic, joint venture, and foreign), rather than domestic and joint venture trawlers combined, so each fishery,\nnot all, would suffer the consequences of taking too much bycatch. When the PSC limit is reached there would be a closure just to\non-bottom trawling, not all trawling as under previous regulations. The limits would apply all year, not just from December 1\nthrough May 31.\nThe new reporting requirements were applied to catcher/processors and motherships that keep their catch or fish received for\n14\ndays\nor more. Those vessels were required to report every week, and also to report their position 24 hours before starting or stopping\nfishing in a regulatory area. A definition of \"directed fishing\" also was established.","OY/TAC Framework and Kodiak Trawl Closures\nGOA Amendment 15\nDates: An emergency interim rule for Amendment 15 was published March 12, 1986 (51 FR 8502) and it was subsequently\nextended June 9, 1986 (51 FR 20832). The proposed rule was published on December 12, 1986 (51 FR 44812), and the final rule\non March 13, 1987 (52 FR 7868). A corrected version was published April 15, 1987 (52 FR 12183).\nPurpose and Need: Four problems were identified in the GOA groundfish fisheries:\n(1) inability to efficiently adjust harvest guidelines;\n(2) inadequate reporting requirements;\n(3) inadequate protection of king crab near Kodiak Island;\n156°W\n155°W\n154°W\n153°W\n152°W\n(4) inadequate inseason management authority.\nMarmot\nFlats\nAlaska\nPeninsula\nRegulation Summary: Regulations designated:\n58°N\nIsland\n(1) a multispecies OY as a Gulf-wide range of 116,000-800,000 mt,\nset a framework procedure to set target quotas for each species\nKodiak\nUgak\nLow\nIsland\ncategory, and set administrative procedures for setting PSC\n57°N\nBarnabas\nlimits in the Gulf fishery;\nArea\nCape\n(2) revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements such that at-\nSitkinak\nsea catcher/processor and mothership vessels must submit\nd\nweekly catch reports regardless of how long their catch was\nd\nType I\nAlitak Flats/Towers\n56°N\nretained before landing;\nType II\nGulf of Alaska\nType III\n(3) Type I, Type II and Type III areas for special bottom trawl\nc\nChirikof Island\nrestrictions to protect king crab. Type I areas have very high\nking crab concentrations and, to promote rebuilding of the crab\nstocks, are closed all year to all trawling except with pelagic\ngear. Type II areas have lower crab concentrations and are only closed to non-pelagic gear from February 15 through June 15.\nType III areas are adjacent to Type I and II areas and have been identified as important juvenile king crab rearing or migratory\nareas. Type III areas become operational following a determination that a \"recruitment event\" has occurred. The Regional\nAdministrator will classify the expanded Type III area as either Type I or II, depending on the information available. A\n\"recruitment event\" is defined as the appearance of female king crab in substantially increased numbers (when the total number\nof females estimated for a given district equals the number of females established as a threshold criterion for opening that district\nto commercial crab fishing). A recruitment event closure will continue until a commercial crab fishery opens for that district\nor the number of crabs drops below the threshold level for that district.\nThe Alitak Flats/Towers and Marmot Flats areas are Type I areas, closed to non-pelagic trawls all year. Chirikof Island and\nBarnabas are Type II areas, closed to non-pelagic trawls from February 15 to June 15. These areas encompass 80% to 90% of\nthe known female king crab stocks. When necessary, Type III areas will be closed by regulatory amendment; the Regional\nAdministrator will specify which of the Type III areas are closed and whether the closure is for an entire year or only a portion\nof a year;\n(4) authority by the RD to open and close fisheries using the best available data (Check with FR).\nAnalysis: An EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated October 1986) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives (in addition to\nthe status quo) were examined for actions 1, 3 and 4. One alternative to the status quo was examined for action 2.\nResults:\nThe OY for the Gulf has remained unchanged, but the TAC's are adjusted annually based on updated information.\nRecordkeeping and reporting requirements have been further modified via regulatory amendments, however, weekly reporting by\nat-sea vessels is still required. Kodiak red king crab trawl closure areas were first implemented as Amendment 15 in 1997 with a three\nyear sunset. These closure areas were renewed in Amendment 18, which was in effect for 1990-92. Amendment 26 extended the\nclosures permanently. Nonetheless, GOA crab stocks in the vicinity of Kodiak Island remain depressed.","Catcher/Processor Reporting Requirements\nGOA Amendment 16\nDates: Council approved Amendment 16 in September 1987. The proposed rule for Amendment 16 was published on December\n21, 1987 (52 FR 48303). NMFS published a final rule on March 10, 1988 (53 FR 7756). Effective date was April 7, 1988.\nAmendment 11a to the BSAI FMP was adopted jointly.\nPurpose and Need: Amendments 16 for the GOA and 11a for the BSAI were proposed in response to a need for better\ninformation from catcher/processors and mothership processor vessels in order to sufficiently address fishery management problems,\nenforce current regulations, and meet the conservation goals identified in the FMPs. The amendment intended to add the following\nto the currently required weekly catch reports by catcher/processors and motherships: information on the number of cartons and unit\nnet weight of a carton of processed fish by species; a Product Transfer Report; and a Cargo Transfer/Offloading Log. The\namendment also changed the public comment period, redefined the definition of prohibited species, and respecified the other three\nspecies categories for both the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands FMP.\nIn addition, Amendment 16 instituted several other minor regulatory changes specific only to the Gulf of Alaska FMP.\nRegulation Summary: The regulations implemented the following provisions to the both the GOA and BSAI FMPs:\n1) Augmented the current catcher/processor and mothership reporting requirements with at-sea transfer information,\nspecifically, a Cargo Transfer/Off-Loading Log and Product Transfer Report;\nRevised the definition of prohibited species to include Pacific salmonids, Pacific herring, Pacific halibut, king crab, Tanner\n2)\ncrab, and steelhead trout. Respecified the other three categories:\na) Target species-pollock, Pacific cod, flounders, rockfish, and sablefish\nb) Other species-Atka mackerel, squid, sculpins, sharks, skates, eulachon, smelts, capelin, and octopus\nc) Non-specified species-those species taken incidentally in the groundfish fisheries but are not managed by\nthe FMP. No catch records are required;\n3) Required the public comment period for proposed annual specifications and prohibited species catch limits to be 30 days\nfollowing the date of filing of the notice for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register.\nIn addition, several minor regulatory changes were included that apply only to the GOA FMP: 1) the term \"target quotas\" for\ngroundfish was changed to \"total allowable catches\"; 2) general reorganization and editing; 3) the addition of a vessel safety section;\nand 4) removal of the reserve category for some species of groundfish.\nAnalysis: An EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for Amendment 11a, which determined there was no significant environmental impact\nas a result of this action, but small entities may be affected.\nResults: Since the amendment was passed, the four species categories have remained intact, and the \"optimum yield\" concept\nis applied to all except the prohibited species category. The prohibited species group has maintained the definition listed in the\namendment. A single total allowable catch still exists for the other species group which currently includes smelts, octopus, sharks,\nskates, and sculpins; squid and Atka mackerel were moved to the target species group in 1993. In 1998, a final rule on forage fishes\nwas published which removed smelts from the other species category and placed them in a separate \"Forage Fish\" category beginning\nin 1999.","Permit Requirements\nGOA Amendment 17\nDates: Amendment 17 was adopted by the Council in June 1988. The proposed rule was published on September 6, 1988 (53 FR\n34322) and the final rule was published on May 1, 1989 (54 FR 18519). Effective date of approved measures was May 26, 1989.\nAmendment 12 to the BSAI FMP was adopted jointly.\nPurpose and Need: Under regulations implementing the FMPs for the BSAI and GOA, vessels that are harvesting or\nprocessing in the EEZ are required to have Federal permits and are subject to Federal regulations. One of the regulations states that\ncatcher/processor and mothership processor vessels must submit weekly weight reports of groundfish caught and processed at sea.\nRegulations also require all catcher vessels, including catcher/processors, to submit fish ticket reports of groundfish catches to the\nAlaska Dept. of Fish & Game. NMFS was using these reports to determine the ongoing reapportionments of surplus groundfish to\njoint venture processors and to the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF). Vessels not fishing in the EEZ (but may have\nbeen 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\nFederal reporting requirements. The regulatory loophole inherent in the language of the regulations is that vessels outside the EEZ\ncould receive and process fish that were caught in the EEZ and would not be required to report them to NMFS.\nThe intent of the weekly reporting regulation was to receive information from all vessels harvesting or processing fish from the EEZ\nso that inseason management actions, such as time/area closures and reapportionments of surplus groundfish, could be done\nefficiently and effectively without surpassing the quota for each species. The Council recognized this loophole and approved\nAmendment 17, which re-worded the weekly reporting requirement to capture all vessels harvesting and receiving EEZ-caught fish.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 17 required that all vessels of the U.S. receiving EEZ-caught fish would have to hold\na Federal permit and thus would have to comply with the weekly reporting requirements.\nAnalysis: A 133-page EA/RIR/IRFA (dated May 18, 1988) analyzed the proposal above and the status quo for the BSAI and\nGOA FMPs. A draft assessment specific to GOA Amendment 17 also analyzed an action that would both change the date or establish\nan additional sablefish longline season. This action was eventually separated into GOA Amendment 17a and not approved by the\nCouncil.\nResults: Weekly reporting form the offshore processors enhanced monitoring of quotas and overall fishery performance.","Domestic Observer Program\nGOA Amendment 18\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 18 (BSAI Amendment 13) was adopted by the Council in June 1989 and approved\nby the Secretary in November 1, 1989. A proposed rule (54 FR 36333) was published on September 1, 1989 and corrected on\nSeptember 22, 1989 (54 FR 39022). A final rule implementing actions in Amendments 13/18 (54 FR 50386), except for the\nObserver Program, was published on December 6, 1989 and effective January 1, 1990. A final rule implementing the Observer\nProgram (55 FR 4839) was published on February 12, 1990 and effective on February 7, 1990. A correction was filed on January\n11, 1990 (55 FR 1036).\nPurpose and Need: Since foreign fishing had been curtailed, NMFS needed to replace the foreign fisheries observer program\nwith one to cover the domestic fishery. The purpose of a comprehensive data collection program for the domestic groundfish fishery\nis to provide adequate and reliable data on which to:\n(1) base inseason and inter-season management decisions;\n(2) efficiently carry out resource management; and\n(3) measure fishery performance against existing and proposed management measures.\nAdditionally, the Shelikof Strait was identified to contain spawning populations of pollock, the Kodiak crab trawl closure areas were\nscheduled to sunset on December 31, 1989, Pacific halibut PSC limits were also set to expire in 1989.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 18 to the groundfish FMPs authorized a comprehensive domestic fishery observer\nprogram. The 1990 and 1991 Observer Plans required specific levels of observer coverage which varied with size of fishing vessel\nand quantity of fish processed by floating and shoreside processors. These requirements were established because it was recognized\nthat living marine resources could not be effectively managed without the types of information that were either available only or most\nefficiently through an observer program.\nThe Observer Plans required that owners and operators of vessels and shoreside processing facilities participating in the groundfish\nfishery arrange for and pay for the cost of placing observers aboard their vessels and at their shoreside processing facilities beginning\nin January, 1990. Each vessel or processor required to have observer coverage is responsible for the cost of obtaining the required\nobservers from a certified contractor. The cost averaged between $5,800 and $7,100 per observer month in 1991.\nAmendment 18 also:\n(1) established Shelikof Strait area as a management district;\n(2) closed areas around Kodiak Island to bottom trawl gear;\n(3) established for one year, interim Pacific halibut PSC limits for fixed gear (750 mt) and trawl gear (2,000 mt);\n(4) deleted fishing season dates from the FMPs but retained them in regulation; and\n(5) clarified authority to recommend TACs for additional or fewer target species within the \"target species\" category.\nAnalysis: A193-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 21, 1989) included the preferred alternative to the status quo for five\nof the six actions affecting GOA groundfish management. In approving its action to delete fishing seasons from the FMPs, the\nCouncil also considered a framework procedure for annually setting fishing seasons.\nResults: The domestic observer program provides information for stock assessment and in-season management, including the\nability to accurately assess catch and bycatch in the fisheries. This program provides information to make the North Pacific fisheries\namong the most tightly managed in the world. Three problems were later identified for observer coverage payment. It was not an\nequitable system in that some operations payed for 100% coverage and others did not pay anything, it limited the ability of the NMFS\nto effectively manage the observer program, and it may result in a conflict of interest that could reduce the credibility of observer\ndata. The Research plan, under Amendment 30, was designed to address these three problems. Industry support for such a change\nis demonstrated by the willingness and ability of the industry to convince Congress and the President to amend the Act to allow the\nNorth Pacific Fisheries Research Plan to be established and paid for by a broad-based system of user fees. The proposed plan was\nto be applicable to the groundfish, halibut, and BSAI crab fisheries. Instead, implementation was delayed one year, then replaced\nwith a modified pay-as-you-go system adopted under Amendments 47/47. Fees were collected by NMFS in the first year of\nimplementation, which were later returned when the research plan was repealed.\nThe Kodiak closures are still in effect, as are the fixed and trawl gear halibut PSC levels (although the fixed gear level was dropped\nto 300 mt with implementation of the halibut IFQ program). The Shelikof Strait conservation zone has been incorporated as part of\nthe revised final reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to protect Steller sea lions in the GOA.","Pollock Roe Stripping\nGOA Amendment 19\nDates: GOA Amendment 19 (BSAI Amendment 14) was adopted by the Council in June 1989. NMFS published the final rule\non January 7, 1991 (56 FR 492). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1991.\nPurpose and Need: Growth of the domestic harvesting and processing capacity of the domestic pollock fishery had created\ncompetition for the pollock TAC by 1990. Competition for pollock during the roe season is intensified due to the high value of the\nroe relative to other products. In addition, extraction of roe can be done faster than production of other pollock products. By roe\nstripping, fishermen can increase their share of the pollock TAC by quickly producing the most valuable product at the least cost.\nThis amendment was intended to address the following problems:\n(a) roe stripping is a wasteful use of the pollock resource;\n(b) roe stripping causes and unintended allocation of pollock TAC among seasons and industry sectors;\n(c) roe stripping may adversely affect the ecosystem;\n(d) roe stripping may adversely affect the future productivity of the stock; and\n(e) roe stripping increases the difficulty of accurately monitoring the pollock TAC for inseason management.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment implemented rules that regulated the practice of stripping roe (eggs) from female\npollock and discarding female and male pollock carcasses without further processing, and seasonally allocated the TAC of pollock.\nSeason opening dates established were as follows for the GOA: January 1, April, July, and October, and for the BSAI: January 1 and\nJune 1. To get at the issue of roe stripping, product recovery rate standards were established, which if exceeded would constitute\na violation. The recovery rate standard established was 10 percent of the total round-weight equivalent of pollock and other pollock\nproducts onboard a vessel at any time during a fishing trip. To extrapolate round weight equivalents, the rule established product\nrecovery rates as follows: fillet (18%), surimi (15%), mince (17%), meal (17%), and head&gut (50%).\nAnalysis: A 138-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 20, 1990) was prepared for this amendment. Five primary alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered. The other alternatives that were not chosen would have just prohibited pollock roe-\nstripping, required full utilization of all pollock in pollock fisheries, or implemented seasonal allowances for pollock to reduce the\namount harvested in the winter-early spring. Options for these alternatives included applying the regulations only to certain areas,\nand restricting the GOA pollock fishery to midwater gear only. The alternative adopted combined the elements of roe-striping and\nseasonal allowances for all areas.\nResults:\nSince the amendment was approved, the practice of roe stripping has stopped. In 1993, regulations were further tightened\nto close loopholes that could have potentially undermined the intent of the roe stripping regulations (58 FR 57752). \"Fishing trip\"\nand \"pollock roe\" were better defined as were the pollock products that could be used to calculate retainable amounts of pollock roe.\nFull retention and utilization of pollock was required under Amendment 49.","Sablefish and Halibut Individual Fishing Quotas\nGOA Amendment 20\nDates: NMFS published the proposed rule for BSAI Amendment 15 and GOA Amendment 20 on December 3, 1992 (57 FR\n57130) with a corrected version published December 29, 1992 (57 FR 61870). These amendments were adopted jointly by the\nCouncil in 1991. The final rule implementing the amendments was published November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375) with the effective\ndate of implementation December 9, 1993. Actual program implementation was March 15, 1995, following application, appeals,\nand establishment of monitoring systems. Portions of the regulations were amended in subsequent final rules.\nPurpose and Need: In 1987, the Council recognized a need to take management action with regard to the sablefish fishery\nbecause it was exhibiting significant problems created by a short-season, derby-style fishery. Over time, with the constant increase\nof new entrants in the fishery, the sablefish fixed gear fishing seasons had degenerated to several short seasons each year. Typical\nproblems included allocation conflicts, gear conflict, deadloss from lost gear, increased bycatch and discard mortality, excess\nharvesting capacity, decrease in product wholesomeness, safety concerns, and economic instability in the fisheries and fishing\ncommunities. In December 1988, the Council decided that the status quo was unacceptable and expressed a desire to explore the\nlimited access options of license limitation, Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), and annual fishing allotments in a draft EIS. In January\n1990, the Council decided to focus on IFQ options as an alternative to the status quo. The IFQ approach was preferable in that it\nprovided fishermen with the authority to decide how much and what type of investment they wished to make to harvest the resource\n(by guaranteeing a certain amount of catch at the beginning of the season and extending the season over a period of 8 months), while\nalso addressing the problems created by a derby-style fishery. In addition, in early 1991, the Council found that the management\nproblems in the fixed gear sablefish fishery also afflicted the halibut fishery, and therefore decided to consider a similar IFQ system\nfor the halibut fishery. The intent was that a single IFQ program would apply to both fisheries.\nThe IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of the halibut and sablefish fisheries,\nand to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The program essentially assigns\nthe privilege of harvesting a percentage of the sablefish and halibut quota to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the\nfisheries. The rights given to each person are proportional to their fixed gear halibut and sablefish landings during the qualifying\nperiod determined by the Council and are represented as quota shares. Under this program, only persons holding quota shares are\nallowed to make fixed gear landings of halibut and sablefish in the regulatory areas identified.\nRegulation Summary: The IFQ Program was approved for the Pacific halibut (via regulatory amendment) and sablefish\nfixed gear fisheries in the Federal waters of the BSAI and GOA, and these fisheries have been managed under the program since\n1995. The regulations outline several key provisions of the program: initial allocation of quota shares (QS); vessel categories; transfer\nprovisions; use and ownership provisions; the annual process for allocating quota shares; and the establishment of Community\nDevelopment Quotas. The regulations state that legal landings of halibut or sablefish harvested with fixed gear had to occur at any\ntime during 1988-1990 to qualify for an initial allocation of quota share. Generally, if a vessel owner or lessee is qualified, their\ninitial quota share would be based on their highest total landing of halibut for any 5 years of the 7-year base period 1984-1990. For\nsablefish, the initial quota share would be based on the highest total landing of sablefish for any 5 years of the 6-year base period\n1985-1990. Each person eligible to receive quota share would have it assigned to one of four vessel categories: \"A\"-freezer vessels\nof any length; \"B\"- catcher vessels greater than 60'; \"C\". catcher vessels less than or equal to 60' for sablefish, or between 35'-60'\nfor halibut; \"D\" catcher vessels less than or equal to 35' for halibut. Initial quota share would be assigned to the vessel category that\na person's most recent fixed gear landings of groundfish or halibut were caught by that vessel.\nAnalysis: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (final draft dated September 1992)\nand several appendices containing background information and an evaluation of the New Zealand Individual Transferrable Quota\nprogram were prepared for the initial review of the IFQ management alternative. Two alternatives were considered: 1) the status quo\nopen access system characterized by fixed quotas for each regulatory area, and 2) IFQs. In addition, the document recognized the\nCouncil's previous determination that open access or more traditional management measures are not acceptable for the sablefish\nfishery. The Council rejected license limitation on the basis that it may not be possible to reduce the fleet size in an equitable manner,\nand because of the significant potential for the reduction in vessel number to be offset by an increase in fishing power per vessel.\nAnnual fishing allotments that were also considered previously were deemed a more complicated management program that would\nnot solve the race for fish. With the preferred IFQ alternative, the Council intended to acknowledge and reward long-term and\nconsistent participation in the fisheries; those whose catch histories showed less dependence on and participation in the fisheries were\nsupposed to receive relatively small amounts of quota share. However, the method by which initial quota shares were calculated also\nallowed for one to two years of poor performance in the fishery due to circumstances beyond a person's control.\nContinued","Results: The fixed gear halibut and sablefish IFQ program continues to rationalize the fishery and is generally considered a\nsuccessful market-based management system to address overcapitalization. Overall for the combined sablefish and halibut fisheries,\nan estimated total of 5,626 vessel owners received initial quota shares and 86.4% of the recipients were from Alaska. As expected,\nthe number of quota share holders has decreased significantly over time. The fishing season was converted from several 24-hour\nperiod openers each year to an eight-month season from March 15 to November 15. Among some of the anticipated and realized\nbenefits are bycatch reductions and safety improvements. Bycatch reduction was inherent in the program, due to the close interaction\nbetween sablefish and halibut fisheries. Much of the longline bycatch of halibut occurred in the sablefish fisheries, and many\nfishermen fish for both (and received IFQ for both). To the extent sablefish fishermen have halibut IFQ, this halibut is now retained\nand counted against the target quotas, as opposed to being caught as bycatch and discarded (by regulation it previously had to be\ndiscarded). This resulted in an immediate reduction of the GOA halibut Prohibited Species Cap from 750 metric tons annually to\naround 150 metric tons annually (Oliver and Pautzke 1997). Likewise, improved safety is inherent in the program; instead of having\nto fish intensely under any weather conditions, fishermen can choose their fishing weather considering the seasons, grounds, and size\nand sea worthiness of their vessel.\nIn addition, IFQs have reduced gear conflicts and fishing mortality due to lost gear within the sablefish and halibut fisheries by\nreducing the intense competition for grounds in a short time. Product quality and price has also increased under the IFQ Program,\nas fishermen have more time to cater to the fresh fish market. At the time of the Council decision, analysts estimated that the total\nannual benefits of the IFQ program would range from $30.1 to $67.6 million.\nSubsequent regulations were proposed following the final rule for Amendments 15/20, to refine various portions of the regulations\nimplementing the IFQ Program and make the program more responsive to the conservation and management goals specified in the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act. Some of the changes were intended to clarify ambiguous regulations, and others were new provisions\ndesigned to make the program more effective. The comprehensive list of regulatory provisions added or amended is contained in the\nfinal rule (60 FR 87).","Interim Harvest Levels & PSC Management\nGOA Amendment 21\nDates: GOA Amendment 21 (BSAI Amendment 16) was adopted by the Council in June 1990. NMFS published a proposed rule\non September 18, 1990 and a final rule implementing the approved portions of Amendment 16 on January 24, 1991 (56 FR 2700).\nEffective date of implementation was January 24, 1991. The amendment was revised to include a vessel incentive program, and the\ninterim final rule was published on May 10, 1991 (56 FR 21619), which was effective May 6, 1991 through June 5, 1991.\nPurpose and Need: A number of management measures were bundled together in this amendment, including PSC bycatch\nmanagement, procedures for specifying TAC, and gear restrictions. The main purpose of this amendment was to better manage PSC\nbycatch in non-directed fisheries, particularly in the BSAI.\nBecause there is insufficient time between the end of the December Council meeting and January 1 of a new fishing year, this\namendment was developed to establish interim TACs so that the fishery would open on January 1. Prior to this amendment, changes\nto gear definitions or other restrictions required an FMP amendment to change. In order to respond more rapidly to changes in the\nfishery, the purpose of this action was to allow gear restrictions to be accomplished through a regulatory amendment. Revised\nGuidelines for Fishery Management Plans (the \"602 Guidelines\"), required each FMP to include an objective and measurable\ndefinition of overfishing for each stock or stock complex under management.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment contained 8 approved management measures; those pertaining to the GOA follow:\n(1) Apportioned PSC limits into bycatch allowances for trawl fishery categories;\n(2) Allowed separate apportionment of halibut PSC to hook and line and pot gear in the GOA;\n(3) Allowed seasonal allocation of halibut and crab PSC;\n(4) Established procedures for interim TAC specifications;\n(5) Established fishing gear restrictions (definition of pelagic trawl, biodegradable panels & halibut excluders on pot gear);\n(6) Modified authorization language that allows demersal shelf rockfish in SE Alaska to be managed by the State;\n(7) Established definitions of overfishing.\n(8) Modified PSC limits and bycatch limitation zones for halibut, bairdi crab, and red king crab in the BSAI\nLater revisions to the amendment included addition of a vessel incentive program, which would issue civil penalties (fines) to vessels\nthat exceeded seasonal fixed bycatch rate standards for halibut and crab taken in specified target fisheries.\nAnalysis: A 213-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 31, 1990) was prepared for this amendment. In the original draft,\nthree primary alternatives to a BSAI measure described for BSAI Amendment 16 were considered. The analysis was revised several\ntimes to address other issues, including the vessel incentive program.\nResults: Portions of the proposed amendment were disapproved by the Secretary. In response, revisions to this amendment were\nmade in BSAI Amendment 16a and in Amendment 19/24.","Experimental Fishing Permits\nGOA Amendment 22\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 22 (BSAI Amendment 17) was adopted by the Council in September 1990. NMFS\npublished a proposed rule on December 4, 1991 (56 FR 63487) and a final rule on March 26, 1992 (57 FR 10430). Effective date\nof implementation was April 24, 1992, except for certain sections effective April 1, 1992.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to address several conservation issues in the GOA and BSAI in one\npackage. Description summaries of the GOA proposals follow. Three changes to the BSAI FMP also established Walrus Island\ngroundfish fishing closures, established the Bogoslof District in the Aleutian basin, and defined a groundfish pot.\n1. Authorize experimental fishing permits:\nAn FMP amendment is proposed whereby the Regional Director, in consultation with the Council and Alaska Fishery Science Center,\nmay issue experimental fishing permits to persons for purposes of obtaining information necessary to promote fishery conservation\nand management of the fisheries.\n2. Rescind GOA statistical area 68:\nAn FMP amendment is proposed to delete statistical area 68 (East Yakutat District), because it is not needed for fishery conservation\nand management and is imposing, therefore, unnecessary recordkeeping and reporting costs.\nRegulation Summary: This amendment allows the NMFS Regional Director, after consulting with the Director of the Alaska\nFishery Science Center and with the Council to authorize for limited experimental purposes, the target or incidental harvest of\ngroundfish that would otherwise be prohibited. The amendment also combined statistical area 68 with statistical area 65.\nAnalysis: A 71-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated May 14, 1991) was prepared for this amendment. Five management actions\nwere evaluated under this amendment package. Two modified the GOA FMP. Two alternatives considered changes to GOA\nstatistical area 68.\nResults: A number of experimental fishing permits that have been proposed by both the groundfish industry, the agency, and the\npublic have been approved by the Regional Administrator since implementation.","Inshore/Offshore I\nGOA Amendment 23\nDates: NMFS published a proposed rule to implement GOA Amendment 23 and BSAI Amendment 18 on December 20, 1991\n(56 FR 66009). The final rule was issued June 3, 1992, and the effective date of implementation was June 1, 1992 (57 FR 23321).\nPurpose and Need: Amendments 18 and 23 developed out of a concern to prevent preemption of resources by one industry\nsector over another. Substantial processing of pollock by several catcher/processor vessels contributed to an early closure of the\npollock fishery in the Shelikof Strait area in 1989, effectively preventing inshore components from realizing their anticipated\neconomic benefit from processing pollock. Upon industry request, the Council considered the issues of coastal community\ndevelopment and shoreside preference at its June 1989 meeting and adopted the Fishery Planning Committee's suggested\nmanagement alternatives for analysis. The problem statement adopted by the Council identified the issue as a resource allocation\nproblem and stated that specific processing allocations for the inshore and offshore sectors established at the beginning of a fishing\nyear would resolve the preemption problem and allow operators to better plan their harvesting and processing activities for the year.\nThe Council decided to include only pollock in the BSAI and Pacific cod and pollock in the GOA, in order to allow for more detailed\nanalyses. After much discussion about the benefits of alternative measures to deal with the preemption problem, the Council reviewed\nthe first draft SEIS/RIR/IRFA in April 1991, and adopted its preferred alternative in June 1991. The adjoining amendments to the\nBSAI and GOA FMPs would establish inshore/offshore allocations of pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA, and pollock in the BSAI.\nIn addition, the amendments would establish a Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA) in the Bering Sea, which would limit access\nto pollock within the area to catcher vessels delivering to inshore or offshore processors. These amendments also established the\nWestern Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) program to provide Western Alaska communities with long-term\nemployment and access to the fisheries. The primary purpose of Amendments 18 and 23 was to protect the inshore component of\nthe fishery from preemption by the offshore fleet. The amendments provided an interim solution for the inshore component, which\nincludes small coastal communities that are highly dependent on fishing to maintain economic stability. While the amendments do\nnot directly address overcapitalization in the fisheries, the approval by the Council specifically expressed an intent to develop and\nimplement a more comprehensive, long-term limited access program.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved defined the inshore and offshore components of the fisheries.\nBSAI Amendment 18 was only partially approved, allocating 35% of the 1992 non-roe pollock season TAC to the inshore\ncomponent, and the remaining 65% to the offshore component. The portion that was not approved would have further allocated\npollock through 1995: the inshore allocation would have increased to 40% in 1993 and 45% in both 1994 and 1995. A NMFS\neconomic review indicating a large net loss to the Nation as a result of this action provided the rationale for disapproval by the\nSecretary of Commerce. The GOA inshore component was allocated 90% of the Pacific cod TAC and 100% of the pollock TAC for\neach fishing year. While catcher/processors from the offshore component would not be able to conduct directed pollock fishing in\nthe GOA, they would be allowed appropriate bycatch amounts.\nAnalysis: An extensive final SEIS/RIR/IRFA (dated March 1992) and a 265-page appendix containing community profiles were\nprepared for these amendments. Eight alternatives including the status quo were considered. The alternatives not chosen would have\nimplemented traditional management tools or formed an allocation system with a different basis, such as vessel class, species, or at\nthe individual vessel level. The alternative chosen was broadened to include development of a Comprehensive Fishery\nRationalization Program, of which inshore/offshore allocations would be a part.\nResults: Amendment 23 was approved in its entirety for the Gulf of Alaska, and resulted in 100% of the pollock quota and 90%\nof the Pacific cod quota (less bycatch amounts in other fisheries) being reserved for harvest by vessels delivering to onshore\nprocessors. This amendment was approved for a three-year period, through the end of 1995 (see Amendments 40, 51, and 61 which\nextended these measures through 2004). The allocation implemented by this amendment provided protection and operational stability\nfor harvesters and processors and the coastal communities in which they operated.","GOA Amendment 24\nBycatch Control Measures\nDates: GOA Amendment 24 (BSAI Amendment 19) was adopted by the Council in December 1991. NMFS published the final\nrule on September 23, 1992 (57 FR 43926). Effective date of implementation was September 30, 1992.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to further address bycatch issues that were raised under Amendments\n16 to the BSAI FMP and 21 to the GOA FMP. This amendment was aimed to control and reduce halibut bycatch mortality in the\nAlaska groundfish fisheries in response to the international, social, and economic conflicts between U.S. and Canadian halibut\nfishermen and U.S. groundfish fishermen that take halibut as bycatch.\nRegulation Summary: Amendments 19/24 established three FMP amendment management measures. One pertained to the\nGOA FMP and its implementing regulations:\n(1) Delay the season opening date of the GOA groundfish trawl fisheries to January 20 of each fishing year to reduce salmon and\nhalibut bycatch rates;\n(2) Further delay the season opening date of the GOA trawl rockfish fishery to the Monday closest to July 1 to reduce halibut and\nchinook salmon bycatch rates;\nChange directed fishing standards to further limit halibut bycatch associated with bottom trawl fisheries:\n(3)\n(4) Expand the vessel incentive program to address halibut bycatch rates in all trawl fisheries.\nAnalysis: A 111-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated April 10, 1992) was prepared for this amendment. The analysis was broken\ndown into different management actions, and alternatives for each were evaluated separately. The number of alternatives (including\nthe status quo) considered varied for each management measure.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, bycatch of crab and halibut has been controlled to stay within the PSC limits.\nPSC\ncatch limits have been apportioned among different trawl fisheries in the BSAI, and fisheries have been closed when their respective\napportionments/seasonal allowances were reached. Catch of groundfish (particularly flatfish) has been forgone due to these\nrestrictions. Few vessels have been cited for violations of the vessel incentive program. PSC management was again revisited in\nfollowing amendments, such as BSAI Amendment 25.","Steller Sea Lion Buffer Zones\nGOA Amendment 25\nDates: GOA Amendment 25 (BSAI Amendment 20) was adopted by the Council in September 1991. NMFS published a final\nrule on January 23, 1992 (57 FR 2683). Effective date of implementation was January 20, 1992.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment was to allow regulations to be implemented to afford marine mammals\nadditional protection, particularly Steller sea lions. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on\nNovember 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Although the ultimate cause of the Steller sea lions decline remains unknown, Steller sea lions\nhad been incidentally taken in fishing gear, intentionally killed and harassed by fishermen, and may compete with commercial\nfisheries for food resources. The purpose of amendment 25 was to allow and implement regulations to reduce the likelihood that\ncommercial groundfish removals would deplete Steller sea lion prey abundance in key habitats, as well as to reduce incidental take\nof Steller sea lions.\nRegulation Summary: Regulations authorized by this amendment implemented the following measures:\n(1) Areas are closed year-round to fishing by vessels using trawl gear within 10 nautical miles of key Steller sea lion rookeries\nlocated in the GOA and BSAI management areas;\n(2) Areas are closed within 20 nm of five sea lion rookeries to directed pollock fisheries during the \"A\" season. These rookeries\nare Sea Lion Rocks, Akun Island, Akutan Island, Seguam Island, and Agligadak Island;\n(3) In the GOA, the specified total allowable catch for pollock in the combined western/central area is further divided among three\npollock management districts: Area 61 (170°-159° W. longitudes), Area 62 (159°-154° W. longitudes), and Area 63 (154°-147°\nW. longitudes). The Shelikof Strait district was eliminated. To prevent excessive accumulation of unharvested portions in any\nquarterly allowance of the pollock TAC, a limit of 150 percent of the initial quarterly allowance in each pollock management\ndistrict was established.\nAnalysis: A 29-page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for the trawl closure area section and a 10 page EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared\nfor the section revising GOA districts (final drafts un dated, but near October 30, 1991). Five alternatives including the status quo\nwere considered for the trawl closure section and two alternatives were considered for the GOA districts section of the Amendment.\nThe other alternatives that were not chosen would have established larger time/area closures (20 nm year-round, 10 nm in summer\nwith 20 nm winter extensions, 20 nm summer with 60 nm winter extensions). The alternative chosen (10 nm year-round rookery\nclosures) represent an approximation of the average summer foraging range (average was 8 miles; maximum of 21 miles) for the six\nfemale Steller sea lions with pups tagged and tracked.\nResults:\nMany subsequent actions have been taken to minimize\nthe impacts of fisheries on Steller sea lions. On March 12, 1993,\nNMFS extended the no-trawl zone around Ugamak Island out to 20\nnm during the pollock roe fishery (58 FR 13561). Amendment 28 to\nRUSSIA\nthe BSAI FMP subdivided the Aleutian Islands region into 3 districts\nALASKA\nCANADA\nto reduce localized depletion of Atka mackerel. Critical habitat for\n(U.S.)\nSteller sea lions was designated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269).\nAmendment 45 to the GOA groundfish FMP further subdivided the\nBERIND SEA\nareas for pollock fishing; these were further modified by regulatory\namendment in June (63 FR 31939). A regulatory amendment\nimplemented in 1999 seasonally apportioned the AI Atka mackerel\nTAC into two seasons, incrementally shifted the allowable catch\noutside of Steller sea lion critical habitat area, and added a 20 nm no-\nGULF\nOF\ntrawl zone around Sequam rookery.\nLocation of Steller sea lion rookery and haulouts closed to pollock\nIn 1997, the western population (west of 144° longitude) of Steller sea\nfishing in 1999.\nlions was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In\nApril 1998, plaintiffs (Greenpeace, the American Oceans Campaign,\nand the Sierra Club) filed suit against NMFS challenging the FMPs under both the Endangered Species Act and the National\nEnvironmental Protection Act. In December 1998, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that the Alaska pollock fisheries proposed\nfor the years 1999 to 2002 were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions and modify its critical habitat. As\na result, numerous management actions were taken via emergency rule and standard rulemaking to temporally and spatially disperse\nthe pollock fisheries, and establish numerous no-trawl zones around rookeries and haulouts. The plaintiffs have further challenged\nNMFS on the adequacy of these reasonable and prudent alternatives.","GOA Amendment 26\nPermanent Kodiak Crab Protection Zones\nDates:\nGOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 26 was adopted by the Council in June 1992. NMFS published the final rule on\nJanuary 6, 1993 (57 FR 61585). Effective date of implementation was January 1, 1993.\nPurpose and Need: The red king crab stock around Kodiak\n156°W\n155°W\n154°W\n153°W\n152W\nIsland peaked in 1965, with landings of 94 million pounds, and then\nMarmut\nFlats\ndeclined and remained at moderately low levels though the 1970's.\nAlaska\nNo fishery has been allowed since 1982 in an attempt to rebuild the\nPeninsula\nstock. While the cause for the decline of red king crab is not\n58°N\nknown, most researchers believe the decline can be attributed to a\nIsland\nvariety factors including overfishing, fish predation on king crab,\nKodiak\nand a warmer ocean environment. Fishery managers have enacted\nUgak\nIsland\nmeasures to provide an environment conducive to the recovery of\nCape\n57°N\nBarnabas\nthe red king crab stock by minimizing impacts from other fisheries.\nArea\nCape\nSitkinak\nTrawl closure areas, designed to protect Kodiak red king crab, were\nc\nd\nfirst implemented as Amendment 15 in 1997 with a 3-year sunset.\nd\nType I\nAlitak Flaté lowers\n56°N\nThese closure areas were renewed as Amendment 18, which\nType II\nGulf of Alaska\nType III\nbecame effective in 1990. Because Amendment 18 also had a 3-year\ne\nChirikol Island\nsunset, the management measure was scheduled to expire at the end\nof 1992. These restrictions were considered necessary because of\nthe poor condition of the king crab resource off Kodiak and because\ntrawl bycatch and mortality rates are highest during the spring months when king crab migrate inshore for reproduction. The\nmolting period off Kodiak begins around February 15 and ends by June 15. The purpose of this amendment was to renew these\nclosure areas to protect red king crab.\nRegulation Summary: The regulation simply made the provisions of Amendment 18 permanent. The Council designated\nType I, Type II and Type III areas for special bottom trawl restrictions\nto protect king crab. Type I areas have very high king crab concentrations and, to promote rebuilding of the crab stocks, are closed\nall year to all trawling except with pelagic gear. Type II areas have lower crab concentrations and are only closed to non-pelagic\ngear from February 15 through June 15. Type III areas are adjacent to Type I and II areas and have been identified as important\njuvenile king crab rearing or migratory areas. Type III areas become operational following a determination that a \"recruitment\nevent\" has occurred. The Regional Administrator will classify the expanded Type III area as either Type I or II, depending on the\ninformation available. A \"recruitment event\" is defined as the appearance of female king crab in substantially increased numbers\n(when the total number of females estimated for a given district equals the number of females established as a threshold criterion\nfor opening that district to commercial crab fishing). A recruitment event closure will continue until a commercial crab fishery\nopens for that district or the number of crabs drops below the threshold level for that district.\nThe Alitak Flats/Towers and Marmot Flats areas are Type I areas, closed to non-pelagic trawls all year. Chirikof Island and\nBarnabas are Type II areas, closed to non-pelagic trawls from February 15 to June 15. These areas encompass 80% to 90% of the\nknown female king crab stocks.\nWhen Type III areas are closed by regulatory amendment, the Regional Administrator will specify which of the Type III areas are\nclosed and whether the closure is for an entire year or only a portion of a year.\nAnalysis: An 18-page EA/RIR (final draft dated September 14, 1992) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered. Under the status quo alternative, the time/area closures would have expired at the end\nof 1992. The other alternative not chosen would have simply extended the closures for another three years. The alternative adopted\nmade these closures permanent.\nResults:\nSince the amendment was approved, GOA crab stocks in the vicinity of Kodiak Island remain depressed. The last good\nyear class produced was in 1973-74. Recent surveys have failed to detect signs of rebuilding.","Trawl Test Zones\nGOA Amendment 27\nDates: GOA Amendment 27 (BSAI Amendment 22) was adopted by the Council in April 1992. NMFS published a proposed\nrule on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 59072) and a final rule on January 23, 1993 (58 FR 5660). Effective date was January 15, 1993.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of the amendment\nAlaska\nwas to provide trawl fishermen an opportunity to test their\ntrawl fishing gear when the GOA or BSAI is otherwise closed\nto trawling. Until 1992, the GOA and BSAI were open to\ntrawling for most of the year, and the industry was able to test\ngear in preparation for a season opening. However, in 1992,\nDutch Harbor:\nnew regulations delayed the opening of the trawl season from\n54 40' to 55 00'\nKodiak:\nJanuary 1 to January 20 to reduce the bycatch rates of chinook\n166 00' to 167 00'\n57 23' to 57 37'\nsalmon and Pacific halibut. This amendment allows fishermen\n151 25' to 152 02'\nto test their gear and begin fishing efficiently at the beginning\nof a season, reducing lost fishing time that might result from\nSand Point:\ngear problems.\n54 35' to 54 50'\n160 30' to 161 00'\nRegulation Summary: This amendment allows the\nSecretary to promulgate regulations establishing areas where\nLocation of trawl test zones in the Alaska EEZ.\nspecific types of fishing gear may be tested, to be available for\nuse when the fishing grounds are closed to that gear type.\nSpecific gear test areas contained in regulations that implement the FMP, and changes to the regulations, will be done by regulatory\namendment. These gear test areas would be established in order to provide fishermen the opportunity to ensure that their gear is in\nproper working order prior to a directed fishery opening. The test areas must conform to the following conditions:\n(1) Depth and bottom type must be suitable for testing the particular gear type;\n(2) Must be outside State waters;\n(3) Must be in areas not normally closed to fishing with that gear type;\n(4) Must be in areas that are not usually fished heavily by that gear type; and\n(5) Must not be within a designated Steller sea lion protection area at any time of the year.\nThe rule implementing this amendment established three trawl test areas: Dutch Harbor (54 °40' to 55° 00'N; 166° 00' to 167° 00W'),\nSand 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\nfurther required that the trawl codend must be left unzipped so as not to retain fish, that groundfish may not be onboard, and that the\ntime used to test gear would not contribute to observer coverage requirements.\nAnalysis: A 13-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated September 1, 1992) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered.\nSince the amendment was approved, fishermen have been able to test their gear when trawl fishing is otherwise\nResults:\nprohibited.","GOA Amendment 28\nMoratorium\nDates: NMFS published a proposed rule for GOA Amendment 28, BSAI Amendment 23, and Crab Amendment 5 on May 12,\n1995 (60 FR 25677). The final rule was published on August 10, 1995 (60 FR 40763). Effective date of implementation for most\nsections of the amendment was September 11, 1995.\nPurpose and Need: In 1987, concerned with excess harvesting capacity in the groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries of the\nBSAI and GOA, the Council established a committee to examine the problem of overcapitalization. Upon concluding that allocation\nconflicts and overcapitalization would worsen under the current open access system, the committee recommended a limited access\nmanagement approach for these three fisheries. Concerned with the potential for speculative entry into the fisheries during discussions\nof management alternatives, NMFS published a control date notice of February 9, 1992. Anyone not having previously participated\nin the fisheries before that date would not be assured future access to the fisheries should a limited access system be adopted.\nThe purpose of this amendment was to provide for an interim measure to slow significant increases in the harvesting capacity of the\ngroundfish and crab fishing fleets until a Comprehensive Rationalization Plan (CRP) could be implemented. The CRP, which\ncontinues to be developed by the Council, is intended to resolve the overall issue of overcapitalization on a long-term basis, and\ntransition the fisheries from an open access management system to a more market-based, limited access system. Without the\nregulatory ability to institute a moratorium, the Council feared that potentially unlimited new entry into the fishery would exacerbate\novercapitalization and hinder the ultimate development of a successful CRP. The anticipated short-term effects of the amendment\nincluded increasing economic benefits to fishermen and reducing the risk of overfishing.\nRegulation Summary: After several proposed moratoriums and revisions, the final rule required a moratorium permit for\nvessels within specific vessel categories that harvest groundfish and BSAI Area crab resources off Alaska. Generally, a vessel\nqualified for a moratorium permit if it made a legal landing of any moratorium species during the qualifying period of January 1,\n1988 through February 9, 1992. In addition, a vessel that made a legal landing during the qualifying period, in either a groundfish\nor crab fishery, but not both, could cross over as a new vessel in the fishery in which it did not made a legal landing in the qualifying\nperiod provided: 1) it uses the same gear type in the new fishery as it used to qualify for the moratorium in the other fishery; or 2)\nmade a legal landing in the crossover fishery during the qualifying period and it uses only the same gear type it used in that period.\nit\nAnalysis: A 22-page supplemental analysis (final draft dated February 1995) was prepared for the final resubmittal of the\nproposed moratorium for these amendments, which were originally approved by the Council in 1992. The supplemental analysis\noutlined the changes from the original moratorium proposal: revision of the qualification period, halibut and sablefish qualification,\nconsideration of current participation, crossovers, and the appeals process. The analysis also indicated that the revised moratorium\nwould allow 4,144 unique vessels in the crab and groundfish fisheries, about 1,800 more than the current participant fleet but\nsignificantly less than the 15,709 unique vessels that participated in the fisheries since 1978 that had the potential to re-enter if no\naction was taken.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the Council has implemented the License Limitation Program (LLP) to limit entry\ninto the groundfish and crab fisheries off of Alaska. As anticipated, the LLP (Amendment 60 to the BSAI FMP/Amendment 58 to\nthe GOA FMP/Amendment 10 to the BSAI Crab FMP) replaced the vessel moratorium established in these amendments starting in\nthe 2000 fishing season. For general licenses, the base qualifying period established was January 1, 1988, through June 27, 1992,\napproximately four months longer than the moratorium qualification period, in order to be consistent with the Council's published\ncutoff date for qualification under the Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. The LLP also required an area endorsement for the BSAI\nor the GOA, to provide for present participation in the fisheries (the qualifying period being January 1, 1992 through June 17, 1995).\nThe moratorium established by Amendments 23 and 28 limited speculative entry into the fisheries while the LLP was being\ndeveloped and approved, and kept the overcapitalization situation from worsening during development of the long-term\nComprehensive Rationalization Plan. In addition, the moratorium qualifications could be transferred to other vessels (provided that\nthe length of the new vessel was the same or less than the original), and so helped provide a basis for the LLP transfer process.","Salmon Retention for Food Banks\nGOA Amendment 29\nDates: GOA Amendment 29 (BSAI Amendment 26) was adopted by the Council in September 1994. NMFS published final rule\non July 24, 1996 (61 FR 38358). Effective date of implementation was July 19, 1996. Selection of an authorized distributor for\ndonated salmon was announced on August 16, 1996 (61 FR 42591).\nPurpose and Need: The Alaska groundfish fisheries result in incidental fishing mortality of Pacific salmon. Vessel operators\nparticipating in these fisheries typically use trawl, hook-and-line, or pot gear. Trawl gear operations account for most of the\ngroundfish catch, harvesting 92 percent and 94 percent of the groundfish catch during 1992 and 1993, respectively. Trawl gear\nfisheries for Alaska groundfish also account for more than 99 percent of the salmon bycatch by the Alaska groundfish fisheries.\nThese fish are dead when brought on board a vessel and must be returned to Federal waters as prohibited species once a NMFS-\ncertified observer has determined the number of salmon and completed the collection of any biological or scientific data.\nThe incidental salmon mortality experienced in the groundfish fisheries is one of several competing uses of the fully utilized salmon\nresource. Salmon also are used as catch and bycatch in directed commercial, subsistence, and sport salmon fisheries and as bycatch\nin other non-salmon and non-groundfish fisheries. Salmon used as bycatch in the groundfish fisheries and in other fisheries can\nexacerbate the management problem associated with the allocation of salmon among escapement goals set by Alaska State\nmanagement policy and the terminal salmon fisheries. The groundfish fisheries may result in reduced escapement or harvest in the\nsalmon fisheries, thereby imposing a cost on other salmon users.\nThe action would authorized the retention and processing of salmon taken as bycatch in the Alaska trawl fisheries for donation to\nneedy individuals. The intent of this action is to reduce bycatch and waste and potentially provide the opportunity to collect\nadditional data that would support a more long-term solution to the salmon bycatch problem.\nRegulation Summary: The Salmon Donation Program authorizes the distribution of Pacific Salmon taken as bycatch in\nthe groundfish trawl fisheries in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska to economically disadvantaged individuals through NMFS\nauthorized distributor selected by the Regional Director in accordance with federal regulations implemented under the FMP.\nAnalysis: A 24-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March 1996) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the\nstatus quo were considered. Under the status quo alternative, all bycaught salmon would be retained until a NMFS-certified observer\nhas determined the number of salmon and collected any biological or scientific data. Salmon could not be retained for reasons other\nthan the collection of biological or scientific data and ultimately must be discarded in Federal waters as a prohibited species. The\nother alternative not chosen would have mandated that every salmon taken in the Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries be retained,\nprocessed for human consumption, and donated to a nonprofit foodbank organization. Because NMFS's authority under the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act to directly regulate harvesting and processing fishery resources is limited to the EEZ, this alternative was\nnot developed further but instead provided a qualitative comparison with the other alternatives.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, many fishing companies have voluntarily participated in the donation program.\nThrough 1998, the authorized distributor, Northwest Food Strategies, has distributed over 3 million pounds (approximately 12 million\nmeals) of donated salmon and halibut to needy people. Under Amendment 50, the donation program was expanded to include halibut.","GOA Amendment 30\nResearch Plan\nDates: GOA Amendment 30 (BSAI Amendment 27) was adopted by the Council in June 1992, then reconsidered and adopted\nas revised in December 1993. NMFS published a proposed rule on May 6, 1994 (59 FR 23664) and a final rule on September 6, 1994\n(59 FR 46126). Effective date of implementation was October 6, 1994. Amendment 1 (which delayed implementation until 1997)\nto the research plan was announced on December 26, 1995 (60 66755).\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 18 to the groundfish FMPs authorized a comprehensive domestic fishery observer program.\nThe 1990 and 1991 observer programs required specific levels of observer coverage which varied with size of fishing vessel and\nquantity of fish processed by floating and shoreside processors. These requirements were established because it was recognized that\nliving marine resources could not be effectively managed without the types of information that were either available only or most\nefficiently through an observer program.\nThe observer programs required that owners and operators of vessels and shoreside processing facilities participating in the\ngroundfish fishery arrange for and pay for the cost of placing observers aboard their vessels and at their shoreside processing facilities\nbeginning in January, 1990. Each vessel or processor required to have observer coverage is responsible for the cost of obtaining the\nrequired observers from a certified contractor. The cost averaged between $5,800 and $7,100 per observer month in 1991. There\nwere three problems identified for this method of paying for observer coverage. It was not an equitable system in that some\noperations payed for 100% coverage and others did not pay anything, it limited the ability of the NMFS to effectively manage the\nobserver program, and it may have resulted in a conflict of interest that could reduce the credibility of observer data. The Research\nplan was designed to address these three problems. Industry support for such a change is demonstrated by the willingness and ability\nof the industry to convince Congress to amend the Act to allow the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan to be established and paid\nfor by a broad-based system of user fees. The proposed plan was to be applicable to the groundfish, halibut, and BSAI crab fisheries.\nRegulation Summary: The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized the Council and the Secretary to establish a North Pacific\nFisheries Research Plan which: (1) requires that observers be stationed on fishing vessels and at fish processing facilities, and (2)\nestablishes a system of fees to pay for the cost of implementing the Research Plan. The Research Plan, as adopted under this\namendment, contained four objectives and elements that included observer employment and contracts, observer duties, data collection\nand transmission, annual determination on coverage level, inseason changes to coverage levels, establishment of an observer\noversight committee, coordination between the NMFS groundfish and ADF&G shellfish observer programs, a fee assessment (up\nto 2% of ex-vessel value of harvested fish), and details on fee collection and contingency plans in case of funding shortfalls.\nAnalysis: A 26-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March 22, 1994), together with a lengthy (100+ pp.) appendix section, was\nprepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the status quo were considered. Under the status quo alternative, the\nauthority to establish a research plan would not be used, existing observer coverage requirements and contracting arrangements would\nbe used, and no observer program would be implemented for the halibut fishery. The alternative adopted provided for a research plan\nto address problems identified with the existing observer program.\nResults: Though the amendment was approved, it was never fully implemented. Instead, implementation was delayed one year,\nthen replaced with a modified pay-as-you-go system adopted under Amendments 47/47. Start up fees were collected by NMFS in\nthe first year of implementation (1995), but the Council repealed the Research Plan due to various concerns, including the possibility\nthat the fee would not cover all necessary coverage levels. Fees were refunded following the repeal of the Plan. Since that time the\nCouncil has requested redevelopment of fee plan alternatives and will be evaluate possible options through 2000 and 2001.","Atka Mackerel Separation\nGOA Amendment 31\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 28 was adopted by the Council in June 1993. NMFS published a (corrected) notice\nof availability on July 26, 1993 (58 FR 42758) and a notice of approval on October 22, 1993 (58 FR 54553). Effective date of\nimplementation was October 18, 1993.\nPurpose and Need: Atka mackerel was an important target species of the foreign fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. The directed\nfishery for this species waned and through lack of interest by the domestic fishery, was combined with \"other species\" in 1988. The\n\"other species\" category was intended to allow for bycatch of species of minor commercial importance such as sculpins, skates, squid,\nsmelts, etc. The \"other species\" category has been generally available as a Gulf-wide TAC equal to five percent of the sum of TACs\nfor all target fisheries.\nIn 1990, a directed fishery resumed when a closure of the Atka mackerel fishery in the BSAI resulted in vessels moving into the\nWestern GOA to continue targeting this species. The fishery expanded significantly in 1992 (13,835 mt), and accounted for almost\nthe entire TAC of 'other species\" in the GOA. As a result, \"other species\" became non-retainable early in the year (May) in the entire\nGOA. This closure preempted fishing for \"other species\" and caused discarding of minor species such as octopus. In 1993, Atka\nmackerel were again targeted in the GOA, accounting for almost the entire TAC of other species in the Western GOA. As a result,\n\"other species\" was closed to directed fishing early in the year (April 2) in the Western GOA.\nThe GOA FMP defined other species as groundfish species and/or species groups, which currently are only of slight economic\nimportance or contain economically valuable species but insufficient data exist to allow separate management. Atka mackerel no\nlonger met this definition. The purpose for the proposed amendment was to improve management of the Atka mackerel resource in\nthe Gulf of Alaska. By establishing Atka mackerel as a target species, harvest levels would be based on biological stock assessments.\nThe proposed amendment would not only reduce the potential for overfishing Atka mackerel, but also allow for increased harvesting\nof the \"other species\" complex, and reduce user conflicts within the Western GOA.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 31 created a separate target category for Atka mackerel in the GOA groundfish FMP.\nThis meant that harvest levels of Atka mackerel would be based on biological stock assessments. Although the catch would primarily\noccur in the Western Gulf, TAC's for Atka mackerel would be set Gulfwide to avoid waste and discarding of the small amount caught\nin the other subareas. The species composition of the other species category would remain the same, with the exception of Atka\nmackerel. TACs for other species in the GOA would increase to include\n5% of the TAC for Atka mackerel.\nCatch specifications (mt) for Atka mackerel\nin the GOA.\nAnalysis: A 45 page EA (final draft dated July 3, 1993) was prepared for\nthis amendment. Two alternatives including the status quo were considered.\nYear\nABC\nTAC\nCatch\nThe alternative chosen was more conservative in establishing a biologically\n1994\n4,800\n3,500\n3,540\nbased acceptable biological catch level for this species in the GOA, rather\n1995\n3,240\n3,240\n700\nthan allowing for relatively unrestricted catch.\n1996\n3,240\n3,240\n1,580\n1997\n1,000\n1,000\n330\nResults: In the late 1980s, an Atka mackerel population existed in\n1998\n600\n600\n316\nthe GOA primarily in the Shumagin Islands area. By the late 1990s,\n1999\n600\n600\n262\nthe TAC was set at bycatch levels (600 mt) because there is no\n2000\n600\n600\nreliable estimate of current biomass and the species has exhibited\nna\nvulnerability to fishing pressure in a foreign trawl fishery in the\n1970s and early 1980s.","Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan\nGOA Amendment 32\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 32 was adopted by the Council in September 1993. NMFS published final rule on\nApril 15, 1994 (59 FR 18103). Effective date of implementation was March 31, 1994.\nPurpose and Need: The purpose of this amendment was to establish a plan to rebuild stocks of the rockfish Pacific ocean\nperch (POP) (Sebastes alutus) in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). POP is a highly valued groundfish. It was heavily exploited by a foreign\ntrawl fleet from the early 1960's until the mid-1970's. Thereafter, a domestic at-sea processing fleet harvested POP at a substantially\nlower rate. Catches of POP peaked in 1965 when an estimated 350,000 metric tons (mt) were harvested by the foreign fleet; catches\ndeclined sharply in the late 1960's. From 1961-1977, annual POP landings averaged over 40,000 mt; after 1977, landings averaged\n6,000 mt. In the domestic fishery, POP was managed as part of a larger slope rockfish assemblage of about 20 species until 1991,\nwhen POP was established as a separate target species category to prevent possible overfishing. As a result of increased concern\nabout the status of POP stocks, biomass assessment methodology has been improved and domestic harvest levels have been reduced.\nThe 1993 total allowable catch (TAC) of 2,560 mt was available only as incidental bycatch in other groundfish fisheries. In recent\nyears POP has been managed as a single species, harvest levels have been reduced, and directed fisheries have been restricted or\neliminated. In spite of this conservative management in recent years, POP biomass has increased only slightly and remains depressed\nfrom historic levels. The intent of this amendment was to minimize POP mortality necessary to maximize the probability of\nrebuilding success in a realistic time period.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative chosen was projected in modeling simulations to rebuild POP biomass to a target\nlevel (BMSY) in about 14 years by harvesting POP at a fishing mortality rate lower than the optimum rate. The target biomass BMSY\nis the total biomass of mature females that would produce the maximum sustainable yield, on average; this number is currently\nestimated at 150,000 mt. The optimal fishing mortality rate is the rate that maximizes expected biological and economic yields over\na range of plausible stock-recruitment relationships.\nAmendment 32 establishes the procedure for deriving the annual GOA TACs for POP. POP stocks are considered to be rebuilt when\nthe total biomass of mature females is equal to, or greater than, BMSY. Annual TACs will be established as follows:\n1) determine the current biomass, BMSY, and the optimal fishing mortality rate;\n2) determine the fishing mortality rate halfway between the optimal fishing mortality rate and the fishing mortality rate estimated\nto be sufficient to supply unavoidable bycatch of POP based on 1992 bycatch rates;\nwhen the current biomass of mature females is less than BMSY, adjust the resultant fishing mortality rate in (b) by the ratio of\n3)\ncurrent biomass to BMSY. When BMSY is attained, the fishing mortality rate will be the optimal fishing mortality rate;\n4) the GOA TAC of POP is the amount of fish resulting\nfrom the adjusted fishing mortality rate in (c); and\nGULF OF ALASKA POP\n5) the TAC is apportioned among regulatory areas in\nAbundance and Recruitment Trend\nproportion to POP biomass distribution.\n400\n200\n86 yc\nAnalysis: An 86-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated\nBiomass\n160\n300\nNovember 8, 1993) was prepared for this amendment. Four\nalternatives including the status quo were considered. The\n120\n200\nother alternatives would have established a slower\n80\nrebuilding schedule (11 years) via an optimal fishing\n100\nmortality rate or a faster schedule (18 years) by prohibiting\n40\na directed fishery for Pacific Ocean Perch. The alternative\n0\n0\nchosen was a fishing mortality rate that was intermediate\nbetween the optimal rate and a bycatch only rate.\n77\n79\n81\n83\n85\n87\n89\n91\n93\n95\n97\n99\nYear\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the stock\nhas been rebuilding to target levels. In 1996, Amendment\n38 was implemented to allow the POP TAC to be set at or below the amount dictated by the rebuilding plan's algorithm. The current\nfemale spawning biomass (B 2000 = 92,920 mt) is quickly nearing target levels (B40% = 110,120 The current spawning biomass\nis much larger than it was in 1992 due to good recruitment and low fishing mortality.","Kodiak Pelagic Trawl Closures (Withdrawn)\nGOA Amendment 33\nDates: An EA/RIR/IRFA was developed for proposed Amendment 33 to the GOA FMP to close the crab protection zones around\nKodiak Island to all trawling. Amendment 33 was withdrawn by the Council in April 1993.\nPurpose and Need: Under Amendment 26, time/area closures and crab protection zones around Kodiak became permanent.\nThese restrictions afforded protection to king crab in some areas during their molting or soft-shell period while in other areas it\nprotected crabs from trawls year-round. The closures applied to bottom trawling operations only. In January 1993, the NOAA Office\nof Enforcement expressed concern about the effectiveness of the amendment as adopted by the Council. Most trawl vessels that\noperate around Kodiak do not have full-time observer coverage, and the only way NOAA can enforce closures is by aerial\nsurveillance. Air surveillance can rarely distinguish between a pelagic and bottom trawl operation. The Council asked staff to analyze\na closure to all trawling in light of the enforcement difficulties. The purpose of this amendment was to fully meet the Council's intent\nto protect crab habitat under Amendment 26.\nAnalysis: A 25-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated April 1993) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives were\nconsidered: 1) the status quo, and 2) closing the time/area crab protection zones around Kodiak Island as specified under Amendment\n26 to all trawling, including pelagic trawling. The analysis indicated that the proposed alternative would make enforcement of crab\nclosures by aerial surveillance more effective and less costly, as all vessels observed fishing with trawls in the closed areas would\nbe in violation. The analysis also noted that bycatch rates of pelagic trawls in the Gulf of Alaska are very low.\nResults: The Council noted that the analysis indicated that closing these areas to pelagic trawling could reduce some important\nnearshore pollock fishing grounds, and that the existing closures have been closely monitored by the Kodiak fishing industry for\nseveral years. On the basis of effective self-enforcement, the Council moved not to send the analysis out for public review and the\namendment was effectively withdrawn from further consideration.","Community Development Quota Program\nAmendment 34\nDates: Amendment 34 to the FMP for the Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska was adopted by the Council in April 1994 along with\nAmendment 30 to the FMP for the Groundfish of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. Final rule was published August 24, 1994,\nand\nthe effective date of implementation was September 23, 1994 (59 FR 43502). NMFS published the proposed rule on May 31, 1994\n(59 FR 28048).\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 34 to the GOA FMP corrected the inadvertent inclusion of the Community Development\nQuota (CDQ) program in the FMP by removing and reserving section 4.4.1.1.8 on \"Community Development Quotas\". The CDQ\nprogram was designed to promote the revitalization of rural communities in Western Alaska by providing those communities access\nto nearby fishery resources. The 55 communities originally designated as eligible for the program formed six geographical groups:\nAleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA); Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation\n(BBEDC); Central Bering Sea Fisherman's Association (CBSFA); Coastal Villages Region Fund (CVRF); Norton Sound Economic\nDevelopment Corporation (NSEDC); and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA). Because the program exists\nfor Western Alaska communities, the Community Development Quota Program should have been included in the FMP for the\nGroundfish of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, but not the Gulf of Alaska. Amendment 30 to the FMP for the Bering Sea/Aleutian\nIslands addressed the 12% limit for allocation to individual CDQ applicants that was placed in the FMPs for the BSAI and the GOA\nand in the implementing regulations in 1992. This amendment raised the allocation limit of the sablefish CDQ reserve from 12% to\n33% in the FMP for the BSAI, so that the total sablefish CDQ reserve could be fully allocated and harvested.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved raised the sablefish Community Development Quota allocation\nlimit for qualified applicants from 12% to 33% in order to allow total allocation of the sablefish CDQ reserve; removed the\ninadvertent inclusion of the CDQ program in the FMP for the GOA; and expanded the types of evidence that may be used to verify\nvessel leases for the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota program. It was emphasized that this action did not change the\namount of sablefish available for harvest by persons participating in the Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ program.\nAnalysis: No analysis was necessary for the preparation of Amendment 34. The amendment simply removed an inadvertent\nreference to the Community Development Quota Program from the FMP for the Gulf of Alaska.\nResults: The result of the amendment was to correct the FMP for the Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska so that it does not include\na section on the CDQ program.","Quota Share Blocks\nGOA Amendment 35\nDates: GOA Amendment 35 was adopted by the Council in 1994 along with BSAI Amendment 31 and a regulatory amendment\naffecting the Pacific halibut fishery in and off the State of Alaska. NMFS published the proposed rule to implement the Modified\nBlock Proposal and clarify the transfer process for the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program on June 28, 1994 (59 FR\n33272). Effective date of implementation was November 7, 1994 (59 FR 51135; October 7, 1994.)\nPurpose and Need: The IFQ program, implemented in 1995, assigned the privilege of harvesting a percentage of the sablefish\nand halibut quota to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the fisheries. Quota shares can be bought and sold, allowing\npeople who did not receive an initial allocation the option to buy or lease quota. Concern over the potential for excessive\nconsolidation of quota shares, the projected reduction of the longline fleet, and the social and economic effects on coastal\ncommunities, shore-based processors, and fishermen was the impetus for Amendment 31. Amendment 31, implementation of the\nModified Block Proposal, was intended to reduce the maximum potential consolidation relative to the existing IFQ program by\nsignificantly increasing the theoretical minimum number of quota share holders and thereby easing the transition from open access\nto IFQs.\nThe purpose of this amendment is to provide for improved long-term productivity of the sablefish and halibut fisheries, by further\npromoting the conservation and management objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut Act. In addition to sustaining\nthe health of the fisheries, the Council needed to address the issue of protecting small producers, part-time participants, and entry-\nlevel participants who may tend to disappear because of potential excessive consolidation under the IFQ program. The purpose of\nthe amendment is to protect the viability of these small entities without interfering with the opportunities currently available under\nthe IFQ program for larger operations.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved provided that initial allocations of quota share that represent\nless than 20,000 lb of IFQ in the implementation year will be issued as a block, 2) quota share that represents 20,000 lb or more of\nIFQ in the implementation year will be \"unblocked\" quota share, and 3) quota share in a block cannot be separated and will have\nto be transferred as a block. Fishermen could own two blocks of halibut and two blocks of sablefish quota share in each area, but\npersons holding any amount of unblocked quota share are limited to one block of quota share per area. A sweep up provision allowed\nfishermen to combine small amounts into fishable amounts: halibut blocks can be combined to a sum of less than 1,000 lbs and\nsablefish blocks can be combined until the sum reaches 3,000 lbs. The amendment also clarified that blocked and unblocked quota\nshare would be transferable subject to the approval of the NMFS Regional Director and the regulations. The Modified Block Proposal\ncreated the potential that some quota share would become non-transferable because the size would exceed the quota share use limits\nestablished in 50 CFR 676.22 (e) and (f); the alternative adopted solved the issue of nontransferability by allowing the transfer of\na quota share block exceeding the use limits by dividing the block into two blocks.\nAnalysis: A 283-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated May 25, 1994) was prepared for this amendment and adjoining\nAmendment 31 to the FMP for the groundfish of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. Without a block amendment, the IFQ program\ncould have potentially reduced the number of halibut and sablefish quota share fishermen to 200 and 100, respectively. Three separate\nblock proposals were considered to ameliorate this problem. The two alternatives that were not chosen would have created unique,\nvariable size blocks or partial blocks that could be transferred across catcher vessel classes, resulting in increased search and\ntransaction costs of persons who want to sell or buy additional quota share. The alternative chosen allowed persons to purchase\nrelatively small amounts of quota share that is unblocked, but lowers transaction costs associated with blocked quota share.\nResults: Amendment 35 created both blocked and unblocked quota shares based on the 1994 quota. As anticipated, there has been\nsome consolidation of quota share to fewer persons than received quota share by initial issuance, but significantly less so than if the\nblock proposal not been added. The total number of initial issuees (unique number of people) in the halibut fishery was 4,827, which\nwas reduced to 3,795 by the end of 1998. The total number of issuees in the sablefish fishery was 1,048, reduced to 919 by the end\nof 1998. The number of unique vessels landing halibut and sablefish before the IFQ program was 3,450 and 1,139 in 1994, and by\n1998 the number of vessels was reduced to 1,601 and 449, respectively.","Transfer of CDQ compensation quota shares\nGOA Amendment 36\nDates: GOA amendment 36 was adopted by the Council in 1995 along with BSAI amendment 32 to relieve transfer restrictions\non Community Development Quota (CDQ) compensation quota shares (QS). NMFS published a proposed rule that would implement\nGOA Amendment 36 and BSAI Amendment 32 on October 13, 1995 (60 53331). Effective date of implementation was February\n23, 1996. (61 FR 1844; January 24, 1996.)\nPurpose and Need: The Community Development Quota (CDQ) program was proposed in conjunction with the IFQ program\nfor sablefish and halibut management. The CDQ program apportioned designated percentages of the annual fixed gear total allowable\ncatch (TAC) of sablefish and halibut to eligible Western Alaska communities, intending to provide near-shore communities with\nlong-term, stable employment and access to the fishery resource. Apportioning part of the fixed gear TAC to communities reduced\nthe amount of that TAC available for harvest by persons receiving annual allocations of IFQ. As a result, CDQ compensation quota\nshares were issued as partial compensation to persons who received (reduced) quota shares in CDQ areas.\nTwo problems were identified that inhibited the current transfer of CDQ compensation quota shares. Firstly, most CDQ\ncompensation QS would be issued in allocations of less than 20,000 lbs and therefore would be blocked under the block provision,\nmeaning it is nonseverable (see BSAI Amendment 31/GOA Amendment 35). The block provision was added to the IFQ program\nto prevent excessive consolidation of fishing privileges. Blocked quota share, especially small blocks such as the CDQ compensation\nQS, is difficult to market because of the two-block limit; thus creating a significant barrier to transfer. The second problem is that\nthe IFQ program allowed transfer of quota shares only within the same vessel category. This provision was included to prevent\nsignificant consolidation into large vessel operations. However, residents of CDQ areas traditionally employed smaller vessels than\nthe non-residents who received initially issued quota shares in the CDQ areas, making it difficult for residents of CDQ areas to\nincrease their holdings as they must purchase larger vessels as well as initially issued quota share in the larger vessel categories.\nAmendments 32 and 36 were proposed to relieve the unintended consequences of the IFQ transfer restrictions, which are contrary\nto the original purpose of providing CDQ compensation quota shares. By relieving the existing transfer restrictions on initial\nrecipients of CDQ compensation quota shares, it effectively increases the remunerative value of those shares and facilitates the full\nutilization of the allocated resources managed under the IFQ program.\nRegulation Summary: The amendment exempted some CDQ compensation QS from the block provision and allowed for\na one year period of relief (one-time transfer) from the restriction against transferring CDQ compensation QS across vessel length\ncategories. Regulations state that if a person is issued CDQ compensation QS for an area where the person already has regular QS,\nthen their CDQ compensation QS is combined with their existing QS and is either \"blocked\" or \"unblocked\" depending on the sum\ntotal of their QS (this makes much of the CDQ compensation QS unidentifiable after issuance). If a person is issued CDQ\ncompensation QS for an area in which the person doesn't have other QS, the QS is left unblocked. The exemption does not include\nCategory \"A\" vessels-vessels of any length authorized to process IFQ species.\nAnalysis: A 21-page Regulatory Impact Review (final draft dated January 1995) was prepared for this amendment. Including\nthe status quo, two alternatives addressing the block provision and three alternatives addressing the transfer across vessel length\nclasses were considered. The option that was not chosen would have allowed\" \"pooling\" of quota shares with other compensation\nshare holders, as opposed to exempting CDQ compensation QS from the block provision in perpetuity. With regard to transfer across\nvessel length classes, the other alternative not chosen would have allowed a one-time trade across vessel classes as defined by a\ntransaction involving initially issued large vessel QS in CDQ areas and small vessel CDQ compensation QS in non-CDQ areas. The\nalternative chosen is more flexible by not defining the type of transaction allowed.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, coastal communities that rely on the small vessel fleet have benefitted by having\nIFQ in more accessible areas. The action did not significantly change the overall character of the fleet because CDQ compensation\nquota share accounted for only 3.5% of the total amount of quota share issued in the non-CDQ areas of the Gulf of Alaska; therefore,\nthe net gain or loss in any one vessel length category has been insignificant. A report examining the distribution of all QS by block\nstatus shows that 69.2% of the QS in the BSAI was blocked at the end of 1998. In the Gulf of Alaska, percentage of blocked QS\nranged from 7.6% in the Central Gulf to 20.1% in the Western Gulf. In addition, the amount of swappable CDQ compensation\nQS-catcher vessel QS that can be fished on any size vessel until its first transfer-declined sharply by year-end 1998, even though\nthere were very few actual swaps of this type of QS to other vessel categories. Most of the decline came from regular transfers, where\nCDQ compensation QS also loses its swappable status. Over the 1995-98 time period there were only 5 swaps in Southeast area, 4\nin West Yakutat, and 3 each in the Central and Western Gulf.","Processing of Non-IFQ Species\nAmendment 37\nDates: Amendments 37 to the GOA and 33 to the BSAI were adopted by the Council in 1996. NMFS published a proposed rule\nthat would implement both amendments on April 2, 1996 (61 FR 14547). Effective date of implementation was July 26, 1996. (61\nFR 33382; June 27, 1996.)\nPurpose and Need: The IFQ program was designed to promote the conservation and management objectives of the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act and Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The program was implemented in 1995 and assigned the privilege of\nharvesting a percentage of the sablefish and halibut quota to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the fisheries. Persons\nreceive an annual allocation of IFQ and are authorized to harvest IFQ species.\nIncluded in the IFQ program is a provision prohibiting the processing (freezing) of fish, other than IFQ halibut or sablefish, on board\na harvesting freezer vessel if, along with that fish, IFQ sablefish were harvested by a person who has catcher vessel quota shares of\nsablefish. The Council's intent in allowing the use of catcher vessel quota share on freezer vessels was to increase the fishing\nopportunities of IFQs held by crew members. The prohibition on freezing non-IFQ species came out of a Council concern that, if\nthe owners of large, industrial-type processing vessels could harvest IFQ species with IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, and\nD while processed fish are on board, these operators could acquire the majority of the \"catcher vessel\" quota share that would\nnormally be harvested by smaller boats without processing capabilities. These smaller vessels usually use shoreside local processors\nin coastal communities. The Council did not want to dramatically change the character of the fisheries and deprive coastal\ncommunities of the revenue generated by small vessel deliveries of IFQ species.\nThe combination of allowing catcher vessel quota share to be used on freezer vessels with the prohibition on processing non-IFQ\nspecies resulted in unanticipated waste of non-IFQ species caught incidentally to sablefish. Persons are required to retain all Pacific\ncod and rockfish caught incidentally to IFQ sablefish. Pacific cod and rockfish have a shorter \"shelf life\" than sablefish, and a typical\nsablefish fishing trip is too long to maintain sufficient quality of incidentally caught non-IFQ fish. Without the ability to freeze the\nnon-IFQ species, the fish was often landed in poor condition, decreasing the market value of the fish significantly.\nThe purpose of Amendments 37 and 33 was to address the lost revenue and waste that occurs because fish other than IFQ halibut\nand sablefish are discarded, or if not discarded, become a low quality product, due to the prohibition on processing fish other than\nIFQ halibut and sablefish.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved authorized the processing of fish other than IFQ halibut or\nIFQ sablefish on board the harvesting vessel by persons authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ\nassigned to vessel categories B or C. This authorization is not extended to persons authorized to harvest IFQ halibut, due to the fact\nthat halibut is characteristically prosecuted by local vessels that do not have onboard processing capabilities. Several modifications\nwere also made to the regulations implementing the IFQ program in order to accommodate the new provision. In addition, while non-\nIFQ species could be frozen onboard, the freezing of IFQ sablefish caught with catcher vessel quota share on a freezer vessel would\ncontinue to be prohibited.\nAnalysis: A 14-page EA/RIR (final draft dated March 8, 1996) was prepared for these amendments. The analysis determined\nthat the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and would not adversely\neffect shore-based plants because most of the bycatch of non-IFQ species would be discarded as the period of marketability of\nunprocessed product is typically exceeded. Two alternatives including the status quo were considered. The alternative chosen allows\nfor the freezing of non-IFQ species when catcher vessel quota share is used on freezer vessels.\nResults: In 1996, only thirty-eight sablefish quota share recipients in the freezer vessel category were eligible to use catcher vessel\nquota share from the 188 quota share holders in the less than 60 feet vessel class and 763 quota share holders in the greater than 60\nfeet vessel class. Allowing non-IFQ species caught incidentally to IFQ sablefish to be frozen onboard freezer longliners has\nsignificantly enhanced product quality and has allowed for the recovery of revenue otherwise lost to discards. The following is an\nestimate of commercial non-IFQ species landed by weight, for each 100 mt of sablefish landed in the BSAI longline sablefish fishery\nin 1999: 33 mt of Greenland turbot, 14 mt of rockfish, 2 mt of Pacific cod, and 4 mt of shortraker/rougheye (1999 Blend data). This\nequates to approximately half the weight of the targeted IFQ sablefish harvest-fish which would have potentially been discarded or\nin non-marketable condition had the prohibition on processing continued.","GOA Amendment 38\nRevised Pacific Ocean Perch Rebuilding Plan\nDates: Amendment 38 was adopted by the Council in December 1995. NMFS published a proposed rule to amend the Fishery\nManagement Plan for groundfish of the GOA on July 5, 1996 (61 FR 35174). and published approval of the amendment on October\n2, 1996 (61 FR 51374). Effective date of implementation was September 25, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: The continued decline of the Pacific ocean perch (POP) stock prompted the Council to recommend a\nrebuilding plan for POP, established in Amendment 32 to the Fishery Management Plan for the groundfish of the GOA (59 FR\n18103; April 15, 1994). The POP Rebuilding Plan provides a specific strategy for POP stocks, based on available biological and\neconomic information. The plan established an algorithm, or formula, to determine the annual POP total allowable catch (TAC),\nwhich is then apportioned among the regulatory areas in the Gulf of Alaska. However, the rebuilding plan neglected to allow for\nany flexibility to reduce the TAC below the amount specified by the formula.\nGiven this standard formula, it was possible for the TAC to be greater than the acceptable biological catch (ABC) determined by\nbiological and survey data and published in the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports. The TAC is\ndetermined using the formula in the Rebuilding Plan and is then apportioned to each regulatory area according to the percentage\nbiomass distribution used for the ABC apportionment. Approving a TAC greater than the acceptable biological catch is a practice\ninconsistent with the current management practices for other groundfish stocks and the conservation and management objectives\nof the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council also expressed concern with the inability to lower the TAC to accommodate other\npotential resource conservation issues.\nThe purpose of this amendment is to improve conservation and management of POP and to further the goals and objectives of the\nfishery management plan by providing the flexibility to lower the calculated TAC for Pacific ocean perch based on biological or\nresource conservation concerns.\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved allowed the Council to recommend a POP total allowable\ncatch at or below the amount dictated by the formula in the Rebuilding Plan. The regulations specify that any downward adjustments\nwould be based on biological or resource conservation concerns about the POP stock or associated with the POP fishery that are\nnot accounted for in the Rebuilding Plan or the annual stock assessment reports. The amendment only gives the Council the\nalternative of recommending a lower POP TAC based on resource conservation concerns, and not socioeconomic concerns. Under\nAmendment 38, the formula in the Rebuilding Plan would be considered the upper bound limit for the POP TAC.\nAnalysis: An 18-page EA (final draft dated June 1996) was prepared and an Interim Report on the Status of the Pacific Ocean\nPerch Rebuilding Plan in the Gulf of Alaska (Heifetz et al 1995) was submitted for this amendment. Three alternatives including\nthe status quo were considered. The other alternative would have re-evaluated the entire POP Rebuilding Plan to reconsider the\nCouncil's intended harvest strategy. The alternative chosen would not change the general direction established by the earlier\nRebuilding Plan except to allow the Council more flexibility in recommending the annual TAC if the Council identified specific\nbiological or conservation issues that were not adequately addressed by the formula TAC level.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, the Council has continued to approve conservative TACs for the POP stock in the\nGulf of Alaska as it rebuilds. The 1996 Stock\nAssessment and Fishery Evaluation report stated that the\nGULF OF ALASKA POP\n1996 triennial trawl surveys indicated substantially\nAbundance and Recruitment Trend\nincreased biomass estimates since the 1993 survey.\nHowever, in order to ensure the stock was fully\n400\n200\nrecovered, the 1997 TAC was set at 80% of the Western\n86 yc\nBiomass\n160\nand Central Gulf ABC and the TAC from 1996 was\n300\nrolled over for the Eastern Gulf. Since then the stock\n120\nstatus has continued to improve, yet the annual TACs\n200\nhave been set below the ABCs SO as to remain\n80\nprecautionary. The TACs for 1997, 1998 and 1999\n100\nincreased to 9,190 mt, 10,776 mt and 12,590 mt,\n40\nrespectively; while the 2000 TAC was set equal to the\n0\n0\nABC of 13,020 mt.\n77\n79\n81\n83\n85\n87\n89\n91\n93\n95\n97\n99\nYear","GOA Amendment 39\nForage Fish Category\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 39 (BSAI Amendment 36) was adopted by the Council in April 1997. NMFS\npublished the final rule on March 17, 1998 (63 FR 13009). Effective date of implementation was April 16, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: Forage fish are abundant fishes that are preyed upon by marine mammals, seabirds and commercially\nimportant groundfish species. Forage fish perform a critical role in the complex ecosystem functions of the BSAI and the GOA by\nproviding the transfer of energy from the primary or secondary producers to higher trophic levels. Significant declines in marine\nmammals and seabirds in the BSAI and GOA have raised concerns that decreases in the forage fish biomass may contribute to the\nfurther decline of marine mammal, seabird and commercially important fish populations. Forage fish are the principal diet of more\nthan two thirds of Alaskan seabirds. In addition, many seabirds can subsist on a variety of invertebrates and fish during\nnonbreeding months but can only raise their nestlings on forage fish. Small forage fish such as capelin, herring, sandlance and\neulachon also have been recognized as important prey items for a variety of marine mammal species including: Northern fur seal,\nSteller sea lion, harbor seal, spotted seal, bearded seal, humpback whale and fin whale.\nRegulation Summary: This amendment defined a forage fish species category and authorized that the management of this\nspecies category be specified in regulations in a manner that prevents the development of a commercial directed fishery for forage\nfish which are a critical food source for many marine mammal, seabird and fish species. Forage fish species are not included in a\ntarget species category. Management measures for the forage fish category will be specified in regulations and may include\nprohibitions on directed fishing, limitations on allowable bycatch retention amounts, or limitations on the sale, barter, trade or any\nother commercial exchange, as well as the processing of forage fish in a commercial processing facility.\nThe forage fish species category would include all species of the following families:\nOsmeridae (eulachon, capelin and other smelts),\nMyctophidae (lanternfishes),\nBathylagidae (deep-sea smelts),\nAmmodytidae (Pacific sand lance),\nTrichodontidae (Pacific sand fish),\nPholidae (gunnels),\nStichaeidae (pricklebacks, warbonnets, eelblennys, cockscombs and shannys),\nGonostomatidae (bristlemouths, lightfishes, and anglemouths),\nand the Order Euphausiacea (krill).\nAnalysis: A 59 page EA/RIR (final draft dated January 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including\nthe status quo were considered, along with 4 options for the non-status quo alternative. The options not chosen would have put\nforage fish in the other species category or the prohibited species category. The alternative chosen protected forage fish by\nprohibiting a directed fishery and the sale and barter of forage fish. The amendment also reduced waste by allowing retention (up\nto a maximum retainable bycatch amount as set in regulations) and processing (into fishmeal) those forage fish caught incidentally\nin groundfish fisheries.\nResults: No commercial fishery has been allowed to develop on forage fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska.","Inshore/Offshore Allocations II\nGOA Amendment 40\nDates: The Council adopted Amendment 40 (BSAI Amendment 38) in June 1995. NMFS published a proposed rule to amend\nthe Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the groundfish of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and the FMP for the groundfish of the\nGulf of Alaska on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48087). The final rule was published on December 12, 1995. Effective date of\nimplementation was January 1, 1996 (60 FR 63654).\nPurpose and Need: Amendments 38 and 40 extended the provisions of Amendment 18 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment\n23 to the GOA FMP, which expired on December 31, 1995. Amendments 18 and 23 (FR Notice 57(107)23321-23346; June 3, 1992)\nset inshore and offshore processor allocations of pollock in the BSAI and pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA, respectively, as a\nresponse to an early closure in 1989 when several catcher/processors harvested substantial amounts of pollock in the BSAI and GOA\nand forced an early closure of the GOA pollock fishery. Amendment 18 allocated 35% of the 1992 non-roe pollock season TAC to\nthe inshore sector, and the remainder to the offshore sector. Shortly after, a 35-65% inshore/offshore split was set in a revised\namendment for the years 1993-1995. Amendment 23 provided for an allocation of 90% of the Pacific cod TAC and 100% of the\npollock TAC to the GOA inshore sector. In addition, the Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA) and the Community Development\nQuota (CDQ) program in the BSAI were established. The CVOA limited access to pollock within the area to catcher vessels\ndelivering to either inshore or offshore processors. The CDQ program allocated 7.5% of the BSAI pollock TAC to CDQ fisheries.\nAmendments 38 and 40 were necessary to extend the inshore/offshore allocations set in Amendments 18 and 23 through December\n31, 1998. The purpose of the amendments was to keep the fishery from turning back into the \"free-for-all\" it represented previously.\nSince the original inshore/offshore allocation, the Council had been working toward developing a long-term, comprehensive plan\nfor rationalizing all the groundfish and crab fisheries in and off of Alaska. By the end of 1995, when it was evident that the plan\nwould not be ready for implementation before the inshore/offshore allocations expired, the Council determined it was necessary to\nextend the provisions of Amendments 18 and 23 for an additional three years in order to maintain stability in the industry, facilitate\nfurther development of the comprehensive management regime, and allow for the realization of the goals and objectives of the\npollock CDQ program.\nRegulation Summary: The provisions of BSAI Amendment 18 became the basis of Amendment 38, and the provisions\nof\nGOA Amendment 23 became the basis for Amendment 40. Thus, in the BSAI the apportionments of pollock in each subarea and\nseason would be allocated 35% for processing by the inshore sector and 65% by the offshore sector. In the GOA, the apportionment\nof pollock would be allocated entirely for processing by the inshore sector, and the apportionment of Pacific cod would be allocated\n90% for the inshore sector, 10% for the offshore sector.\nAnalysis: A 268-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated August 1, 1995) and several appendices were prepared for this amendment.\nTwo alternatives were considered: 1) No action, and 2) continuation of the current program for a period of three additional years\n(1996-1998), including the pollock CDQ program as an unseverable element of the overall package. The analysis reiterated the\nCouncil's intent not to consider alternative inshore/offshore allocation percentages, as that would likely require significant new and\ncomplex economic analyses, create unnecessary delays in implementing an allocation scheme, and be inconsistent with the overall\nintent to develop a more long-term solution through the Comprehensive Management Plan process.\nResults: This amendment simply retained the existing inshore/offshore pollock processing allocations for an additional three-year\nperiod, through 1998. Stability within and among industry sectors, and associated communities and participants, was maintained\nby this amendment.","License Limitation Program\nGOA Amendment 41\nDates: The Council took final action to recommend Amendment 41 in June 1995. The amendment was adopted with Amendment\n39 to the FMP for groundfish of the BSAI and Amendment 5 to the FMP for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the\nBSAI. NMFS published a proposed rule on Amendment 41 on August 15, 1997 (62FR43866). NMFS published the final rule on\nOctober 1, 1998, with an effective date of January 1, 1999. Following application and appeals, actual implementation occurred\nJanuary 1, 2000.\nPurpose and Need: In 1992, the Council committed to rationalize the groundfish and crab fisheries and begin development\nof a Comprehensive Rationalization Plan (CRP). The CRP was prompted by concerns that expansion of the domestic harvesting fleet,\nin excess of that needed to efficiently harvest the optimum yield, was burdening compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and\nseverely deteriorating the economic benefits derived from the crab and groundfish fisheries. The Council examined several\nmanagement alternatives including license limitation programs, individual fishing quotas (IFQs), and more traditional measures, and\ndetermined that a limited entry program had the most potential to address the immediate overcapitalization problems of the industry.\nAs a result, the Council approved the License Limitation Program (LLP) in 1995, recognizing the need for further rationalization\nin the future development of an IFQ system.\nThe overall purpose of the LLP is to help resolve the competing and oftentimes conflicting needs of the domestic fisheries that\ndeveloped under open access and to close the gap between fishing capacity and the available fishery resource. The LLP limits the\nnumber, size, and specific operation of vessels fishing crab and groundfish in the BSAI and GOA based on historical participation.\nDuring the design and refinement of the LLP, the Vessel Moratorium Program (VMP) was implemented to provide industry stability\nand curtail interim increases in fishing capacity. The intent was for the LLP to replace the VMP upon implementation\nAmendment 39 also expanded the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program by including in CDQ allocations a percentage\nof the total allowable catch (TAC) of groundfish and crab species in the BSAI that was not previously included in the existing CDQ\nprograms for pollock, halibut, and sablefish.\nRegulation Summary: The final rule limited access to the commercial groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA and\ncommercial crab fisheries in the BSAI, except for demersal shelf rockfish east of 140° W. longitude and sablefish managed under\nthe IFQ program. The rule provided for the following: issuance of a single type of groundfish license; LLP is not applicable to waters\nof the State of Alaska; licenses would be issued to current owners (as of 6/17/95) of qualified vessels; licenses would be designated\nas catcher vessel or catcher/processor and with one of three vessel length classes; the crab and groundfish base qualifying period is\n1/1/88-6/27/92 and the groundfish area endorsement qualifying period is 1/1/92-6/17/95; endorsement areas are defined as Aleutian\nIslands, Bering Sea, Western Gulf Central Gulf, and Southeast Outside, or state waters shoreward of those endorsement areas; landing\nrequirements for general license and area endorsement qualifications by vessel class; and additional provisions addressing crossover\nvessels, transfers, and vessel linkages. The rule also included in CDQ allocations 7.5% of the TAC of groundfish and crab in the\nBSAI that was not originally included in the CDQ programs for pollock, halibut, and sablefish.\nAnalysis: A final EA/RIR (dated September 1997) and several supplemental analyses considered the status quo and a general\nlicense limitation alternative. Out of a comprehensive list of elements and options the Council considered during the debates on LLP,\nthe analysis identified one option for each component of a license limitation program to create the preferred alternative described\nabove in the final rule. A supporting document also analyzed the differences between the vessel moratorium program and the license\nlimitation program passed by the Council. The vessel moratorium was more liberal in terms of qualification criteria and the areas\na vessel could fish. Under the moratorium a vessel was only required to make one landing of a qualifying species between 1/1/88\nand 2/9/92, and having met that criteria the moratorium permit holders could fish groundfish in any federal waters off Alaska.\nTherefore, because the LLP had dual qualification criteria, many fewer vessels were expected to qualify than did for the moratorium.\nResults: The LLP was effective January 1, 2000, thus an evaluation of the program and the final number of license holders is not\nyet available. The LLP continues to be refined through subsequent amendments. The Council recently approved BSAI Amendment\n60, GOA Amendment 58, and BSAI Crab Amendment 10 which amended the LLP to include: a crab recency requirement of one\nlanding during 1/1/96-2/7/98 in addition to the general license and area endorsement qualifications; a requirement that the vessel\nname is included on the license; license designations for the type of gear authorized to harvest LLP groundfish as either \"trawl\" or\n\"non-trawl\" gear (or both); and a requirement that the vessel itself would be a specific characteristic of the license and could not be\nsevered (i.e., the license could not be used on any other vessel). In addition, Amendment 67 to the BSAIFMP was approved by the\nCouncil in April 2000. This amendment requires a Pacific cod species and gear endorsement to fish in the BSAI fixed gear Pacific\ncod fishery, including recent participation criteria for the period 1995-1999, in addition to the general license and area endorsement\nqualifications.","GOA Amendment 42\nIFQ Vessel Buy Down\nDates: Amendments 42 to the GOA and BSAI FMPs were initiated by the Council in 1995. The proposed rule was published on\nJune 25, 1996 (61 FR 32767) and the final rule, on August 22, 1996 (61 FR 43312). Effective date of implementation was August\n16, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: During the first year of fishing under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program in 1995, IFQ fishermen\nreported that the prohibition against using or transferring QS across vessel categories limited their ability to improve the profitability\nof their operations. Many fishermen reported that they had received QS that represented far fewer pounds than their recent catch\nhistory prior to the IFQ program. Small boat fishermen reported the scarcity of medium- and large-size QS blocks >5,000 lb (2.3\nmt)) available to smaller vessels and requested that the Council enable them to purchase shares from QS holders in larger vessel size\ncategories. Also, category B vessel operators reported difficulties in using or marketing small category B blocks and requested the\nopportunity either to downsize operations or to sell smaller QS blocks to owners of smaller vessels.\nAmendment 42 was intended to relieve certain restrictions in the IFQ Program by increasing the flexibility of QS use and transfer\nwhile maintaining the management goals of the IFQ Program and to provide small boat fishermen with more opportunities to improve\nthe profitability of their operations.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 42 and a regulatory amendment to the IFQ Program for fixed gear Pacific halibut and\nsablefish fisheries in and off Alaska allowed QS initially assigned to a larger vessel category to be used on smaller vessels, while\ncontinuing to prohibit the use of QS or its associated IFQ assigned to smaller vessel categories on larger vessels. QS will continue\nto be assigned to vessel categories by existing criteria and will retain original vessel category assignments. However, halibut and\nsablefish QS and their associated IFQ assigned to vessel Category B can be used on vessels of any size and halibut QS assigned to\nvessel Category C likewise can be used on vessels of categories C and D. The regulations continue to prohibit the use of QS and IFQ\non vessels larger than the maximum length on average (LOA) of the category to which the QS was originally assigned. It does not\napply to halibut in IFQ regulatory areas 2C or to sablefish east of 140 W. long. Halibut QS assigned to vessel Category B in IFQ\nregulatory areas 2C and sablefish QS east of 140°W. long. are prohibited from use on vessels less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA\nexcept in QS blocks equivalent to less than 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) based on the 1996 Total Allowable Catch (TAC).\nAnalysis: A 1-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated August 5, 1996) examined two alternatives to the status quo. The\nCouncil ultimately recommended an alternative that included an exemption for Southeast Alaska. Allowing the \"buydown\" to occur\nonly for category B blocks < 5,000 lb in Southeast still benefits crewmen and small vessel owners who would be able to use small\ncategory B blocks on smaller vessels without affecting the market price of category B medium and large blocks and unblocked QS.\nResults: Amendment 42 is assumed to have attained its job of increasing the availability of QS to owners of smaller vessels,\nhowever, no systematic evaluation has been performed.","IFQ Sweep Up Provisions\nGOA Amendment 43\nDates: Amendments 43 to the GOA and BSAI FMPs were initiated by the Council in 1995. The proposed rule was published on\nSeptember 27, 1996 (61 FR 50797) and the final rule, on December 26, 1996 (61 FR 67962). Effective date of implementation was\nDecember 20, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: This amendment along with a regulatory amendment to effect the same regulatory change for halibut is\nnecessary to increase the consolidation (\"sweep-up\") levels for small quota share (QS) blocks for Pacific halibut and sablefish\nmanaged under the IFQ program. The IFQ longline industry reported that current sweep-up levels do not equal the harvest of a viable\nfishing trip and proposed a moderate increase in these levels to allow greater amounts of QS to be swept-up into economically\n\"fishable\" amounts, without overly increasing consolidation or allowing the creation of large-sized blocks. This action is intended\nto maintain consistency with the objectives of the IFQ program (i.e., prevent excessive consolidation of QS, maintain diversity of\nthe fishing fleet, and allow new entrants into the fishery), while increasing the program's flexibility by allowing a moderately greater\namount of QS to be \"swept-up\" into larger amounts that can be fished more economically.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 43 would increase the sweep-up levels for small QS blocks for Pacific halibut and\nsablefish from the current 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) maximum for Pacific halibut and 3,000 lb (1.4 mt) maximum for sablefish to a 3,000\nlb (1.4 mt) maximum and a 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) maximum, respectively. Two other changes were recommended to accompany these\nincreases:\nThe base year TAC for determining the pounds\n6)\nHalibut\nSablefish\nwould be the 1996, rather than 1994, TAC\n(i) Area 2C: 19,992 QS.\n(i) Southeast Outside district: 33,270 QS\nwhich was used for the first sweep-up levels;\n(ii) Area 3A: 27,912 QS.\n7) Once QS levels are established for the\n(ii) West Yakutat district: 43,390 QS\nappropriate regulatory areas based on the 1996\n(iii) Area 3B: 4,193 QS.\n(iii) Central Gulf area: 46,055 QS\nTAC, those QS levels would be fixed and\n(iv) Subarea 4A: 22,947 QS.\n(iv) Western Gulf area: 48,410 QS\ncodified. This would eliminate any confusion\n(v) Subarea 4B: 15,087 QS.\n(v) Aleutian Islands subarea: 99,210 QS\nas to the appropriate sweep-up level in pounds,\n(vi) Subarea 4C: 30,930 QS.\n(vi) Bering Sea subarea: 91,275 QS\nwhich would fluctuate with changes in the\n(vii) Subarea 4D: 26,082 QS.\nannual TAC.\n(viii) Subarea 4E: 0 QS\nAnalysis: A 32-page analysis (final review draft\nThe maximum number of QS units that may be consolidated into a single QS\ndated November 27, 1996) included a range of\nblock in each IFQ regulatory area.\nalternatives of setting the sweep-up level at 1,000,\n3,000, and 5,000 lb for halibut and 3,000, 5,000, and\n7,000 lb for sablefish. The Council rejected the\nstatus quo levels (the lowest) and the highest levels. The analysis concluded that a moderate increase in the sweep-up levels would\nlikely increase the transfer of very small, blocked QS to crew and small boat fishermen who seek to increase their holdings. While\nsome price increases in small block shares might have occurred, a price differential was projected to remain between smaller and\nlarger QS blocks. If the ability to transfer and consolidate small blocks would increase, then the number of unfished blocks would\ndecrease.\nAt much larger sweep-up levels than currently allowed, the price differential between blocked and unblocked shares was projected\nto be lost. The effectiveness of the Block Program may be eliminated at large sizes since large blocks and unblocked shares have been\nreported to sell at roughly the same price and would eliminate entry level QS. Price structure goals of the Block Program would be\nlost, as well. The differential pricing of larger blocked and unblocked QS would be further exacerbated by the paucity of financing\nfor the IFQ industry at the time, particularly for crew and new entrants without capital or assets.\nResults: Relatively few sweep-up transactions occurred in 1995 and 1996 but the number of sweep-up transactions in 1997\nincreased over previous years and may have been related to the higher sweep-up limits that went into effect in late 1996. In 1998,\nthe number decreased to levels closer to those similar to 1995 and 1996. In total, the number of sweepable blocks declined by 693\nfor halibut and 151 for sablefish from 1995 through 1998.","GOA Amendment 44 Overfishing Definitions\nDates: GOA Amendment 44 (BSAI Amendment 44) was adopted by the Council in June 1996. The notice of approval for this\namendment was published on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2656). Effective date of implementation was January 9, 1997.\nPurpose and Need: In response to the national standards\nestablished in the Magnuson Act and advisory guidelines, the\nCouncil developed an objective and measurable definition of\noverfishing and, in 1991, implemented that definition under\nTiers used to determine ABC and OFL for BSAI\nAmendments 16 (BSAI) and 21 (GOA) to the FMPs. In the years\nsince implementation of that definition, fishery scientists had the\ngroundfish stocks under Amendment 44.\nopportunity to evaluate the efficacy of these definitions of ABC and\noverfishing. In light of that experience and with the increased\n(1) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B\nunderstanding of the reference fishing mortality rates used to define\nand BMSY and reliable pdf of FMSY.\nABCs and overfishing, fishery scientists have raised several\n1a) Stock status: B/BMSY>1\nconcerns about the definitions and the extent to which they reflect\nFOFL = MA, the arithmetic mean of the pdf\nand account for levels of uncertainty about fish populations.\nF ABC < MH, the harmonic mean of the pdf\nConsequently, NMFS's Overfishing Definitions Review Panel and\n1b) Stock B/BMSY 1\nthe Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended\n- a)\nredefining ABC and overfishing to facilitate more conservative,\n- a)/(1 - a)\nrisk-averse management measures when stock size and mortality\n1c) Stock status. B/BMSY\nrates are not fully known. The purpose of this Amendment was to\nFOFL=0\nrevise the ABC and overfishing definitions to be consistent with\nFABC=0\nthese recommendations.\n(2) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nBMSY, FMSY, F30%, and F40%\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 44 provided for more\n2a) Stock status: B/BMSY> 1\nconservative definitions of ABC and OFL. The fishing mortality\nF ABC FMSY\nrate used to calculate ABC was capped by the overfishing rate. The\n2b) Stock status: a<B/BMSY 1\nmaximum allowable fishing rates were prescribed through a set of\nFOFL=FMSY X\n6 tiers which are listed in descending order of preference,\nFABC S FMSY X (B/Brey-a)/(1-a)\ncorresponding to descending information availability. These tiers\n2c) Stock B/BMSY\nare shown in the adjacent table. Harvest rates used to establish\nFOFL==0\nABCs are reduced at low stock size levels, thereby allowing\nFABC=0\nrebuilding of depleted stocks. If the biomass of any stock falls\n(3) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nbelow Bmsy or B40% (the long-term average biomass that would be\nB40%, F30%, and F40%\nexpected under average recruitment and F=F40%), the fishing\n3a) Stock status: B/B 0% : 1\nmortality is reduced relative to stock status. This serves as an\nFOFL=F30%\nimplicit rebuilding plan should a stock fall below a reasonable\nF ABC F40%\nabundance level.\n3b) Stock status: a<B/B40% 1\na)\nAnalysis: A 60-page EA (final draft dated January 6, 1997) was\nFABC<F40%(B/B40%-a)/(1 a)\nprepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including the status\n3c) Stock status: B/B %\nquo were considered. The alternative chosen was more\nFOFL=0\nconservative for several reasons. First, the overfishing rate varies\nFABC=0\nwith biomass. Second, the ABC fishing rate is reduced when\n(4) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nbiomass is below levels that produce maximum sustainable yields.\nF30% and F40%\nLastly, more caution is incorporated into establishing fishing rates\nFOFL = F30%\nwhen less information is available; this is particularly true of tier 1.\nF ABC F40%\n(5) Information available: Reliable point estimates of B\nResults: The amendment resulted in lower (more conservative)\nand natural mortality rate M.\nABCs; consequently, total allowable catch levels were reduced for\nFOFL= M\nmany species. The definitions adopted under Amendment 44 were\nF ABC 0.75\nfurther revised under Amendment 56. Further changes to the ABC\n(6) Information available: Reliable catch history from\nand overfishing definitions are expected under a proposed\n1978 through 1995.\namendment scheduled for final action in June 2000.\nOFL= the average catch from 1978 through 1995,\nunless an alternative value is established by the SSC on\nthe basis of the best available scientific information\nABC S 0.75 x OFL","Pollock Trimester Allowances\nGOA Amendment 45\nDates: Amendment 45 was initiated by the Council in 1995. The notice of approval for this amendment was published on May\n31, 1996 (61 FR 27308). Effective date of implementation was May 30, 1996.\nPurpose and Need: Since 1990, the TACs specified for pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas have been\ndivided into four equal quarterly allowances, which became available on the 1st of January, June, July, and October. The quarterly\nallowance system was implemented as part of Amendment 19 to limit excessive harvests of roe-bearing pollock and provide a more\nstable year-round pollock fishery for GOA-based vessels and processors. In November 1990, NMFS listed the Steller sea lion as\nthreatened under the Endangered Species Act and subsequently approved Amendment 25, which further subdivided the annual TAC\nspecified for pollock in the W/C Regulatory Area into three management districts (Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630). This action\nwas implemented to avoid a concentration of fishing effort in time and/or space that could cause localized depletions of Steller sea\nlion prey and exacerbate the decline of Steller sea lions. Its effect was to divide the pollock TACs in the W/C Regulatory Areas into\n12 individual allowances (four quarterly openings in each of the three management districts).\nIn August 1995, GOA pollock industry members submitted a proposal to combine the third and fourth quarterly allowances of\npollock TAC into a single seasonal allowance of 50% of the TAC released on September 1, rather than the current quarterly releases\nof 25% on July 1 and October 1. Representatives of the inshore sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery requested that the opening\ndate for the combined third and fourth quarter allowance be delayed until October 1 so that Bering Sea-based vessels would have\ntime to finish the Bering Sea non-roe pollock fishery before the start of the final pollock season in the W/C Regulatory Areas.\nSeveral problems were identified with the current quarterly allowance system for pollock in the W/C Regulatory Area:\n1) Since 1991, chum salmon bycatch had been approximately 500% higher during the third quarter pollock opening than any other\nquarter;\nThe third quarter pollock fishery conflicted with summer salmon processing activities;\n2)\nDeclining pollock stocks and escalating fishing effort had made the GOA pollock fishery increasingly difficult to manage,\n3)\nespecially during the fourth quarter; and\nSome GOA pollock fishery participants had requested the Council maintain concurrent GOA and Bering Sea pollock seasons\n4)\nto discourage the Bering Sea-based fleet from participating in GOA pollock openings.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 45 authorized seasonal allowances of pollock total allowable catch (TAC) to be\nspecified for the combined Western/Central (W/C) Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska. The third and fourth quarterly\nallowances of pollock TAC were combined in the W/C areas into a single seasonal allowance that would be available on September\n1. Therefore, the pollock TACs were divided into three seasonal allowances: 25% of TAC available on January 1, 25% of TAC\navailable on June 1, and 50% of TAC available on September 1. This action complemented a regulatory amendment to delay the\nstart of the Bering Sea pollock \"B\" season from August 15 to September 1 starting in 1996.\nAnalysis: A 31-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated January 1998) considered three opening date options for a combined\nthird and fourth quarter allowance; September 1, September 15, and October 1. A coalition of Bering Sea and central Gulf-based\nprocessors and vessels submitted a compromise proposal to the Council in January 1996 to establish an October 1 opening date for\nthe Western Gulf Regulatory Area and a September 1 opening date for the Central Gulf Regulatory Area. Western Gulf-based\nprocessors and fishermen expressed dissatisfaction with the compromise proposal because an October 1 opening date in the Western\nRegulatory Area would facilitate entry by Bering Sea-based vessels. However, the Council subsequently recommended that NMFS\nimplement this compromise proposal as the preferred option. The Council believed that an October 1 opening date for the Western\nRegulatory Area and a September 1 opening date for the Central Regulatory Area would achieve the objectives outlined above while\ncausing the least amount of dislocation for current participants in the fishery. NMFS ultimately implemented a single opening of\nSeptember 1 for both areas based on additional public comments on the proposed rule. The simultaneous opening was believed to\ndisperse effort, resulting in more manageable fisheries and a more equitable distribution of fishing opportunity.\nResults: Amendment 45 was in effect for the 1996-98 seasons, after which it was superceded by a regulatory amendment that\nimplemented reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) for Steller sea lions authorized under Amendment 25. The RPAs\nreturned the management regime to quarterly pollock allowances.","GOA Amendment 46\nRemove Black and Blue Rockfishes\nDates: The Council adopted Amendment 46 in June 1997. NMFS published the proposed rule (62 FR 63691) on December 2,\n1997, and the final rule (63 FR 11167) on March 6, 1998. Effective date of implementation was April 6, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: Amendment 46 removed black and blue rockfish from the FMP. The State of Alaska (State) now\nregulates fishing for these species by vessels registered under Alaska law to provide for more responsive management and prevent\nlocalized overfishing of black and blue rockfish stocks. Expansion of a fishery for these species in the central GOA in the mid-1990's\nwas believed to possibly result in unsustainable black and blue rockfish catches.\nTwo problems with Federal management of black and blue rockfish were identified:\n1)\nThe total allowable catch (TAC) for all pelagic shelf rockfish (PSR) species was based on a triennial trawl survey. Survey\ncatches are dominated (93 99 percent) by the underexploited dusky rockfish. This led to acceptable harvest levels for the PSR\nassemblage as a whole, but may be inappropriate for lower black and blue rockfish stocks;\n2)\nThe trawl survey only samples fish on or near a smooth bottom. However, most black and blue rockfish occur in rocky\nnearshore reef habitats that are not sampled by this survey.\nAmendment 46 was to implement more responsive, regionally-based, management of these species than is currently possible under\nthe FMP. The intended effect of this action was to:\n1) prevent localized overfishing of black and blue rockfish stocks;\n2) provide for more responsive State management;\n3) repeal duplicative Federal regulations.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 46 removed black and blue rockfishes from the FMP. No additional regulations were\npromulgated.\nAnalysis: A 31-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated January 6, 1998) identified 1,416 catcher vessels that participated\nin the GOA groundfish fishery in 1996. Of those, 302 vessels, or 21 percent, were presumably affected by the proposed action.\nThose vessels landed 973,443 lb of black rockfish, most in the directed jig-gear fishery, at an estimated value of $344,000.\nRemoving black and blue rockfish from the PSR TAC was predicted to encourage the development of a small vessel fishery\ntargeting under-exploited black and blue rockfish stocks in the Western and Eastern GOA. At the same time, the State was predicted\nto more effectively manage potentially overexploited stocks in the Central GOA and increase their long-term yield.\nAnother alternative to the status quo examined would have kept black and blue rockfishes in the FMP and assigned management\nauthority for them to the State of Alaska. Similar management authority was granted to the State to address similar management\nproblems for demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) in Southeast Alaska under Amendment 14, and clarified under GOA Amendment\n21.\nThis alternative was rejected because under delegated authority, the state would need to meet federal requirements that were\ndeemed unwieldy. Further, the state believed it could not meet the costly assessment needs required under a federal plan for the\nnearshore complex in the near future; though conservation was assured through precautionary management.\nResults: Black and blue rockfishes are no longer federally managed.","Third Party Observer Program (Withdrawn)\nGOA Amendment 47\nAt the December 1997 meeting the Council was scheduled to take action approving an alternative observer program structure - a Joint\nPartnership Agreement (JPA) between NMFS and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), which would have\nestablished PSMFC as a third party procurement point for observers. This was being considered as a replacement for the repealed\nResearch Plan (Amendment 30), in an effort to address conflict of interest and other issues in the existing pay-as-you-go program\nstructure. Due to legal concerns of PSMFC this amendment was not approved by the Council and was never forwarded for\nSecretarial review. Instead, the existing pay-as-you-go program was extended for an additional time period, through year 2000.\nCurrently, NMFS and Council staff are working on revised program structure alternatives, including a fee-based plan, and the current\nprogram will be extended through 2002.","TAC Streamlining (Tabled)\nGOA Amendment 48\nDates: The BSAI and GOA Plan Teams first proposed streamlining the groundfish specifications process in 1996. The Council\ninitiated Amendments 48 to the GOA and BSAI FMPs in December 1996 to address administrative and public notice issues. The\nCouncil's preferred action to roll over harvest specifications from one year to the next was approved in June 1998. ABCs, TACs,\nand PSC amounts would remain unchanged from year to year until revised in a final rule. In July 1999, the NMFS Regional\nAdministrator notified the Council that the Council's preferred alternative was not in compliance with the National Environmental\nPolicy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. However, the Council and NMFS acknowledge\nthe continuing need to revise the existing TAC specification process to meet the following objectives:\n1) manage fisheries based on the best available information;\n2) make adjustments to TAC amounts to respond to new information or conservation concerns;\n3) comply with NEPA, ESA, and RFA provisions while minimizing unnecessary disruption to fisheries;\n4) provide adequate opportunity for public review and comment on new information leading to annual TAC recommendations;\nand\n5) promote administrative efficiency while minimizing public confusion regarding proposed and interim specifications.\nPurpose and Need: The annual specification process for the Alaska groundfish fisheries needs to be improved to serve the\npublic better, by:\n1) eliminating the publication of proposed and possibly misleading information in proposed and interim specifications;\n2) enhancing the ability of NMFS to adjust the TAC and PSC amounts inseason;\n3) removing obsolete references to foreign and joint venture management measures.\nRegulation Summary: This amendment was not formally submitted to the Secretary and no regulations have been\nimplemented.\nAnalysis: A 13-page analysis concluded that the existing specification process is inadequate. Proposed specifications that often\nare outdated by the time they are published for public review. Interested parties realize that those numbers will change, sometimes\nconsiderably, after release of the final SAFE reports and December Council meeting. The Federal Register publication of proposed\nspecifications, therefore, may no longer serve a useful purpose.\nRejected alternatives included:\nscheduling the Council and Plan Team meetings to occur earlier in the year to allow more time to publish proposed and final\n1)\nspecifications; interim specifications would be unnecessary. A limiting factor to the specification process is the time needed\nby the Plan Teams to analyze data and produce final SAFE documents. Survey data is not available until late summer or early\nfall, and it is unlikely that assessments of the fisheries could be made any earlier. The Plan Teams and the Council prefer to\nbase their recommendations on the most current possible information. A minimum of two weeks is needed between\nthe\nNovember Plan Team meeting and the December Council meeting for the SAFE reports to be released for public review. It\nwould be impracticable, therefore, for the specification process to occur any earlier in the year.\nchange the fishing year to an April 1-March 31 cycle so that the final specifications could be published in enough time to\n2)\neliminate the need for interim specifications. This change in fishing year could also benefit the Plan Teams if they were allowed\nmore time to analyze fishery data. However, NMFS is required to provide annual statistics to other organizations, such as the\nUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Coordination with State-managed fisheries, which operate on the calendar\nyear would be difficult. Finally, some biologists believe that the calendar year is the best time period in which to manage\ntemperate species, since they reproduce early in the spring and a measure of year class strength and recruitment is available to\nthe scientists each year in time to do annual stock assessments. If the fishing year were changed, fish year classes may be\nsplit\ninto different years, complicating the determination of recruitment, growth, and mortality.\nResults: The Council is scheduled to review a revised Amendment 48 in late 2000.","Improved Retention/Improved Utilization\nGOA Amendment 49\nDates: GOA Amendment 49 was adopted by the Council in June 1997, mirroring its September 1996 action under BSAI\nAmendment 49. The notice of approval for this amendment was published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 65379). Effective date of\nimplementation was January 12, 1998.\nPurpose and Need: To reduce discards, the Council adopted an improved retention and utilization program (IR/IU) for all\ngroundfish target fisheries. The Council's objective for Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries centers on the same basic concern that\nmotivated an IR/IU program in the BSAI groundfish fisheries; that is, economic discards of groundfish catch are at unacceptably high\nlevels. An IR/IU program for the GOA would be expected to provide incentives for fishermen to avoid unwanted catch, increase\nutilization of fish that are taken, and reduce overall discards of whole fish, consistent with current Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions.\nIn addition, the Council recognizes the potential risk of preemption of certain existing GOA groundfish fisheries which could occur\nin response to economic incentives displacing capacity and effort from BSAI IR/IU fisheries. This risk can be minimized if\nsubstantially equivalent IR/IU regulations are simultaneously implemented for the GOA.\nThe IR/IU program was intended to improve utilization and effective control/reduction of bycatch and discards in the fisheries off\nAlaska to address the following problems:\n3) bycatch and discard loss of groundfish, crab, herring, salmon, and other non-target species;\n4) economic loss and waste associated with the discard mortality of target species harvested but not retained for economic reasons;\n5) inability to provide for a long-term, stable fisheries-based economy due to loss of fishery resources through wasteful fishing\npractices;\nthe need to promote improved retention and utilization of fish resources by reducing waste of target groundfish species to\n6)\nachieve long-term sustainable economic benefits to the nation.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 49 requires all vessels fishing for groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska to retain all pollock\nand Pacific cod beginning January 1, 1998, and all shallow water flatfish beginning January 1, 2003. It established a 15-percent\nminimum utilization standard for all at-sea processors.\nAnalysis: A 130-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated October 1997) reviewed a variety of bycatch reduction plans that\nhad been discussed by the Council since 1993. While other alternatives were discussed, primary focus was given to these three\nalternative programs:\n1) individual fishing quotas for groundfish species;\n2) a \"Harvest Priority\" program that would provide for quota set-asides for vessels exhibiting low bycatch rates of non-target\nspecies;\n3) retention and utilization mandates, with built-in incentives for fishing operations to avoid catch of unwanted species.\nThe analysis determined that pollock, Pacific cod, and shallow water flatfish represent approximately 33 percent of the total discards\nof allocated groundfish in the GOA groundfish fisheries. The Council concluded that by requiring 100 percent retention of these\nfour species, initially pollock and Pacific cod, and subsequently\nyellowfin and rock sole, the Council's objective of \"substantially\nreducing discards of unprocessed groundfish\" in these fisheries could\n20\nbe achieved.\n15\nFull retention of\nResults: Beginning in 1998, 100% retention of pollock and\ncod & pollock\nPacific cod was required, regardless of how or where it was caught.\nFull retention\n10\nof flatfish\nOnly fish not fit for human consumption can be legally discarded.\nThis measure has dramatically reduced overall discard of groundfish.\n5\nGulf of Alaska shallow water flatfish retention will be required\nbeginning in 2003; the delay will allow for development of new\n0\nmarkets and gear technological responses by the vessels engaged in\n97\n99\n2001\n2003\n1993\n95\nthese fisheries. These retention requirements are expected to reduce\nYear\noverall discard rates (all species) to about 5%.\nTotal discard rates of Alaska groundfish, all areas and species\ncombined, 1993-1998, projections through 2003.","Halibut Donation Program\nGOA Amendment 50\nDates: The Council first considered a halibut donation program to allow limited retention of halibut for donation to needy\nindividuals in January 1993. Administrative difficulties were addressed in designing such a program, and Amendments 50 to the\nGOA and BSAIFMPs were adopted in April 1997. It expanded the existing Salmon Donation Program (SDP) to create a Prohibited\nSpecies Donation (PSD) program that would include halibut as well as salmon. The effective date of implementation was July 13,\n1998 (63 FR 32144; June 12, 1998). This rule was effective only for a 3-year period ending December 31, 2000, to allow the Council\nto assess its success. In June 2000 the Council extended the program for 3 years with a review, but no sunset.\nPurpose and Need: Approximately 6,500 metric tons of halibut were taken incidentally to the Alaska groundfish fisheries\nduring 1999. Vessels participating in these fisheries typically use trawl, hook-and-line, or pot gear, with trawl gear accounting for\nmost of the groundfish catch and halibut bycatch.\nThe Council discourages the discard of incidental catches of fish as wasteful. Managing halibut incidentally caught in the groundfish\nfisheries as a prohibited species is an appropriate short term bycatch measure. Except as provided under the prohibited species\ndonation program, retention of prohibited species captured while harvesting groundfish is prohibited to prevent covert targeting on\nthese species. The prohibition removes the incentive that groundfish fishermen might otherwise have to target on the relatively high\nvalued prohibited species, and thereby, results in a lower incidental catch. It also eliminates the market competition that might\notherwise exist between domestic halibut fishermen and groundfish fishermen who might land halibut in the absence of the\nprohibition.\nThe Council's intent was to:\nreduce regulatory discards and protein waste in the groundfish trawl fisheries;\n1.\nprovide additional opportunity to collect biological samples or scientific data;\n2.\nsupport an industry initiative to reduce regulatory discards and provide a healthy alternative to the diets of people who often\n3.\nonly have access to meager and inadequate food.\nThe action endorsed a policy of reducing unnecessary discard of dead, but wholesome, fish and in doing so provide public benefit\nby allowing fish that would otherwise be discarded to be retained for processing and delivery to food bank organizations. Any costs\nassociated with this recommended action would be borne by the voluntarily participating shoreside processors and the NMFS\nauthorized distributor.\nRegulation Summary:\nThis action authorized the voluntary donation of Pacific halibut taken as bycatch in specified\ngroundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska to economically disadvantaged individuals. Under the prohibited species donation program,\nNMFS expanded the existing salmon donation program to also authorize distribution by tax-exempt organizations through a NMFS-\nauthorized distributor. The program is limited to dead halibut by trawl catcher vessels and delivered to shoreside processors.\nAnalysis: A 20-page analysis (Secretarial review draft dated September 12, 1997) determined that no changes in fishing activities\nin a manner that would affect the amount of groundfish harvested nor the amount of halibut taken as bycatch in the Alaska trawl\nfisheries was expected by the preferred alternative. In general, no information exists to indicate that the current level of halibut\nbycatch landed at shoreside processing sites in the Alaska trawl fisheries presents critical conservation issues. The total burden to\nprocessors resulting from the preferred alternative could not be estimated because participation would be voluntary; however, based\non information acquired through the SDP, costs were estimated at approximately 20 cents per pound for donated halibut.\nResults: Waste of salmon and halibut has been reduced by allowing bycatch to be donated to food banks. The food banks in turn\ndistribute the fish to needy people in the northwestern United States. Many fishing companies voluntarily participate in the donation\nprogram. Through 1998, over 3 million pounds of donated salmon have produced an estimated 12 million meals for needy persons.\nTo date, two plants in Dutch Harbor have donated halibut. Although limited to no more than 50,000 lb, the actual donated amount\nwas 21,196 lb in 1998 and 4,476 lb in 1999. Inconsistency in reporting and enforcement may have led to the decline in participation\nin 1999.","Inshore/Offshore Allocations III\nGOA Amendment 51\nDates: The Council approved Amendment 51 in June 1998, and NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendments 51/51 to the\nGOA and BSAI FMPs on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 57996). The final rule was published on January 25, 1999. Effective date of\nimplementation was January 20, 1999 (64 FR 3653).\nPurpose and Need: The TACs for pollock in the BSAI and for pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA have been allocated\nbetween the inshore and offshore components of the groundfish fisheries since 1992. Amendments 51/51 were proposed to extend\nthe provisions of Amendment 38 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 40 to the GOA FMP, which expired on December 31, 1998.\nAmendments 38 and 40 previously extended BSAI Amendment 18 and GOA Amendment 23, respectively. The original amendments\nset processor allocations of the pollock TAC in the BSAI and pollock and Pacific cod processor allocations in the GOA, as a response\nto an early closure in 1989 when several catcher/processors harvested substantial amounts of pollock in the BSAI and GOA and\nforced an early closure of the GOA pollock fishery. The amendments allocated 35% to the inshore and 65% to the offshore processing\nsector of the BSAI pollock fishery, and allocated 90% of the cod and 100% of the pollock to the inshore processing sector in the\nGOA. The Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA) and the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program were also established.\nThe CVOA limited access to pollock within the area to catcher vessels delivering to either inshore or offshore processors. The CDQ\nprogram allocated 7.5% of the BSAI pollock TAC to CDQ fisheries.\nAt its meeting in June 1998, the Council took final action to adopt Amendments 51/51 to the FMPs. By proposing these FMP\namendments, the Council intended to change the inshore/offshore allocations in the BSAI but continue the existing allocations in\nthe GOA. However, on October 21, 1998, the President signed the American Fisheries Act (AFA) into law (Pub. L. 105-277). The\nAFA, among other things, allocated the BSAI pollock TACs differently than the Council had recommended. The Council held a\nspecial meeting November 10-13, 1998, in part to discuss the effects of AFA on its inshore/offshore proposal and other management\nprograms. In light of the AFA, the Council recommended specific changes to its Amendment 51/51 proposal, and on December 15,\n1998, NMFS partially approved BSAI Amendment 51 and fully approved GOA Amendment 51. The decision not to approve parts\nof BSAI Amendment 51 is consistent with the Council's intent for achieving consistency with the AFA as expressed at its meeting\nin November 1998.\nRegulation Summary: As adopted by the Council in June 1998, this amendment reestablishes, without change, the current\ninshore/offshore allocation regime in the GOA through December 31, 2001. The amendment maintains the current allocation: 100%\nof the pollock TAC to the inshore component, and 90% of the Pacific cod TAC to the inshore component and 10% to the offshore\ncomponent.\nAnalysis: A 299-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated December 9, 1998) was prepared for Amendment 51/51. Five alternatives\nwere considered, including: the no action alternative; a rollover of the existing inshore/offshore program; several options to revise\nthe BSAI pollock processing inshore/offshore percentages; a set-aside for catcher vessels less than 125' length overall; and a set-aside\nfor catcher vessels less than 155' length overall. The Council's preferred alterative was to allocate 39% of the BSAI pollock TAC\ninshore and 61% offshore (after CDQs are deducted from the BSAI TAC), and to maintain the current GOA allocations of 90%\nPacific cod and 100% pollock to the inshore sector. With the passage of the AFA, however, the portions of the amendment stipulating\nBSAI pollock allocations became immaterial, thus only the GOA portions of the amendment and the provisions relevant to the CVOA\nwere approved.\nResults: This amendment continued the pollock and cod allocations in the Gulf as they were established in 1992. Industry sector\nand community stability have been maintained through the approval of this amendment. See Amendment 61/62 which further\nextends the GOA allocation through 2004, to be consistent with the duration of the BSAI allocations under the AFA.","Vessel Registration Program (Tabled)\nGOA Amendment 52\nDates: The Council initiated an analysis of two complementary management actions in GOA Amendment 52 in December 1997\nand approved it in February 1998. GOA and BSAI Plan amendments 52 authorized NMFS to establish a vessel registration program\nfor \"at risk\" fisheries that met certain criteria. They were tabled because of changes in the fisheries as a result of the American\nFisheries Act and Amendment 61. Only a regulatory amendment for a stand-down for trawl vessels transiting between the BSAI and\nGOA was submitted to the Secretary and approved. Effective date of implementation for the stand-down was September 8, 1998.\n(63 FR 48641; September 11, 1998.)\nPurpose and Need: Management of the inshore pollock and Pacific cod fisheries of the Western and Central (W/C)\nRegulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) has become increasingly difficult. The risk of harvest overruns has grown due to TAC\namounts that are small relative to the potential fishing effort. The problem has been most acute in the Western Regulatory Area due\nto the constant potential pressure that numerous large catcher vessels based in the Bering Sea (BS) could cross into the GOA to\nparticipate in pollock and Pacific cod openings that have relatively small TACs. NMFS currently lacks a pre-season vessel\nregistration program that could gauge potential effort in these fisheries prior to openings, and inseason catch information in these\nfisheries is neither timely nor accurate enough to allow adequate management.\nThe objective of Amendment 52 is to create a vessel registration program to require vessels to announce their participation in either\nthe BSAI or GOA pollock and Pacific cod fisheries before the fishery commenced. This action is necessary to prevent unexpected\nshifts of fishing effort between BSAI and GOA fisheries that can lead to overharvesting the total allowable catch (TAC) in the\nWestern and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA.\nRegulation Summary: Under a vessel registration program, NMFS would establish criteria to determine which fisheries\nwould require registration. Based on these criteria, NMFS would create a roster of \"registration fisheries\" that would be announced\nat the beginning of each year and supplemented as necessary on an inseason basis throughout the year. Criteria for establishing a\nregistration requirement for a fishery could include:\n(1) the size of the TAC amount or PSC limit specified for the fishery relative to the degree of interest in that fishery,\n(2) a fishery for which the TAC or PSC limit was exceeded by a significant amount in the previous year and the current year's quota\nand expected effort are similar,\n(3) a fishery for which the above two criteria may not apply but an expanded interest has developed inseason, and\n(4) a \"mop-up\" fishery.\nVessel operators would be required to register with NMFS a certain number of days before beginning directed fishing in a registration\nfishery and penalties would be established for non-compliance.\nAnalysis: A 25-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft dated January 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Two\ncomplementary management actions were considered by the Council, in addition to the status quo alternative. The analysis concluded\nthat the fleet as a whole would benefit if NMFS is able to manage \"at risk\" fisheries SO that quotas are more fully harvested and the\noverhead costs associated with re-crewing and transiting to the fishing grounds for short term \"mop-up\" openings could be avoided.\nA registration requirement would reduce the flexibility of vessel operators to enter and leave fisheries at will. In some cases, this\ncould pose costs for certain operations if they realize mid-course that they would prefer to be participating in a short term fishery\nfor which they have not registered. Nevertheless, while a registration requirement for certain \"at risk\" fisheries will increase the\nconstraints on the fleet, it will serve to increase the ability of NMFS to manage such fisheries to obtain optimum yield and provide\nthe greatest net benefit to the nation.\nResults: Due to higher priorities, the vessel registration program was not developed by NMFS. As a result of the American\nFisheries Act of 1998, the structure of the pollock fisheries in the BSAI has been significantly altered, obviating the need for the\nvessel registration program as originally envisioned by the Council. A broader vessel registration program in conjunction with\nelectronic reporting requirements may be developed in the future.","Full Retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish\nGOA Amendment 53\nDates: The Council initiated the analysis for Amendment 53 in December 1997 and approved it in June 1999, after revising its\nFebruary 1999 final action decision to address legal issues. The analysis has not yet been submitted for NMFS regional review.\nPurpose and Need: In September 1997, the Council initiated an analysis of a groundfish proposal submitted by the ADF&G\nto require full retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish (DSR) in GOA Regulatory Area 650 (east of 140° W longitude) to reduce waste\nand enhance estimates of total removals of the species for stock assessment purposes. The GOA Groundfish Plan Team (Team) had\nidentified a high level of unreported mortality of demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) associated with the halibut fixed gear fishery and\nassociated uncertainty in estimating this mortality in the annual DSR stock assessment. The maximum retainable bycatch (MRB)\nrate for DSR limits fishermen to 10 percent by weight of DSR against their halibut fixed gear harvest. Any poundage in excess of\nthe 10 percent MRB limit is discarded (dead) at sea. Anecdotal information from commercial fishermen suggested that the 10 percent\nMRB limit for DSR taken during the directed halibut fixed gear fishery is inadequate and that for some trips the bycatch level may\nbe much higher than the 10 percent MRB limit. Because they would be subject to fines by violating the MRB, the Team and\nsubsequently the Council became concerned that many fishermen may not land or report such overages.\nAccurate reporting from the proposed full retention program would be used to:\n(1) define true bycatch rates for this rockfish assemblage;\n(2) calculate total mortality;\n(3) enhance the DSR stock assessment and refine estimates of allowable biological catch (ABC) and total allowable catch (TAC);\nand ultimately\n(4) revise the DSR MRB limit, as appropriate.\nRegulation Summary: Regulations have not yet been drafted. They will require full retention of DSR in the fixed gear\nfisheries in GOA Regulatory Area 650:\n(1) eliminate the maximum retainable bycatch (MRB) limit for DSR;\n(2) require that all DSR caught by Federally-permit vessels using fixed gear in the Southeast Outside District be retained, landed,\nweighed and reported;\n(3) limit the amount of DSR that may be sold to an amount that is no more than 10 percent of other retained catch; and\n(4) fishermen may do one or all of the following with amounts of DSR that are in excess of the amount that may be sold:\na. voluntarily surrender to the State of Alaska amounts of DSR that are in excess of the amount that may be sold;\nretain amounts of DSR that are in excess of the amount that may be sold for personal use; or\nb.\ndonate amounts of DSR that are in excess of the amount that may be sold to a state-recognized charity that provides meals\nc.\nfor the homeless, the needy, the sick or infirm, or the elderly.\nAnalysis: A 28-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft dated September 1999) was prepared for this amendment. Three separate\nmanagement actions were considered. Five alternatives including the status quo were considered for each action. The preferred action\naims to enhance estimates of total removals of demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) for stock assessment purposes to prevent overfishing\nand to reduce waste of these species that are discarded dead above the maximum retainable bycatch (MRB) limit. Under the preferred\naction commercial fixed gear fishermen would be required to bring to shore all landed DSR and have such fish counted by fishery\nmanagers. To reduce bycatch and waste and reduce the risk of overfishing, an accurate accounting system is needed to calculate total\nbycatch mortality of DSR and to provide information for a future revision to the DSR MRB limit. The preferred action would\nenhance management of DSR within its TAC without : (1) encouraging \"topping off\" with bycatch species, and (2) wasting the\nresource.\nResults: The amendment has not yet been implemented.","Indirect Ownership and Use Caps (IFQ)\nGOA Amendment 54\nDates: The Council approved Amendments 54/54 to the GOA and BSAI FMPs in October 1998. The analysis is under NMFS\nRegional review and has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of Commerce.\nPurpose and Need: During the 1995-97 IFQ seasons, NMFS broadly interpreted the FMP and regulatory language to allow\npersons holding initial allocation QS to hire skippers to fish their IFQ on vessels owned by other \"persons,\" provided that the QS\nholder could show a corporate association to the owner of the vessel. This policy allows individual QS holders to hire skippers to\nfish their IFQ on vessels owned by corporations or partnerships in which the individual QS holders are shareholders or partners. The\npolicy also allows corporations or partnerships holding QS to fish the collectively held QS on a vessel owned by individuals who\nare shareholders or partners in the corporation or partnership. At the beginning of the 1997 IFQ season, NMFS announced to the IFQ\nfleet that this policy of broadly interpreting the term \"person\" as it pertains to IFQ hired skipper provisions would continue until the\nCouncil could clarify its original intent. Two other clarifying FMP language changes were also included in this action.\nThree actions proposed for this plan amendment are:\n(1) Revise the FMP to allow a QS holder's association to a vessel owner, through corporate or other collective ties, to substitute for\nthe QS holder's vessel ownership per se for purposes of hiring a skipper to fish the QS holder's IFQ. (This document analyzes\na proposal to revise the current FMP language and pertinent regulations to authorize a QS holder's indirect vessel ownership,\nthrough corporate or other collective ties, to serve as a substitute for direct vessel ownership per se for purposes of the IFQ\nprogram's hired skipper provisions.)\n(2) Revise the definition of \"a change in the corporation or partnership\" in the FMPs to include language specific to estates. Estates\nare included under the definition of the term \"Person\" in the FMPs and 50 CFR 679.2 as \"corporations, partnerships, associations,\nor other entities.\" The FMPs and IFQ implementing regulations require that upon any change in a corporation, partnership, or\nother entity that holds QS the QS transfer to a qualified individual. A \"change\" in a corporation, partnership, or other entity is\ndefined as the addition of a shareholder or partner to the corporation, partnership, or collective entity. This definition is not\napplicable to estates, because estates are not collective entities which may acquire additional shareholders, partners, or members.\nNevertheless, because an estate's QS would not automatically transfer to an heir once the estate is probated, the FMPs and IFQ\nregulations need to define the point at which estates must transfer their QS to a qualified individual.\n(3) Change sablefish use limits from percentages of the total number of QS units in the QS pool for each area to a specific number\nof QS units. In June 1996, the Council approved a regulatory amendment to increase the Bering Sea (Area 4) halibut use caps\nfrom 1/2 percent to the QS equivalents of 1/2 percent based on 1996 QS pools. This amendment also revised the halibut use limits\nto be expressed as a fixed number of QS units rather than as a percentage, in order to provide QS holders with a more stable\nreference for measuring their holdings against area use caps. Sablefish IFQ use limits are set in the FMPs. Consequently, the\nregulatory change to the halibut use limits could not at the same time change the calculation of sablefish use limits to a fixed\nnumber of QS units for consistency. This FMP amendment would effect that revision to calculate the sablefish in QS units based\non the appropriate percentage of the 1996 QS pools. This change would standardize the application of use caps for both halibut\nand sablefish fisheries and would provide the same level of predictability for sablefish QS holdings as currently exists for halibut\nQS.\nRegulation Summary: Regulations have not yet been drafted.\nAnalysis: A 17-page EA/RIR/IRFA (public review draft dated September 1998) was prepared for this amendment. Three separate\nmanagement actions were considered. One status quo and one proposed alternative were considered for each action.\nResults: The amendment has not yet been implemented.","Essential Fish Habitat\nGOA Amendment 55\nDates: NMFS published EFH guidelines as interim final rule on December 19, 1997 (62 FR 66531). GOA and BSAI Amendments\n55/55 were adopted by the Council in June 1998 along with EFH amendments for other FMPs (groundfish, salmon, scallops, crab).\nThe final rule was published on April 26, 1999 (64 FR 20216). Effective date of implementation was January 20, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: The Magnuson -Stevens Act was amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The new Act\nmandated that any FMP must include a provision to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, minimize to\nthe extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and\nenhancement of such habitat. Essential fish habitat has been broadly defined by the Act to include \"those waters and substrate\nnecessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity\". All eight regional Councils are required to amend their\nfishery management plans by October 1998 to:\nidentify and describe EFH for species managed under a fishery management plan;\ndescribe adverse impacts to that habitat from fishing activities and non-fishing activities;\nrecommend conservation and enhancement measures necessary to help minimize impacts, protect, and restore that habitat;\nand\ninclude conservation and enhancement measures necessary to minimize to the extent practicable, adverse impacts from\nfishing on EFH.\nThe purpose of this amendment is to provide for improved long-term productivity of the fisheries, to allow NMFS and the Council\nto be more proactive in protecting habitat areas, and by alerting other federal and state agencies about areas of concern. Federal\nagencies engaging in activities that may adversely affect EFH must consult with NMFS regarding those activities. NMFS must, and\nthe Council may, make suggestions on how to mitigate any potential habitat damage. The Council will be required to comment on\nany project that may adversely affect salmon habitat or habitat of any other anadromous fish (smelt, steelhead, etc.).\nRegulation Summary: The alternative adopted and approved defined EFH as all habitat within a general distribution for\na species life stage, for all information levels and under all stock conditions. A general distribution area is a subset of a species range.\nFor any species listed under the Endangered Species Act, EFH includes all areas identified as \"critical habitat\". EFH was described\nin text, tables, and maps. Habitat areas of particular concern were identified as living substrates in shallow and deep waters, and\nfreshwater habitats used by anadromous fish.\nAnalysis: A 364-page EA (final draft dated January 1999) and a background assessment report were prepared for this amendment.\nThree alternatives including the status quo were considered. The other alternative that was not chosen would have defined EFH only\nas areas of high concentration for each life stage. The alternative chosen was more conservative in that defining a larger area may\noffer more protection.\nResults: Since the amendment was approved, NMFS has been sued by a coalition of plaintiffs (Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund,\nCenter for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, and others) who allege that the EFH amendment failed to meet statutory\nrequirements (did not analyze the effects of fishing on habitat, and did not impose practicable measures to minimize impacts of\nfishing gear) and violated NEPA.\nIn February 2000, the Council reviewed the first draft analysis for management measures that would identify additional Habitat Areas\nof Particular Concern (HAPC) types and areas, and take additional measures to protect HAPC from potential effects caused by fishing\nactivities. Alternative management actions that were considered included making HAPC biota (e.g., mussels, kelp, sponges) a\nprohibited species, and prohibiting bottom fishing in areas shown to have concentrations of Gorgonian coral, which have been shown\nto be long lived (500 yrs), vulnerable to fishing gear, and important habitat for rockfish. Based on public testimony, and input from\nits advisory committees, the Council voted to split the amendment and associated analysis into two parts. Part one on which for final\naction in April 2000, would prohibit commercial harvest and sale of HAPC biota, specifically sponges and coral. Part two of the\nHAPC amendments, which will require a longer time line, will be to develop a more comprehensive and iterative process for HAPC\nidentification and habitat protection involving researchers, stakeholders, and management agencies.","GOA Amendment 56\nRevised Overfishing Definitions\nDates: GOA Amendment 56 (BSAI Amendment 56) was adopted by the Council in June 1998. The notice of approval for this\namendment was published on March 8, 1999 (64 FR 10952). Effective date of implementation was January 27, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: The 1996 amendments to the\nTiers used to determine ABC and OFL for BSAI\nMagnuson-Stevens Act defined the terms \"overfishing\" and\ngroundfish stocks under Amendment 56.\n\"overfished\" to mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that\njeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum\n(1)\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B\nsustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. Additionally, it\nand BMSY and reliable pdf of FMSY\nrequires that all FMPs specify objective and measurable criteria for\n1a)\nStock status: B/BMSY>1\nidentifying when the fishery is overfished and, in the case of a\nFOFL = Md, the arithmetic mean of the pdf\nfishery which is approaching an overfished condition or is\nF ABC < MH, the harmonic mean of the pdf\noverfished, contain conservation and management measures to\n1b) Stock status: B/BMSY 1\nprevent overfishing and rebuild the fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens\na)\nAct further required regional fishery management councils to\n- a)\nsubmit amendments, by October 11, 1998, that would bring fishery\n1c) Stock status B/BMSY\nmanagement plans into compliance.\nFOFL=0\nFABC=0\nThe Magnuson-Stevens Act and the revised guidelines indicate that\n(2)\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nMSY, treated as a target strategy under the current FMP definition\nBMSY, FMST, F30%, and F40%\nof overfishing, should represent a limit rather than a target. This\n2a)\nStock status: B/B1sy>\nmeans that \"limit\" harvest strategies (such as the rules used to\nFOFL=FMSY\nspecify overfishing levels [OFL]) should result in a long-term\naverage catch that approximates MSY, and that \"target\" harvest\n2b)\nstatus: B/B MSY 1\nstrategies (such as the rules used to specify ABC) should result in\ncatches that are substantially more conservative than the limit.\nBecause tiers 2-4 of the current FMP definition could be interpreted\n2c)\nStock status: B/Byay's\nas treating MSY as a target rather than as a limit, Amendment 56\nFOFL=0\nrevised tiers 2-4 by changing the default fishing mortality rate\nFABC=0\nvalue from F30% to the more conservative estimate of F35%\n(3)\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nB40% F30%, and F40%\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 56 revised\nthe\nABC\n3a) B/B % > 1\nand overfishing definitions set under Amendment 44 to be more\nFOFL=F35%\nprecautionary. Like Amendment 44, the maximum allowable rates\nF ABC S F 40%\nare prescribed through a set of six tiers which are listed below in\n3b)\nStock status: 1\ndescending order of preference, corresponding to descending order\nFOFL=F35%(B/B40%-a)/(1 -a)\nof information availability. For most tiers, ABC is based on F40%,\nwhich is the fishing mortality rate associated with an equilibrium\n3c)\nB/B40% S a\nlevel of spawning per recruit (SPR) equal to 40% of the equilibrium\nFOFL=0\nlevel of spawning per recruit in the absence of any fishing. To\nFABC=0\nfurther minimize the possibility of catches jeopardizing a stock's\n(4)\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B,\nlong term productivity, there is a buffer established between ABC\nF30% F40%\nand OFL. Amendment 56 modified the OFL definition from F30%\nFOFL=F35%\nto F35% for stocks having tiers 2-4 information.\nFABC F40%\n(5)\nInformation available: Reliable point estimates of B\nAnalysis: A 24-page EA (final draft dated June 23, 1998) was\nand natural mortality rate M.\nFOFL=M\nprepared for this amendment. Two alternatives including the status\nF ABC < 0.75 x M\nquo were considered. The alternative chosen was more\n(6)\nInformation available: Reliable catch history from\nconservative in that it consistently treats MSY as a limit rather than\n1978 through 1995.\na target.\nOFL= the average catch from 1978 through 1995,\nunless an alternative value is established by\nResults: A followup amendment is being prepared to define\nthe SSC on the basis of the best available\nMSSTs for groundfish stocks, and final action is scheduled for June\nscientific information\n2000.\nABC S 0.75 x OFL","Moratorium Extension\nGOA Amendment 57\nDates: Amendments 57 to the GOA FMP,, 59 to the BSAI FMP, and and Amendment 9 to the Crab FMP were approved jointly\nby the Council in June 1998. On November 13, 1998, NMFS published the proposed rule for GOA Amendment 57, BSAI\nAmendment 59, and Crab Amendment 9 (63 FR 63442). The final rule was published on January 25, 1999 (64 FR 3651). Effective\ndate of implementation was January 19, 1999.\nPurpose and Need: In 1987, concerned with excess harvesting capacity in the groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries of the\nBSAI and GOA, the Council established a committee to examine the problem of overcapitalization. Upon conclusion that allocation\nconflicts and overcapitalization would worsen under the current open access system, the committee recommended a limited access\nmanagement approach for these three fisheries. Concerned with the potential for speculative entry into the fisheries during discussions\nof management alternatives, the Council adopted Amendment 23 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 28 to the GOA FMP, which\nrequired a moratorium permit for vessels within specific vessel categories that harvest groundfish and BSAI crab resources off\nAlaska. Generally, a vessel qualified for a moratorium permit if it made a legal landing of any moratorium species during the\nqualifying period of January 1, 1988, through February 9, 1992.\nThe purpose of Amendments 23 and 28 was to provide for an interim measure to slow significant increases in the harvesting capacity\nof the groundfish and crab fishing fleets until additional measures, such as the License Limitation Program (LLP) could be\nimplemented. The LLP is part of a developing Comprehensive Rationalization Plan intended to resolve the overall issue of\novercapitalization on a long-term basis, and transition the fisheries from an open access management system to a more market-based,\nlimited access system. Without a moratorium, the Council feared that potentially unlimited new entry into the fishery would\nexacerbate overcapitalization and hinder the ultimate development of a successful Comprehensive Rationalization Plan.\nThe original amendments instituting the moratorium (Vessel Moratorium Program) were scheduled to expire on December 31, 1998.\nThe License Limitation Program, intended to replace the Vessel Moratorium Program, would not be in effect until January 1, 2000.\nTherefore, regulatory action was necessary to extend the moratorium in order to eliminate the one year lag time between the\nexpiration of the moratorium and the beginning of the LLP.\nRegulation Summary: The final rule simply extended the Vessel Moratorium Program and the existing moratorium permits\nthrough December 31, 1999. The regulation also provided that no person could apply for a new moratorium permit after the original\nmoratorium program expiration date of December 31, 1998, unless the application was based on a moratorium qualification that was\nused as a basis for obtaining a moratorium permit issued on or before that date.\nAnalysis: A 10-page RIR (final draft dated August 1998) was prepared for Amendments 59, 57, and 9. Two alternatives were\nconsidered: 1) allowing the Vessel Moratorium Program to expire (no action alternative), and 2) extending the program for one year.\nThe analysis determined that although all of the impacts of a one-year lapse between the moratorium program and the LLP were not\nknown, one potentially significant impact could be speculative entry into the affected fisheries by persons who would not qualify\nto fish under the moratorium program or the LLP. Because allowing new entry would exacerbate overcapitalization and the race for\nfish, the analysis determined that the no action alternative was inconsistent with the overall intent of comprehensive rationalization.\nThe preferred alternative extended the moratorium for one year, allowing time for NMFS to complete the design and implementation\nof the LLP.\nResults: As anticipated, the LLP to limit entry into the groundfish and crab fisheries off of Alaska went into effect January 1,\n2000, effectively replacing the Vessel Moratorium Program (The authorization for the LLP is contained in BSAI Amendment\n60/GOA Amendment 58/BSAI Crab Amendment 10). For general licenses, the base qualifying period established was January 1,\n1988, through June 27, 1992, approximately four months longer than the moratorium qualification period, in order to be consistent\nwith the Council's published cutoff date for qualification under the Comprehensive Rationalization Plan. The LLP also required an\narea endorsement for the BS, AI or the GOA, to provide for present participation in the fisheries (the qualifying period being January\n1, 1992 through June 17, 1995). The moratorium established by Amendments 23 and 28 and extended by Amendments 59, 57, and\n9 limited speculative entry into the fisheries while the LLP was being developed and approved, and kept the overcapitalization\nsituation from worsening.","GOA Amendment 58\nLicense Limitation Program Changes\nDates: PENDING - This amendment was approved by the Council in October 1998, but has not yet been formally submitted for\nSecretarial review.\nPurpose and Need: Following the approval of the original LLP program, industry members requested that the Council revise\nseveral of the provisions and qualification criteria, including adding a recent participation criteria for crab. BSAI Amendment 60,\nGOA Amendment 58, and BSAI Crab Amendment 10 encompass a package of changes focusing primarily on further capacity\nreductions and transferability restrictions, to tighten up the License Limitation Program before implementation.\nRegulation Summary: Five changes were adopted and approved under these amendments: 1) a requirement that the vessel\nitself would be a specific characteristic of the license and could not be severed (i.e., the license could not be used on any other vessel);\n2) license designations for the type of gear authorized to harvest LLP groundfish as either \"trawl\" or \"non-trawl\" gear (or both); 3)\nrecision of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) exemption and thus the requirement that CDQ vessels hold a crab or\ngroundfish license; 4) the addition of a crab recency requirement which requires one landing during 1/1/96-2/7/98 in addition to the\ngeneral license and area endorsement qualifications; and 5) allowance of limited processing (1 mt) for vessels <60' LOA with catcher\nvessel designations. The most significant addition under these amendments was the recent participation requirement of at least one\nlanding in the king and Tanner crab fisheries between January 1, 1996 and February 7, 1998, which applied only to the base\nqualifying period under the crab LLP.\nAnalysis: A 203-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated July 1999) was prepared for these amendments. Six proposed actions were\nanalyzed along with the status quo for each alternative, and the five changes outlined above were adopted. The change that was not\napproved would have clarified the Council's intent that catch history transfers be recognized, except those occurring after June 17,\n1995, and where the owner of the vessel at that time was unable to document a vessel under Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C. NOAA\nGeneral Counsel advised the Council that this action may violate foreign reciprocity agreements listed in the Magnuson-Stevens Act;\ntherefore, the Council decided not to proceed with this proposed action.\nResults: Amendment 58 is pending submittal for Secretarial review. If approved it is expected to reduce the number of vessels\neligible to participate in the overcapitalized crab fisheries, and provide further capacity restrictions in the groundfish fisheries.","Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve (Proposed)\nGOA Amendment 59\nDates: GOA Groundfish FMP Amendment 59 was adopted by the Council in June 1998, and was approved August 9, 2000.\nPurpose and Need: The new Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat is\nregarded as an important tool for sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystems. This mandate includes the role of ecosystem\nmanagement and identifies EFH as the waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity.\nThe pinnacle area provides habitat for all of these purposes for a variety of\nspecies and is extremely productive, in part due to its physical oceanography.\nClosure of this area will allow a vital ecosystem to be maintained at natural\nlevels in an area surrounded by heavy fishing pressure. The closure would\nalso protect the fragile nature of this rare habitat, and prevent the harvest or\nbycatch of these species during critical portions or their life history.\nThe boulder field at the base of the pinnacles provides important refuge for\nadult fishes including large numbers of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes\nruberrimus), tiger rockfish (S. nigrocinctus), prowfish (Zaprora silenus) and\nlingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) as well as octopus. Aggregations of small\ndeep-water rockfishes occur here as well, including sharpchin (S. zacentrus),\npygmy rockfish (S. wilsoni), and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger). Besides\nharboring adult fishes, the boulder field is also used as spawning habitat by\nlingcod. The sides and top of the pinnacle are comprised of columnar basalt\nand Primnoa gorgonians provide ecologically important biogenic habitat for\nfishes on the steep walls of the pinnacles. Juvenile rockfishes occur in great\nabundance at the top of the pinnacle, as do Puget Sound rockfish (S.\nemphaeus) a small rockfish that is important prey for other rockfish and\nlingcod. Dense assemblages of sessile invertebrates, including Metridium and\nother anenomes, tunicates and hydrocorals provide cover for these small\nfishes. Adult lingcod utilize the top of the pinnacle as a seasonal feeding\nplatform after spawning, occurring in extremely dense aggregations during\nthe late spring and early summer. The small size of the area and high density\nand feeding behavior of the lingcod make them extremely susceptible to\nfishing pressure. In addition to fish living directly on the habitat or using the\npinnacle and associated fauna for cover, there are large schools of pelagic\nLocation of the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve.\nfishes that congregate in the water column above the pinnacle. These include\nblack (S. melanops), yellowtail (S. flavidus), dusky (S. ciliatus) and widow\n(S. entomelas) rockfishes that feed on the plankton in the water column.\nThe State of Alaska had already implemented a prohibition on fishing for lingcod and rockfish within the prescribed area. The\npurpose of the proposed amendment would be to mirror this regulation for federally managed fisheries, and make the closure more\ncomprehensive.\nRegulation Summary: Amendment 59 would prohibit fishing in an area containing important fish habitat, totaling 3.1 square\nnautical miles, off Cape Edgecumbe near Sitka, Alaska. This closure would apply to commercial, sport, charter, bycatch and\nsubsistence fisheries for all species of bottomfish and halibut, and boat anchoring to prevent habitat degradation, and to create a\ngroundfish refuge. The area is defined by a square, with lines connecting the following points in a clockwise manner: 56°55.5' N\nL following, 135°54' WL clockwise 56°57' N Latitude., 135°54' W Longitude; 56°57' N Latitude, 135°57' W Longitude; 56°55.5' N\nLatitude, 135°57' W Longitude.\nAnalysis: A 20-page EA/RIR/IRFA (final draft dated November 1999) was prepared for this amendment. Two alternatives\nincluding the status quo were considered.\nResults: The amendment was approved August 9, 2000.","GOA Amendment 61\nAmerican Fisheries Act Implementation\nDates: Amendment 61, to conform with and implement provisions of the American Fisheries Act (AFA), was approved by the\nCouncil in June 1999, and implemented by NMFS via two emergency rules: (1) AFA permit requirements published on January 5,\n2000, with an effective date of December 30, 1999, and (2) all other provisions of the AFA published on January 28, 2000 with an\neffective date of January 21, 2000. A permanent rulemaking to implement the provisions of the AFA, for 2001 and beyond, is\nexpected to be implemented in the fall of 2000, following completion of an EIS.\nPurpose and Need: In October 1998 the U.S. Congress passed the AFA to achieve the following primary objectives: (1)\nremove excess capacity in the offshore pollock sector through the retirement of 9 factory trawlers (through a combination of\nappropriated funding and a loan to the onshore sector); (2) establish U.S. ownership requirements for the harvest sector vessels; (3)\nestablish specific allocations of the BSAI pollock quota as follows - 10% to the western Alaska CDQ program, with the remainder\nallocated 50% to the onshore sector, 40% to the offshore sector, and 10% to the mothership sector; (4) identify the specific vessels\nand processors eligible to participate in the BSAI pollock fisheries; (5) establish the authority and mechanisms by which the pollock\nfleet can form fishery cooperatives; and, (6) establish specific measures to protect the non-AFA (non-pollock) fisheries from adverse\nimpacts resulting from the AFA or pollock fishery cooperatives.\nIn addition, the AFA included provisions for the Council to enact as necessary measures to further protect non-AFA fisheries from\nadverse impacts resulting from the AFA and pollock fishery cooperatives. In addition to implementing the prescribed portions of\nthe AFA, Amendment 61 contains various specific protective measures developed by the Council which limit the pollock industry's\nparticipation in other fisheries - these are referred to as 'sideboards'. For the GOA, an additional issue is to change the duration of\ninshore/offshore allocations for the GOA (Amendment 51) to be consistent with the duration of the BSAI pollock allocations\nthe\nunder the AFA; i.e., extend through the year 2004.\nRegulation Summary: Regulations establish the sector allocations of pollock, define the eligible vessels and processors,\ndefine the vessel/processor co-op linkages (which vessels are eligible for which co-ops), make allocations of the pollock TAC among\neach of the co-ops, and define the sideboard amounts of crab and non-pollock groundfish (based on historical share) that can be\nharvested and processed by the AFA operators, in both the BSAI and the GOA. Additionally, the regulations extend the GOA\ninshore/offshore allocations under Amendment 51 through 2004.\nAnalysis: The original analysis for Amendment 61, upon which the emergency rules are based, is 320 pages in length with several\nappendices. That analysis focuses on alternatives for establishing sideboard limits for the AFA harvesters and processors, and also\nexamines alternatives for the structure of inshore sector co-ops (the relationship between harvest vessels and the shore plants to which\nthey deliver pollock). Primarily, the alternatives analyzed cover a wide range of options for determining the amount of the sideboard\nlimits for each sector, whether such sideboards are applied at the sector level vs individual vessel/plant level, and whether and to what\nextent there may be exemptions from the sideboards. The analysis also examines the ownership structure of the pollock industry\nto determine the entities and companies to which sideboards will be applied. Implementation and monitoring aspects of the various\nalternatives are also considered. A pending EIS will further examine these issues as well as the prescribed measures of the AFA,\nincluding the specific sector allocations and limited entry aspects of the Act.\nResults: The AFA was fully implemented in 2000 via the emergency rules, with permanent implementing regulations (through\nat least 2004) expected in the fall of 2000. Several issues continue to consume a significant amount of NMFS and Council resources,\nwith various changes and regulatory amendments in the pipeline. Included are further consideration of the issues of inshore co-op\nstructure, processing sideboards for crab and groundfish, recalculation of sideboard amounts, and consideration of further exemptions\nfrom sideboards. A significant, indirect impact of the AFA is that other industry sectors are now pushing for co-op style\nmanagement in their fisheries, through either Congressional mandate or through the Council process.","Habitat Areas of Particular Concern: Harvest\nGOA Amendment 65\nControl Measures (Proposed)\nDates: The Council adopted Amendment 65 (BSAI Amendment 65) in April 2000.\nPurpose and Need: The Magnuson -Stevens Act was amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The new Act\nmandates that any FMP must include a provision to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, minimize to\nthe extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and\nenhancement of such habitat. Essential fish habitat has been broadly defined by the Act to include \"those waters and substrate\nnecessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity\". Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) are those areas\nof special importance that may require additional protection from adverse effects. HAPC is defined on the basis of its ecological\nimportance, sensitivity, exposure, and rarity of the habitat.\nThe purpose of amendment 65 is to provide for improved long-term productivity of the fisheries by controlling harvest on\ninvertebrates (e.g. corals, sponges, mussels, rockweed and kelp), which provide important habitat for fish, but have the potential to\nbe developed into large-scale commercial fisheries.\nRegulation Summary: At the April 2000 meeting, the Council took final action on Harvest Control measures of HAPC Part\n1. The Council adopted alternative 2 of the analysis which will add corals and sponges to the prohibited species category. This\naction will essentially split prohibited species into two types: the first type will continue to allow no retention for halibut, salmon,\nand crab species, and the second type would include only corals and sponges as prohibited species whose management would be\nspecified in the regulations. The HAPC prohibited species will allow retention, but will prohibit the sale, barter, trade or processing\nof corals and sponges. Kelp (including rockweed), and mussels would not be subject to any management actions at this time. This\naction will apply to both the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries in the EEZ; other fisheries may be considered for\nHAPC biota protection in the future. The Council will relay concerns to the Alaska Board of Fisheries regarding protection of HAPC\nbiota in state waters.\nAnalysis: A 67-page EA (draft dated March 6, 2000) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the status\nquo were considered. The alternatives include establishing HAPC biota as a prohibited species, or establishing a new HAPC category\nto allow for a controlled fishery to develop. Various options would allow some HAPC species (e.g., coral and sponges) to be\nprohibited from harvest, while allowing controlled fisheries to occur on the remaining species (e.g., kelp and mussels).\nResults: Regulations are being prepared for submission to the Secretary.","APPENDIX C\nRegulatory Amendment Summaries","Summary of regulatory amendments and associated National\nAPPENDIX C.\nEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses prepared subsequent to\nCommerce approval of the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and\nAleutian Islands Area and the Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska federal\nfishery management plans.\n[Entries in bold type correspond to annual TAC specifications with Environment Assessments.]\nAmendments to the foreign fishing regulations and implement an FMP for the GOA groundfish fishery -\nPR: 43 FR 17013, 04-21-78; Final regulations for foreign fishing: 43 FR 59321, 12-xx-78; FR\nimplementing Amendments 1 and 3: 43 FR 56238, 12-01-78, effective 12-01-78; Correction:\n44 FR 37937, 06-29-79; Correction: 44 FR 51801, 09-05-79; effective 08-30-79; under EIS for FMP\nImplement GOA FMP for 1978 domestic vessels (includes GOA FMP Amendments 1, 2, & 3) - PR:\n43 FR 17242, 04-21-78; FR: 43 FR 52709, 11-14-78; effective 12-01-78; no NEPA analysis information\navailable (may be tiered to the GOA FMP Amendments)\nExtend GOA FMP and regulations to 10-31-79 - 43 FR 34825, 08-07-78; no EA information available\nChanges in GOA regulations for cod fishery - 43 FR 47222, 10-13-78; no EA information available\nIncrease GOA OY reserves - 43 FR 46349, 10-06-78; correction 43 FR 50475, 10-30-78; no EA\ninformation available\nGOA Sablefish TALFFs - 43 FR 56238, 12-01-78; no EA information available\nIncrease OYs and TALFFs in the BSAI - 43 FR 58190, 12-13-78; no EA information available\nMake additional amounts of fish available to foreign fishing in the GOA - FR: 44 FR 4684, 01-23-79;\neffective 01-17-79; under EIS prepared for FMP\nRegulatory rulemaking to require operator of foreign vessel in GOA/BSAI groundfish fishery to record\nand report numbers of salmon and halibut discarded (50 CFR Part 611) - PR: 44 FR ????, 07-06-79; FR:\n44 FR ????, 11-14-79, effective 11-15-79; no EA information available\nRegulations to implement the BSAI FMP - PR: 44 FR 66356, 11-19-79; no EA information available\nGOA FMP housecleaning measures (Secretarial Amendment) (See Amendment 6) - Advance notice of\nproposed rulemaking and of intention to prepare a Secretarial amendment to extend the FMP through\n10-31-80: 44 FR 47124, 08-10-79; Notice of Approval of amendment: 44 FR 64421, 11-7-79, effective\n11-02-79; no EA information available\nGOA Final regulations - 44 FR 54064, 09-18-79; no EA information available\nAppendix C - 1","Require vessels of foreign nations to report amounts of herring caught and to conform to 611.4\nrequirements which prohibit taking species for which a foreign nation has no allocation - FR:\n45 FR 15933, 03-12-80, effective 03-24-80; no EA information available (no mention of EA in final rule\nnotice)\nSpecifications for GOA FMP; now on calendar year - 45 FR 73486, 11-05-81; no EA information\navailable\nReapportion groundfish and set TALFFs for 1981 GOA groundfish fisheries - 46 FR 33038, 06-26-81;\nno EA information available\nGOA initial specifications for 1982 - 46 FR 58336, 12-01-81; no EA information available\nImplement BSAI FMP; herring prohibited - FR: 46 FR 63295, 12-31-81; corrections to FR: 47 FR 4083,\n01-28-82; no EA information available\nManagement estimates for the GOA - FR: 47 FR 43964, 10-05-82; no EA information available\nChanges DAHs and TALFFs to favor U.S. fishermen - EIR: 48 FR 21336, 05-12-83; extend EIR until\nAmendment 11 is in place; no EA information available\nReduce catch of BSAI prohibited species - 48 FR 24719, 06-02-83; no EA information available\nIncrease pollock optimum yield in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA to allow optimum harvest of\npollock - EIR: 48 FR 55470, 12-13-83; no EA information available\n1984 GOA initial apportionment among DAP, JVP, reserves, TALFF; establish PSC limits in the\nforeign longline fishery in the GOA - EIR: 49 FR 1061, 01-09-84; correction: 49 FR 3191, 01-28-84;\nEA undated; FONSI determination 01-14-84\nPrescribe 1984 and 1985 PSC salmon limits - FR: 49 FR 3189, 01-26-84; no EA information available\nIncrease incidental halibut catch limits for the domestic fishery to avoid underutilization of groundfish,\nin the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA - EIR: 49 FR 8616, 03-08-84, effective 03-08-\n84, through 06-06-84; EIR correction: 49 FR 10931, 03-23-84; EIR extension: 50 FR 10234, 03-14-85,\neffective 03-11-85, through 05-31-85; EA undated; FONSI determination 03-02-84\nDelay opening of sablefish season in the inner coastal waters of southeast Alaska - EIR: 49 FR 8931, 03-\n09-84, effective 03-06-84, through 06-04-84; extension of EIR: 49 FR 24142, 06-12-84, effective 06-07-\n84, through 09-01-84; EA undated; FONSI determination 02-29-84\nIncrease and combine pollock optimum yield in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA\nfor full utilization of domestic groundfish fisheries - ER: 49 FR 10931, 03-23-84, effective 03-20-84,\nthrough 06-21-84; extend EIR: 49 FR 24142, 06-12-84, effective 06-21-84 through 09-18-84; EA\nundated; FONSI determination 03-01-84\nAppendix C - 2","Increase incidental halibut catch limits for the domestic fishery to avoid underutilization of groundfish in\nthe Western and Central GOA - EIR: 49 FR 48049, 12-10-84, effective 12-10-84, through 03-11-85; EIR\nextension: 50 FR 10234, 03-14-85, effective 03-11-85, through 05-31-85;EA undated; FONSI\ndetermination 11-21-84\nAuthorize closures of foreign fishing when established PSCs for sablefish, Pacific ocean perch, and other\nrockfish have been reached, to allow ongoing harvest by domestic fishermen in the GOA - EIR:\n50 FR 3911, 01-29-85, effective 01-24-85 through 04-24-85; extension of EIR for six days: 50 FR 16705,\n04-29-85, effective 04-25-85, through 05-01-85; extension of EIR: 50 FR 29681, 07-22-85, effective\n07-17-85, through 10-15-85; extension of EIR: 50 FR 42027, 10-17-85, effective 10-15-85, through\n12-31-85; EA undated; FONSI determination 01-14-85\nFinal 1985 BSAI initial specifications - 50 FR 11369, 03-21-85; no EA information available\nProhibit use of all gear types (including pots) except hook-and-line in directed fishery for sablefish in\nEastern regulatory area of the GOA to prevent economic loss to longline fishermen - EIR: 50 FR 12809,\n04-01-85, effective 03-27-85, through 06-25-85 (See amendment 14); EA undated; FONSI determination\n03-08-85\nEstablish PSC limits applicable to the joint venture and foreign fisheries and establish new OYs in the\nGOA; for species having zero JVP, and zero TALFF to allow JV and foreign trawl fisheries for the other\nspecies to continue. ER (no Federal Register notices available); EA undated; FONSI determination 06-\n24-85\nAuthorize closures for a single species of groundfish in the GOA because of non-compliance by\nfishermen of previous closures and doubts about legal validity of earlier closures to assure enforceability\nof closures - EIR: 50 FR 28580, 07-15-85, effective 07-10-85; EIR extension: 50 FR 41903, 10-16-85,\neffective 10-08-85, through 12-31-85; EA undated; FONSI determination 07-03-85\nNotice of 1986 interim initial TAC specifications for groundfish and prohibited species catch limits\nfor Pacific halibut for foreign fishing, groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Groundfish of the Bering\nSea and Aleutian Islands - 51 FR 956, 01-09-86, effective 01-01-86; no EA information available (no\nEA submitted)\nNotice of control date for entry into the GOA sablefish fishery - 51 FR 5392, 02-13-86; no EA required\nClose four fishing areas in vicinity of Kodiak Island to nonpelagic trawling to reduce number of red king\ncrabs killed during molting and mating period - EIR: 51 FR 8502, 03-12-86; Extension of EIR:\n51 FR 20832, 06-09-86; no EA information available (draft EA in file; undated signed EA transmittal\nletter in file)\nAmend OYs for five species of groundfish in the GOA (single species management) - EIR: 51 FR 19203,\n05-28-86; correction: 51 FR 21772, 06-16-86; Extension of EIR: 51 FR 30218, 08-25-86; EA undated;\nFONSI determination 04-18-86; EA transmittal memorandum dated 04-24-86\nClose an area of EEZ to commercial fishing with trawl gear; set incidental catch limits for C. bairdi\nTanner crab in commercial trawl fisheries, and for red king crab in domestic trawl fisheries; require\nAppendix C - 3","fishing be terminated if the incidental catch limits are achieved (see BSAI amendment 10) - EIR:\n51 FR 20652, 06-06-86, effective 06-03-86 through 09-02-86; correction: 51 FR 22525, 06-20-86;\ncorrection: 51 FR 23079, 06-25-86; Extension of EIR: 51 FR 32334, 09-11-86, effective 09-03-86,\nthrough 12-02-86; EA undated; FONSI determination 05-16-86\nClose regulatory area or district of GOA for sablefish prior to taking of OY; and allow continued fishing\nfor other groundfish when OY of any groundfish reached when non-overfishing determined - EIR:\n51 FR 20659, 06-06-86; correction: 51 FR 22287, 06-19-86; extension of EIR: 51 FR 30663, 08-28-86;\nEA undated; FONSI determination 04-15-86\nSingle species management; authorize closure of the entire BSAI management area or either subarea to\ndirected fishing for specified groundfish species prior to achieving TAC for that species; assure amount\nof specified species for incidental catch; require treating specified species as prohibited species; clarify\ndefinition of \"fishing year\" - EIR: 51 FR 37408, 10-22-86; correction: 51 FR 40810, 11-10-86; extension\nof EIR: 52 FR 2235, 01-21-87; FR: includes clarification of definition \"fishing year\" - 52 FR 11992, 04-\n14-87, effective 04-13-87; no EA information available; draft EA in file; 10-20-86, EA transmittal letter\nfrom Ecology and Conservation Office\nAllow continue harvest limits; PSC limits; closure of specified areas around Kodiak Island to non-\npelagic trawling (BSAI Amendment 10 and GOA Amendment 15) - EIR: 52 FR 422, 01-06-87; EIR\nextension: 52 FR 10761, 04-03-87; no EA information available\nRevise GOA groundfish OY - 52 FR 2412, 01-22-87; correction: 52 FR 3916, 02-06-87; no EA\ninformation available\nImplement area registration system for the hook-and-line sablefish vessels in the GOA- ER: 55 FR 9171,\n03-23-87; PR: 53 FR 8789, 03-17-88; FR: 53 FR 11297, 04-06-88; EA dated January 1988; FONSI\ndetermination 01-21-88\nModify domestic reporting requirements (fish tickets); PR: 52 FR 22829, 06-16-87; FR: 52 FR 49021,\n12-29-87, effective 01-28-88; correction: 53 FR 991, 01-14-88; no EA information available; no\nreference to an EA; see amendments BSAI FMP Amendment 10 EA - no EA information available;\nGOA FMP Amendment 15 EA dated October 1986; FONSI Determination 02-19-87\nFinal notice of 1987 GOA initial specifications - 52 FR 41560, 10-29-87; no EA information\navailable (no EA submitted)\nDecrease halibut PSC limit for DAP, increase JVP - 52 FR 42114, 11-03-87; no EA information\navailable\n1988 BSAI TAC specifications - Proposed: 52 FR 44154, 11-18-87; Final: 53 FR 894, 01-14-88;\ncorrection: 53 FR 2147, 01-26-88; no EA information available (no EA submitted)\nAllow fishing with pots for GOA groundfish other than sablefish - PR: 53 FR 627, 01-11-88; FR:\n53 FR 6649, 03-02-88; no EA information available\nAppendix C - 4","Final 1988 GOA TAC specifications; PSC limits for groundfish and Pacific halibut - 53 FR 890, 01-\n14-88; no EA information available (no EA submitted)\nRevise definition of directed fishing in the GOA sablefish hook-and-line fishery - EIR: 53 FR 7938,\n03-11-88; correction: 53 FR 9772, 03-25-88; extension of ER: 53 FR 21649, 06-09-88; PR: 53 FR 31728,\n08-19-88; correction to PR: 53 FR 33897, 09-01-88; FR: 53 FR 44011, 11-01-88; Notice of clarification\nof directed fishing definitions for the BSAI and GOA; retain existing definitions of \"directed fishing\" -\n54 FR 986, 01-11-89, effective 01-06-89; EIR EA undated; FONSI determination 02-19-88\nChange pollock season dates to January 15 through December 31; reference amendment 11 - pollock\nsplit season January 15 and April 15 - EIR: 54 FR 416, 01-06-89; no EA information available (draft EA\nin file)\nFinal 1989 BSAI initial specifications - 54 FR 3605, 01-25-89; no EA information available (no EA\nsubmitted)\nFinal 1989 GOA initial specification; PSC limits for certain groundfish species and Pacific halibut;\nreapportions reserves; adjusts pollock fishery - 54 FR 6524, 02-13-89; Notice of adjustment to 1989\nspecifications: 54 FR 32819, 08-10-89; no EA information available (no EA submitted)\nBycatch control for Tanner crab, red king crab, and Pacific halibut in the groundfish fisheries of the\nBering Sea (closure of same areas as in Amendment 10) - EIR: 54 FR 11376, 03-20-89, effective\n03-15-89, through 06-15-89; correction: 54 FR 12989, 03-29-89; extension of effective date:\n54 FR 25279, 06-14-89, effective 06-13-89, through 09-11-89; EA undated; FONSI determination\n03-09-89\nAmend definitions of directed fishing (sablefish) in EEZ in GOA and BSAI - EIR: 54 FR 13191,\n03-31-89, effective 03-28-89 through 06-26-89; extension of effective date: 54 FR 27384, 06-29-89,\neffective 06-26-89 through 09-23-89; PR: 54 FR 40716, 10-03-89; FR: 55 FR 9887, 03-16-90, effective\n04-12-90; EIR EA undated; FONSI determination 03-06-89; Regulatory Amendment EA dated January\n1990; FONSI determination 01-22-90\nNotice of revision of formula for determining mortality of Pacific halibut - 54 FR 33701, 08-16-89; no\nEA required\nRegulate directed fishing; authority to reopen prematurely closed fishery; mark buoys in pot and hook-\nand-line fisheries; and specify 12:00 noon ALT as start/end time of fisheries (single species\nmanagement) - PR: 54 FR 33737, 08-16-89; FR: 55 FR 31, 01-02-90, effective 01-26-90; no EA\ninformation available; draft undated EA in file; EA transmittal letter dated 10-30-89\nNotice of SEIS, NOA, Longline and pot gear sablefish management revision to management plan,\napproval and implementation, BSAI and GOA FMP Amendments 15/20 - 54 FR 49796, 12-01-89; no EA\nrequired\nProhibit use of pots in the GOA and BSAI groundfish fisheries other than those modified to minimize\ncatch of Pacific halibut - Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 54 FR 53135, 12-27-89; no EA\nrequired\nAppendix C - 5","1990 BSAI initial TAC specifications - Proposed: 54 FR 46798, 11-07-89; Final: 55 FR 1434, 01-16-\n90; no EA information available (no EA submitted)\n1990 GOA initial TAC specifications; and other management measures - Proposed: 54 FR 46743,\n11-07-89; Final: 55 FR 3223, 01-31-90; correction: 55 FR 14286, 04-17-90; no EA information\navailable (no EA submitted)\nAllocate halibut prohibited species catch limits established for trawl and fixed gear in the GOA on a\nquarterly basis - ER: 55 FR 5994, 02-21-90, effective 02-15-90, through 05-15-90; EIR extension: 55 FR\n20465, 05-17-90, effective 05-16-90, through 08-13-90; EIR extension and amends ER to subdivide\nhalibut PSC limits; modifies closure: 55 FR 23745, 06-12-90, effective 06-05-90, through 08-13-90;\nSupplemental EA dated May 1990; FONSI Determination 06-01-90\nLimit pollock roe stripping - ER: 55 FR 6396, 02-23-90, effective 02-16-90, through 05-16-90; EIR\nterminating: 55 FR 19266, 05-09-90, effective 05-03-90; no EA information available; draft EA in file\nClarification of common name of Greenland halibut vs. Greenland turbot; categories of groundfish\nspecies; and fishing regulated under 50 CFR 611.93 and Part 675 - FR/TA: 55 FR 8142, 03-07-90,\neffective 03-07-90; no EA required\nRescind sablefish area registration - IFR: 55 FR 12832, 04-06-90, effective 04-01-90, through 09-28-90;\nFR: 56 FR 14480, 04-10-91; EA dated January 1990; FONSI determination 03-02-90\nContinued effectiveness of pollock management - 55 FR 19738, 05-11-90; no EA information available\nExempt certain gear from fishing closure; exempt fisheries with minimal halibut bycatch mortality;\nredefine pelagic trawl gear for all Alaskan groundfish fisheries - EIR: 55 FR 33715, 08-17-90;\nInterpretive Rule clarifying trawl gear definitions contained in EIR - gear exemptions - 55 FR 41191, 10-\n10-90, effective 08-14-90; extension of EIR: 55 FR 47883, 11-16-90; EA dated August 1990; FONSI\ndetermination 08-24-90\nRepeal of the monthly product value reporting requirements for groundfish processors receiving Alaska\ngroundfish from Federally permitted vessels - IFR changed to FR: 55 FR 34933, 08-27-90, effective 08-\n24-90; no EA information available; draft EA in file\nDelay start of BSAI directed fishing season for yellowfin sole, \"other flatfish,\" and turbot until May 1 of\nany year; amend directed fishing standards for yellowfin sole and \"other flatfish\" - PR: 55 FR 46082,\n11-01-90; FR: 56 FR 384, 01-04-91; FR/TA: 56 FR 30515, 07-03-91; EA dated September 1990; FONSI\ndetermination 01-24-91\nCreate the Bogoslof Island District to control pollock harvest - EIR: 56 FR 5659, 02-12-91, effective\n02-06-91, through 04-15-91; 12-21-90, unsigned EA in file; FONSI determination made\n1991 Groundfish TAC specifications - BSAI Proposed: 55 FR 49311, 11-27-90; GOA proposed: 55\nFR 47897, 11-16-90; BSAI Final: 56 FR 6290, 02-15-91, effective 01-01-91; GOA Final: 56 FR 8723,\n03-01-91; effective 02-25-91; no NEPA analysis prepared; specifications based on SAFE report\nAppendix C - 6","Delay GOA hook-and-line sablefish season - PR: 56 FR 8319, 02-28-91; FR 56 FR 13418, 04-02-91,\neffective 04-01-91; EA/RIR/IRFA dated March 1991; FONSI Determination 04-03-91\nAmend domestic fisheries observer plan; delete the annual criteria but not the monthly criteria for\nshoreside processing facilities; impose same observer coverage criteria for mothership processor vessels\nas for shoreside facilities; delete vessel length criteria for observer coverage requirements for mothership\nprocessor vessels, but not for catcher/processor or catcher vessels; allow NMFS to release to the public\nobserver estimated bycatch rates of prohibited species by target fishery on individual vessel basis; extend\nduration of NMFS certification of an observer contractor indefinitely unless revoked by NMFS - PR: 56\nFR 12148, 03-22-91; FR: 56 FR 30874, 07-08-91; no EA information available; draft EA/RIR in file\nRevise recordkeeping and reporting requirements for checkin/checkout reports; consolidate Shelikof\nreporting area; and change reporting for \"other species\" category for daily production reports - IFR: 56\nFR 9636, 03-07-91, effective 03-01-91, correction 56 FR 15051, 04-15-91; no EA information available;\ndraft EA/RIR/IRFA in file\nAmend definition of \"groundfish\" in the BSAI regulations to include flathead sole in the other flatfish\ntarget species category - FR/TA: 56 FR 30515, 07-03-91, effective 07-02-91; no EA required\nNon-pelagic trawl restrictions (7% rule) to constrain halibut bycatch rates - ER: 56 FR 38346, 08-13-91;\ncorrection: 56 FR 46382, 09-?-91, effective 08-07-91, through 11-12-91; EA undated; undated FONSI\ndetermination signed\nDelay 4th quarter 1991 walleye pollock fishery in the combined western and central regulatory areas of\nthe GOA to protect sea lions - NOA of EA: 56 FR 49459, 09-30-91; EIR: 56 FR 50251, 10-04-91,\neffective 10-01-91, through 01-02-92; Termination of ER: 56 FR 55096, 10-23-91; PR: 56 FR 59922, 11-\n26-91; correction 56 FR 64288, 12-09-91; FR: 57 FR 381, 01-06-92, effective 01-01-92; correction 57\nFR 4085, 02-03-92; EA undated; FONSI determination 09-20-91\n1992 BSAI and GOA TAC specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed: 56 FR 58531, 11-20-\n91; BSAI Proposed Correction: 56 FR 65782, 12-18-91; GOA Proposed: 56 FR 58666, 11-21-91;\nGOA Proposed Correction: 56 FR 64002, 12-06-91; BSAI Final: 57 FR 3952, 02-03-92, effective 01-\n01-92; GOA Final: 57 FR 2844, 01-24-92, effective 01-20-92; EA dated January 1992; FONSI\ndetermination 01-15-92\nProhibit use of longline pot gear in Alaska groundfish fisheries - PR: 56 FR 51669, 10-15-91; FR:\n57 FR 37906, 08-21-92, effective 09-21-92; no EA information available\nChange reporting requirements for pollock management by processor vessels and shoreside facilities -\n57 FR 2853, 01-24-92; no EA required\nSpecifications for acceptable biological catch and TAC amounts for pollock in the Bogoslof District\n(\"Donut Hole\") for 1992 to reduce further exploitation of Aleutian Basin pollock stock - PR: 57 FR\n3952, 02-03-92; FR: 57 FR 33902, 07-31-92, effective 08-14-92; correction: 57 FR 35004, 08-07-92;\nwithdrawn 57 FR 33902 and issue new \"Donut Hole\" rule: 57 FR 35487, 08-10-92; no EA information\navailable; draft EA in file\nAppendix C - 7","Delay second quarter directed pollock fishing season in the combined Western and Central regulatory\nareas of the GOA - ER: 57 FR 11272, 04-02-92, effective 03-30-92, through 05-31-92; PR: 58 FR 532,\n01-06-93; correction 58 FR 6677, 02-01-93; FR: 58 FR 16786, 03-31-93, effective 03-26-93; ER EA\nundated; FONSI determination 03-26-92; FR EA dated 02-23-93; FONSI determination 03-23-93\nRevise PSC bycatch management measures proposed under Amendments 19/24 for the BSAI area\npollock fishery; specific bycatch rates of prohibited species in the 1991 trawl fisheries; reduce 1992\nPacific halibut PSC limit for BSAI trawl; revise management of BSAI trawl fisheries eligible to receive\nprohibited species bycatch allowance; delay GOA rockfish trawl fishery; and revise GOA and BSAI\ndirected fishing standards - EIR: 57 FR 11433, 04-03-92; EIR correction: 57 FR 14667, 04-22-92; TA:\n57 FR 21355, 05-20-92; EA undated; FONSI determination 03-26-92\nImplement halibut bycatch management measures in the BSAI pollock trawl fisheries by including BSAI\npollock fishery under the Vessel Incentive Program; prohibit use of trawl gear other than pelagic trawl\ngear for the BSAI pollock fishery. EIR: 57 FR 22182, 05-27-92; EIR extension: 57 FR 39137, 08-28-92;\nEA dated 05-01-92; FONSI determination 04-29-92\nAuthorize halibut bycatch allowances for demersal shelf rockfish in the Southeast/outside GOA - PR:\n57 FR 11930, 04-08-92; FR: 57 FR 33279, 07-28-92, effective 07-23-92; EA dated July 1992; FONSI\ndetermination 07-09-92\nIncrease the TAC specification for \"other species\" category in the GOA - ER: 57 FR 30168, 07-08-92,\neffective 07-01-92, through 10-06-92; EA undated; FONSI determination 06-12-92\nAmendment to the halibut bycatch measures in the GOA to establish a Pacific halibut bycatch allowance\nand authority for annual apportionment of Pacific halibut bycatch allowance to demersal shelf rockfish\nhook and line fishery in the SEO district of the Eastern GOA, and directed fishing standards for demersal\nshelf rockfish to make this fishery separately accountable for incidental catches of Pacific halibut to\nprevent premature closure and limit amounts of demersal shelf rockfish bycatch taken in other fisheries -\nNotice of Proposed amendment to the 1992 specifications: 57 FR 27725, 07-22-92; PR: 57 FR 11930,\n04-03-92; FR: 57 FR 332791, 07-28-92; EA dated July 1992; FONSI determination 07-09-92\nExempt pot gear from fishery closures implemented upon attainment of non-trawl Pacific halibut bycatch\nmortality limit for the 1992 non-trawl groundfish fisheries in the BSAI to prevent closure of pot gear\nfisheries - FR: 57 FR 37906, 08-21-92, effective 09-21-92; EA undated; FONSI determination 08-21-92\nClarify definition of \"length overall\" - IR/TA: 57 FR 43621, 09-22-92; no NEPA analysis required\nClarify definition of nautical \"mile\" - TA: 57 FR 43627, 09-22-92, effective 09-22-92; no NEPA\nanalysis required\nImplement the Western Alaska Community Development Quota program - PR: 57 FR 46139, 10-07-92;\ncorrection: 57 FR 48426, 10-23-92; FR: 57 FR 54936, 11-23-92; correction: 58 FR 7040, 01-22-93;\ncorrection: 58 FR 7040, 02-03-93; EA dated 12-07-92; FONSI determination made; no final EA in file\nClarify gear type deployment - Final TA: 57 FR 55148, 11-24-92 ; no NEPA analysis required\nAppendix C - 8","20 Nautical mile seasonally expanded trawl fishery closure around Ugamak Island Steller sea lion\nrookery in the E. Aleutian Islands (BSAI/GOA 20/25) - PR: 57 FR 57726, 12-07-92; FR: 58 FR 13561,\n03-12-93, effective 03-11-93; Technical amendment FR to correct Steller Sea lion protection areas:\n58 FR 53138, 10-14-93, effective 10-13-93; EA/RIR/FRFA undated; FONSI determination made (but\nundated); transmittal letter dated 01-26-93\n1993 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed:\n57 FR 57718, 12-07-92; GOA Proposed: 57 FR 57982, 12-08-92; BSAI Final: 58 FR 8703, 02-17-93;\ncorrection: 58 FR 16446, 03-26-93; GOA Final: 58 FR 16787, 03-31-93; GOA Final Correction:\n58 FR 21218, 04-19-93; EA dated February 1993; FONSI determination 03-26-93\nExperimental Fishing Permit for Terra Marine for the retention of Pacific salmon for food banks -\nApplication of EFP: 58 FR 5716, 01-22-93; Approval of EFP: 58 FR 42947, 08-12-93; Renewal of EFP:\n59 FR 39326, 08-02-94; EA dated 04-20-94; FONSI determination 07-27-94\nExperimental Fishing Permit for Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation - Arrowtooth flounder\nsurimi demonstration - Approval of EFP: 58 FR 11399, 02-25-93; EA dated January 1993; FONSI\ndetermination 02-19-93\nRevision to definition of a pelagic trawl; define non-pelagic; prohibit presence of a single crab when\nconducting directed fishing for groundfish with trawl gear whenever directed fishing with non-pelagic is\nprohibited; and directed fishing standard at 7 percent, or more, retained groundfish applies only when\nfishing with non-pelagic is prohibited - PR: 58 FR 17196, 04-01-93; FR: 58 FR 39680, 07-26-93,\neffective 08-19-93; correction: 58 FR 42758, 08-11-93; correction: 58 FR 43412, 08-16-93; EA undated;\nFONSI determination 06-29-93\nFair start of the sablefish hook-and-line fishery; redefine start of GOA sablefish hook-and line fishery;\nframework for annual determination of May season opening date - PR: 58 FR 17193, 04-01-93; FR:\n58 FR 28520, 05-14-93, effective 05-11-93; TA: 59 FR 50169, 10-03-94, effective 10-03-94; EA\nundated; FONSI determination 04-30-93\nDelay opening date of non-roe \"B\" season for pollock in the BSAI - PR: 58 FR 17200, 04-01-93; FR:\n58 FR 30997, 05-28-93; EA dated 04-27-98; FONSI determination 04-30-93\nCareful release of Pacific halibut caught incidentally with hook and line gear - ER: action withdrawn;\nPR: 58 FR 17821, 04-06-93; FR: 58 FR 28799, 05-17-93, effective 05-15-93; EA undated; FONSI\ndetermination 03-28-93\nProhibiting U.S. commercial fishing vessel in Federal reporting areas off Alaska from fishing for\ngroundfish before offloading all Pacific halibut, Pacific salmon, steelhead, trout, Pacific herring, king\ncrab and Tanner crab taken in waters seaward of the U.S. EEZ - PR: 58 FR 29381, 05-20-93; FR:\n58 FR 45840, 08-31-93, effective 09-30-93; EA dated July 1993; FONSI determination 08-04-93\nFinal 1993 GOA specifications for POP and \"other species\" - 58 FR 33778, 06-21-93; correction:\n58 FR 38167, 07-15-93; under the Final EA for 1993 Groundfish TAC Specifications for the\nGroundfish of the BSAI and GOA EA dated February 1993; FONSI determination 03-26-93\nAppendix C - 9","Limit the stripping of roe from female pollock and discarding female and male pollock carcasses without\nfurther process - PR: 58 FR 40617, 07-09-93; FR: 58 FR 57752, 10-27-93, effective 11-26-93; EA\nundated; FONSI determination 02-01-94\nProduct recovery rates (substitute) to calculate round weight equivalent of groundfish catches - PR:\n58 FR 44643, 08-24-93; FR: 59 FR 50699, 10-05-94, effective 11-04-94; Correction: 59 FR 54841,\n11-02-94; Correction: 60 FR 29505, 06-05-95, effective 11-04-94; FR to reduce proportion of pollock\nroe retained onboard a vessel during a fishing trip (part of original PR): 59 FR 14121, effective 04-25-94;\nEA undated; FONSI determination 08-26-94\nNotice of change in observer coverage for CDQ BSAI during 1993 to effectively monitor each allocated\nCDQ - PR: 58 FR 45878, 08-31-93; FR: 58 FR 51253, 10-01-93, effective 09-30-93, through 12-31-93;\nno NEPA analysis required\nPrevent overfishing of GOA thornyhead rockfish and Pacific ocean perch and to limit unnecessary high\nbycatch amounts of these rockfish species and Pacific halibut in the GOA trawl fisheries in a manner that\nwill reduce the likelihood of premature closure; readjust directed fishing standards and adjustment of\nBSAI flatfish season to provide additional fishing opportunities in the BSAI early in the fishing year -\nEIR: 59 FR 6222, 02-10-94; EA dated January 1994; FONSI determination 01-31-94\nChanges to the domestic fisheries Observer Plan - PR: 58 FR 57979, 10-28-93; FR: 59 FR 22133,\n04-29-94, effective 07-01-94; EA dated April 1994; FONSI determination 04-08-94\nDefinition of legal gear types; prohibit retention with non-traditional gear - PR: 58 FR 59980, 11-12-93;\nFR/TA: 59 FR 9422, 02-28-94, effective 03-30-94; EA undated; FONSI determination 02-01-94\nAllocation of CDQ pollock to approved CDP applicants for 1994 and 1995 - 58 FR 61031, 11-19-93,\neffective 01-01-94; no NEPA analysis required\nNotice of change in observer coverage to require all vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft length overall\nto have an observer on board at all times while fishing for groundfish in reporting area 517 during 1994\ndirected fishery for Pacific cod in the BSAI - PR: 58 FR 65574, 12-15-93; FR: 59 FR 3000, 01-20-94,\neffective 01-13-94 through 12-31-94; Suspend effectiveness: 59 FR 4009, 01-28-94; modification of\nobserver coverage: 59 FR 15346, 04-01-94, effective 03-29-94 through 12-31-94; no NEPA analysis\nrequired\nTotal catch weight and increased observer coverage in the BSAI CDQ fisheries to improve\nmeasurements of pollock - PR: 58 FR 68386, 12-27-93; FR: 59 FR 25346, 05-16-94, effective 06-15-94;\nEA dated 04-01-94; FONSI determination 04-27-94\nProcedures for determinations and appeals under Alaska fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ\nlimited access program - PR: 59 FR 5979, 02-09-94; FR: 59 FR 28281, 06-01-94; tiered to SEIS\nprepared under amendments 15/20\n1994 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed:\n58 FR 60584, 11-17-93; GOA Proposed: 58 FR 60575, 11-17-93; BSAI Final: 59 FR 7656, 02-16-94;\nBSAI Final Correction: 59 FR 13769, 03-23-94; Clarify table for 1994 season apportionments -\nAppendix C - 10","FR/TA: 59 FR 8869, 02-24-94; Final 1994 initial specifications and associated management\nmeasures - 59 FR 32385, 06-23-94; GOA Final: 59 FR 7647, 02-16-94; EA undated; FONSI\ndetermination 02-10-94; no final EA in file\nNotice of proposed 1994 specification of Pacific halibut bycatch allowances; revise management and\nmonitoring of GOA halibut bycatch limit for trawl gear; amend directed fishing standards to prohibit\nusing retained amounts of arrowtooth flounder or groundfish closed to directed fishing as basis for\ncalculating retainable amounts of other groundfish species closed to directed fishing; change opening\ndate for yellowfin sole and \"other flatfish\" in the BSAI - Preventing overfishing of GOA thornyhead\nrockfish; POP; and Pacific halibut in GOA trawl fisheries and adjustment of BSAI flatfish seasons to\nprovide additional fishing opportunity - EIR: 59 FR 6222, 02-10-94, effective 02-07-94, through\n05-11-94; extension of EIR: 59 FR 24965, 05-13-94, effective 05-12-94 through 08-09-94; PR:\n59 FR 23044, 05-04-94; correction 59 FR V, 05-09-94; FR: 59 FR 38132, 07-27-94, effective 08-09-94;\nEA dated July 1994; FONSI determination 07-18-94\nGOA directed fishing standards to include new target species categories established in the 1991, 1993,\nand 1994 annual specification process; to limit bycatch amounts of species closed to directed fishing -\nTA: 59 FR 10588, 03-07-94, effective 03-07-94; no NEPA analysis required\nExperimental Fishing Permit for Terra Marine, Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative, and Golden Age\nFisheries to assess the feasibility of an inshore fishery in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area - Application\nfor EFP: 59 FR 23054, 05-04-94; Approval of EFP: 59 FR 31982, 06-21-94; EA dated 05-16-94; FONSI\ndetermination 06-14-94\nLimit chum salmon bycatch during 1994 pollock \"B\" season - ER: 59 FR 35476, 07-12-94, effective\n08-15-94, through 11-12-94; EA dated June 1994; FONSI determination 06-24-93\nReopen sablefish concurrent with halibut opening - ER: 59 FR 44944, 08-31-94, effective 09-12-94,\nthrough 12-10-94; EA dated August 1994; FONSI determination 08-16-94\n1995 Specifications for the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan - includes the standard exvessel prices,\ntotal exvessel value, fee percentage, level of observer coverage for Research Plan,\nembarkment/disembarkment ports for observers which is used to calculate fees to be paid by participants\nin the GOA, BSAI, KTC and Pacific halibut fisheries - Proposed: 59 FR 46816, 09-12-94; Final\nApproval: 59 FR 61556, 12-01-94; Final Approval Amendment: 60 FR 53715, 10-17-95, effective 10-\n11-95; no EA required\nDelay opening date offshore component pollock roe \"A\" season - PR: 59 FR 49051, 09-26-94; FR:\n59 FR 64867, 12-16-94, effective 01-12-95, through 12-31-95; EA dated November 1994; FONSI\ndetermination 11-22-94\nMethod used for determining CDQ compensation for the Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ program - PR:\n59 FR 49637, 09-29-94; FR: 60 FR 11916, 03-05-95; RIR only\nClarify regulations implementing the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan - revise definition of\n\"Processor\"; exempt certain processors from applying for processor permits - IFR/PR: 59 FR 59983, 11-\n21-94; FR: 60 FR 23441, 01-09-95; EA under the NPFRP (BSA/GOA/KTC Amendments 27/30/3)\nAppendix C - 11","Allocate 1995 - 1997 Community Develop Programs for halibut and sablefish Community Development\nQuota Program in the BSAI: 59 FR 61877, 12-02-94; no EA required\n1995 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications - BSAI Proposed: 59 FR 64383, 12-14-94;\nBSAI Proposed Correction: 60 FR 5762, 01-30-95; GOA Proposed: 59 FR 65990, 12-22-94; BSAI\nFinal 60 FR 8479, 02-14-95; BSAI Final Correction: 60 FR 13780, 03-14-95; GOA Final:\n60 FR 8470, 02-14-95; EA dated January 1995; FONSI determination 02-06-95\nRevise management of seasonal Pacific halibut bycatch allowances annually specified for nontrawl\nfisheries in the BSAI; provide NMFS authority to determine annually whether to apportion a halibut\nbycatch allowance to BSAI jig gear fishery or BSAI or GOA hook-and-line gear fisheries for sablefish or\nexempt from halibut bycatch restrictions - PR: 59 FR 67268, 12-29-94; FR: 60 FR 12149, 03-06-95,\neffective 04-03-95; revision of effective date of FR authorizing exemption of GOA sablefish from 1995\nhalibut bycatch restrictions: 60 FR 14912, 03-21-95, effective 03-15-95; EA dated February 1995;\nFONSI determination 02-23-95\nIndividual Fishing Quota Program Regulatory Amendment Omnibus I - amends various portions of\nregulations implementing the Individual Fishing Quota Program - PR: 60 FR 2935, 01-12-95; FR: 60 FR\n22307, 05-05-95; RIR only\nRed king crab protection for trawl gear in Zone 1 and change observer coverage to aid monitoring of\nRKC in the flatfish trawl fishery outside of Zone 1 - EIR: 60 FR 4866, 01-25-95, effective 01-20-95,\nthrough 04-25-95; EA dated December 1994; FONSI determination 01-12-95\nFramework provision to provide Regional Director with authority to establish IFQ sablefish season and\nannounce it by publication in the Federal Register to provide flexibility in starting the IFQ sablefish\nseason to allow coordination with the IFQ halibut season established by the IPHC - PR: 60 FR 2935,\n01-12-95; FR: 60 FR 12152, 03-06-95, effective 03-01-95; RIR/IRFA only\nAmend regulations implementing the Individual Fishing Quota Program Determinations and Appeals\nprocedure for Limited Access Management of Federal Fisheries in and off Alaska - IFR 60 FR 6448, 02-\n02-95; FR: 60 FR 61497, 11-30-95; RIR only\nRevise standard product recovery rates for pollock deep skin fillets - PR: 60 FR 13106, 03-10-95; FR:\n60 FR 24800, 05-10-95, effective 06-09-95; correction: 60 FR 36237, 07-14-95; EA undated; FONSI\ndetermination 08-26-94\nRevised directed fishing standards - PR: 60 FR 20952, 04-28-95; FR: 60 FR 40304, 08-08-95, effective\n08-02-95; correction 60 FR 43494, 08-21-95; EA dated June 1995; FONSI determination 07-19-95\nExempt certain crab catcher vessels from the 1995 fee collection program authorized by the North\nPacific Fisheries Research Plan - PR: 60 FR 34228, 06-03-95; FR: 60 FR 42470, 08-16-95; EA prepared\nfor BSAI/GOA/KTC FMP Amendments 27/30/3, EA/RIR dated 08-03-94; FONSI determination 08-15-\n94\nAppendix C - 12","Allow vessels subject to existing Individual Fishing Quota Program recordkeeping and observer\ncoverage requirements to fish for sablefish and Pacific halibut in a regulatory area in which persons on\nboard vessel hold IFQ - IFR: 60 FR 45378, 08-31-95; FR: 60 FR 61497, 11-30-95; RIR only\nRevise recordkeeping and reporting requirements - PR: 50 FR 46936, 09-08-95; FR: 61 FR 5608,\n02-13-96, effective 03-13-96; correction: 61 FR 19976, 05-03-96; no EA required\nClarify Individual Fishing Quota definitions of \"qualified person\" - Interpretive Rule: 60 FR 58528, 11-\n28-95; no EA required\n1996 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications and PSC allowance: BSAI Proposed:\n60 FR 62373, 12-06-95; GOA Proposed: 60 FR 61514, 11-30-95; BSAI Final: 61 FR 4311, 02-05-96;\nGOA Final: 61 FR 4304, 02-05-96; EA dated January 1996; FONSI determination 01-26-96\nAdd city of Akutan to list of western communities eligible to participate in CDQ programs - PR:\n61 FR 24475, 05-15-96; FR: 61 FR 41744, 08-12-96; effective 09-09-96; July 1996 EA signed 08-05-96;\nEA dated July 1996; FONSI signed 07-30-96\nBSAI pollock \"B\" season delay - PR: 61 FR 29726, 06-12-96; FR: 61 FR 39601, 07-30-96; effective\n08-15-96; Supplementary Analysis dated 05-22-96; FONSI determination 07-22-96\nSablefish longline pot gear use in the BSAI - PR: 61 FR 37041, 07-16-96; FR: 61 FR 49076, 09-18-96;\neffective 09-12-96; 08-16-96, EA/RIR/IRFA dated 08-16-96; FONSI determination 09-09-96\nIFQ Omni II - PR: 61 FR 18116, 04-24-96; FR: 61 FR 41523, 08-09-96; effective 09-09-96; RIR dated\n05-30-95[96]\nFinal Consolidated Regulations - FR: 61 FR 31228, 06-19-96, effective 07-01-96; correction:\n61 FR 37843, 07-22-96; correction: 61 FR 40481, 08-02-96; correction: 61 FR 41684, 08-09-96; no EA\nrequired\nClarify recordkeeping exemption for CV's; checkin/out reports; time limit for submission of checkin/out\nreports; IFQ submittal instructions; research plan observer coverage responsibilities - TA: 61 FR 49980,\n09-24-96, effective 09-24-96; no EA required\nElectronic reporting requiring C/Ps, MS, and SS subject to observer coverage to have electronic\ncommunication equipment for transmission of observer data. This final rule amends a final rule\nimplementing a revised observer coverage plan (BSAI/GOA/KTC amendments 47/47/6) that was\npublished at 61 FR 56425, 11-01-96 - FR: 61 FR 63759, 12-02-96; effective 07-01-97; EA dated October\n1996; FONSI determination 10-25-96\n1997 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed:\n61 FR 60076, 11-26-96; BSAI Proposed Correction: 62 FR 2719, 01-17-97; GOA Proposed:\n61 FR 64310, 12-04-96; BSAI Final: 62 FR 6168, 02-18-97; GOA Final: 62 FR 8179, 02-24-97; EA\ndated January 1997; FONSI determination 02-05-97\nAppendix C - 13","Increase IFQ halibut quota share use caps - PR: 61 FR 63812, 12-02-96; FR: 62 FR 7947, 02-21-97;\neffective 03-24-97; EA/RIR/IRFA dated 01-16-97, with attached Supplemental FRFA dated 02-18-97;\nFONSI determination 02-06-97\nRevise RRR to implement permit and RRR - PR: 61 FR 67524, 12-23-96; FR: 62 FR 17753, 04-11-97;\neffective 05-12-97; correction: 62 FR 26749, 05-15-97; no EA required\nReduce maximum retainable bycatch percentages for GOA sablefish taken with trawl gear in the GOA;\nallow use of arrowtooth flounder as basis species for retention of bycatch amounts of pollock and Pacific\ncod when these species closed to directed fishing - PR: 62 FR 724, 01-06-97; FR: 62 FR 11109,\n03-11-97; effective 04-10-97; EA dated October 1996; FONSI determination 03-07-97\nCorrecting errors in consolidated regulations - TA: 62 FR 2043, 01-15-97, effective 02-14-97; no EA\nrequired\nIFQ six hour notice of landing requirement - PR: 62 FR 7993, 02-21-97; FR: 62 FR 26246; 05-13-97;\neffective 06-12-97; RIR only\nSeabird avoidance devices in hook-and-line groundfish fisheries - PR: 62 FR 10016, 03-05-97; FR:\n62 FR 23176, 04-29-97; effective 05-29-97; 04-04-97, EA/RIR/FRFA dated 04-04-97; FONSI\ndetermination 04-18-97\nCorrection to 50 CFR 679 consolidated regulations; \"flounder\" to flatfish\"; include in/offshore pollock\nand Pacific cod provision to GOA reserves; and add text to include GOA in apportionment text - TA/FR:\n62 FR 15127, 03-31-97; effective 03-31-97; no EA required\nExperimental Fishing Permit to test the effects of an open-top trawl configuration on species and size\ncomposition of catch in trawls targeting yellowfin sole to the Groundfish Forum. Notice of receipt of\nEFP application: 62 FR 18316, 04-15-97; Notice of Issuance of an EFP 97-01: 62 FR 33397, 06-19-97;\nEA dated 05-21-97; FONSI determination 06-03-97\nAt-sea scales certification program - implement performance and technical requirements for At-Sea\nscales. PR: 62 FR 32564, 06-16-97; At-Sea Scale Certification Program Proposed Collection - 63 FR\n5364, 02-02-98; FR: 63 FR 5835, 02-04-98; effective 03-06-98; Notice of proposed implementation: 63\nFR 5364, 02-02-98; Notice of implementation: 63 FR 13798, 03-23-98; effective 03-23-98; RIR only\nEstablish standard allowances for ice and slime on unwashed Pacific halibut and sablefish landed in the\nIFQ fisheries for these species and incorporate them into the conversion factors for halibut and product\nrecovery rates for sablefish used by NMFS to debit IFQ accounts - PR: 62 FR 32734, 06-17-97; FR:\n62 FR 60667, 11-12-97, effective 12-12-97; correction: 62 FR 66311, 12-18-97, effective 12-12-97; EA\ndated October 1997; FONSI determination 10-20-97\nClarify term \"fishing trip\" for purposes of monitoring directed fishing closures - TA/FR: 62 FR 35109,\n06-30-97; effective 06-30-97; correction: 62 FR 38944, 07-21-97, effective 07-21-97; no EA required\nAppendix C - 14","Extend North Pacific Interim Groundfish Observer Program through 1998 - PR: 62 FR 49198, 09-19-97;\nFR: 62 FR 67755, 12-30-97; effective 01-01-98; RIR/FRFA dated 10-28-97, (see EA/RIR/FRFA dated\n08-27-96, for the Interim Observer Program under amendments 47/47; FONSI determination 10-30-96)\nClarify and correct minor errors in regulations implementing the IFQ program - FR/TA: 62 FR 59298,\n11-03-97; effective 11-03-97; no EA required\nIFQ survivorship transfer provisions. PR: 62 FR 60060, 11-06-97; Notice of withdrawal: 63 FR 13161,\n03-18-98\nClarify observer GCL insurance coverage - FR/TA: 62 FR 60182, 11-07-97; effective 11-07-97; no EA\nrequired\n1998 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed:\n62 FR 65638, 12-15-97; GOA Proposed: 62 FR 65644, 12-15-97; BSAI Final: 63 FR 12689,\n03-16-98; Correction: 63 FR 30148, 06-03-98; GOA Final: 63 FR 12027, 03-12-98; EA dated 03-02-\n98; FONSI determination 03-03-98\nImplement requirements for seabird bycatch avoidance devices in the hook-and-line Pacific halibut\nfishery off Alaska - PR: 62 FR 65635, 12-15-97; FR: 63 FR 11161, 03-06-98; EA dated 01-26-98;\nFONSI determination 02-20-98\nSeparate Shortraker/rougheye rockfish from aggregated rockfish bycatch group and reduce maximum\nretainable bycatch in the Aleutian Islands - PR: 63 FR 2654, 01-16-98; FR: 63 FR 15334, 03-31-98;\neffective 04-30-98; EA dated 02-25-98; FONSI determination 03-18-98\nRevise Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for 1998 fishing year - PR: 63 FR 8389, 02-19-98;\nFR: 63 FR 47348, 09-04-98; Correction: 63 FR 54610, 10-13-98; no EA required\nModify vessel ownership requirements under the Individual Fishing Quota program - PR: 63 FR 69256,\n12-16-98; FR: 64 FR 24960, 05-10-99; effective 06-09-99; RIR/IRFA only\nApproval of Community Development Plans for 1998 - 2000 Pacific halibut, fixed gear sablefish, and\ncrab Community Development Quotas: 63 FR 14379, 03-25-98; Notice of approval of amendments to\nthe 1998-2000 Multiple Species Community Development Plans for the 1999 allocation of pollock and\nrelated bycatch species: 64 FR 1539, 01-11-99, effective 01-11-99; no EA required\nChange the seasonal apportionments of pollock in the combined western and central GOA - PR: 63 FR\n23712, 04-30-98; FR: 63 FR 31939, 06-11-98; EA dated May 1998; FONSI determination 05-29-98\nExperimental Fishing Permit 98-01 - Groundfish Forum, Inc., to test halibut excluder device for flatfish\ntrawls to lower halibut bycatch rates - Notice of application: 63 FR 31201, 06-08-98; Notice of\napproval: 63 FR 44423, 08-18-98; EA dated 07-23-98; FONSI determination 08-13-98\nStand down provisions for vessels transiting between the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area and the\nGulf of Alaska - PR: 63 FR 39065, 07-21-98; FR: 63 FR 48641, 09-11-98; EA dated August 1998;\nFONSI determination 09-01-98\nAppendix C - 15","Extend the North Pacific Interim Groundfish Observer Program through 2000 - PR: 63 FR 47462, 09-08-\n98; FR: 63 FR 69024, 12-15-98; Categorical exclusion from requirements to prepare EA - RIR only\nPartial Approval of CDPs for Multispecies Groundfish and prohibited species for 1998-2000 - 63 FR\n49501, 09-16-98; Correction: 63 FR 51303, 09-25-98; no EA required\nMeasures to reduce impacts of Atka Mackerel Fishery in the Aleutian Islands on the Steller Sea Lions\nand their critical habitat - PR: 63 FR 60288, 11-09-98; FR: 64 FR 3446, 01-22-99, Correction: 64 FR\n43297, 08-10-99; EA dated January 1999; FONSI determination 01-15-99\nNotice to solicit applications for eligibility to participate in the directed pollock fishery in the BSAI;\nrequest for emergency review and approval of a collection of information by OMB; applications received\nafter 12-15-98 will be evaluated for purposes of fishing privileges in the 1999 directed pollock fishery\nbut not for disbursement of funds - Notice: 63 FR 63 FR 66123, 12-01-98; no EA required\n1999 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed:\n63 FR 71867, 12-30-98; GOA Proposed: 63 FR 71876, 12-30-98; BSAI Final: 64 FR 12103,\n03-11-99; GOA Final: 64 FR 12094, 03-11-98; EA dated 12-24-98; FONSI determination 12-24-98\n1999 Halibut Community Development Quota management - PR: 64 FR 6025, 02-08-99 ; FR: 64 FR\n20210, 04-26-99; EA dated 03-11-99; FONSI determination 04-09-99\nChanges to the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for 1999 - PR: 64 FR 5868, 02-05-99; FR:\n64 FR 61964, 11-15-99; effective: 12-15-99; 64 FR 69673\n12-14-99; correction: 65 FR 10978, 03-\n01-00; correction: 65 FR 25290, 05-01-00; correction: 65 FR 41380, 07-05-00\nMonitor and manage 1999 harvest limitations established for pollock catcher/processors under the\nAmerican Fisheries Act and observer coverage - ER: 64 FR 3435, 01-22-99; effective 01-20-99, through\n07-19-99; Correction: 64 FR 7814, 02-17-99; Extension of ER: 64 FR 33425, 06-23-99, effective 07-19-\n99, through 12-31-99; EA dated December 1998; FONSI determination 01-12-99\nImplement Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives for Steller sea lion protection measures for the pollock\nfisheries of the BSAI and the GOA - ER: 64 FR 3437, 01-22-99; effective 01-20-99, thorugh 07-19-99;\nCorrection: 64 FR 7815, 02-17-99; Correction: 64 FR 9375, 02-25-99, effective 02-24-99; Correction: 64\nFR 43297, 08-10-99, effective 08-09-99; Extension of ER: 64 FR 39087, 07-21-99, effective 07-20-99,\nthrough 12-31-99; EA dated January 1999; FONSI determination 01-14-99\nEstablish a control year of 1999 in which no participation credit would be granted for entry into a non-\nsalmon fishery off Alaska - Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking: 64 FR 2780, 01-19-99\nExempted Fishery Permit 99-01 and 99-02 - University of Washington Sea Grant Program to test\neffectiveness of seabird avoidance measures in the hook and line groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and\nGOA and in the Individual Fishing Quota halibut fishery - Notice of receipt (99-01): 64 FR 14885, 03-\n29-99; Notice of approval (99-01): 64 FR 25478, 05-12-99; Notice of approval (99-02): 64 FR 29994,\n06-04-99; Categorical exclusion from requirements to prepare EA\nAppendix C - 16","Establish application and transfer process for BSAI groundfish and crab licence limitation program - PR:\n64 FR 19113, 04-19-99; FR: 64 FR 42826, 08-06-99; effective 09-07-99; Categorical exclusion from\nrequirements to prepare EA\nExempted Fishery Permit 99-04 - Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation to test artificial longline\nbait fabricated from seafood wastes in the GOA - Notice of receipt: 64 FR 30488, 06-08-99; Notice of\napproval: 64 FR 49468, 09-13-99; EA dated July 1999; FONSI determination 09-01-99\nRequirements of the American Fisheries Act related to the 1999 Western Alaska CDQ (SEE BSAI FMP\nAmendment 45) - Extension of ER: 64 FR 34743, 06-29-99; effective 07-20-99, through 12-31-99\nMaximum retainable bycatch percentages for the shortraker/roughey and thornyhead rockfish in the\nGOA - PR: 64 FR 42080, 08-03-99; FR: 64 FR 68054, 12-06-99; effective 01-05-00; EA dated\nNovember 1999; FONSI determination 11-16-99\nExempted fishing permit 99-03 - Groundfish Forum, Inc., to conduct an experiment in the BSAI that\nwould test the accuracy of at-sea observer basket sampling practices, the design and use of automated\nspecies composition sampling, and the effect of fish stratification in trawls on size composition sampling\n- Notice of issuance of permit: 64 FR 43986, 08-12-99; Correction: 64 FR 46183, 08-24-99; EA dated\n06-28-99; FONSI determination 08-06-99\nSelection of an Authorized Distributor for purposes of distributing Pacific salmon to economically\ndisadvantaged individuals under the prohibited species donation program - Notice of selection: 64 FR\n44502, 08-16-99; effective 08-16-99\nNotice of application period for groundfish licenses and crab species licenses issued under the License\nLimitation Program - 64 FR 49104, 09-10-99; effective 09-13-99, through 12-17-99\nAmend portions of regulations implementing the equipment and operational requirements for catch\nweight measurement, observer sampling stations and observer transmission of data - PR: 64 FR 67555,\n12-02-99; FR: 65 FR 33781, 05-25-00; effective 06-26-00; RIR/FRFA only\nIndividual Fishing Quota Cost Recover Plan for the halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska - PR: 64\nFR 72302, 12-27-99; Correction: 65 FR 11756, 12-06-99; FR: 65 FR 14919, 03-20-00; effective 03-15-\n00; EA dated January 2000; FONSI determination 01-21-00\n2000 BSAI and GOA Groundfish TAC Specifications and PSC allowance - BSAI Proposed:\n642 FR 69464, 12-09-99; GOA Proposed: 64 FR 69457, 12-13-99; BSAI Final: 65 FR 8282,\n02-18-00; Correction: 65 FR 42302, 07-10-00; GOA Final: 65 FR 8298, 02-18-00; Correction: 65 FR\n11909, 03-07-00; EA dated 12-23-99; FONSI determination 12-23-99\nApproval of amendments to 1998-2000 Multiple Species Community Development Plans for\nCommunity Development Quota groups to add allocations of pollock and selected other groundfish and\nprohibited species - 64 FR 71688, 12-22-99; effective 12-21-99\nAppendix C - 17","Implement permit requirements required under the American Fisheries Act - EIR: 65 FR 380, 01-05-00;\neffective 12-30-99, through 06-27-00; Extension of EIR: 65 FR 39107, 06-23-00, effective 06-27-00,\nthrough 12-24-00; EA dated 12-06-99; FONSI determination 12-23-99\nImplement Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives for the protection of Steller sea lions - ER: 65 FR 3892,\n01-25-00; effective 01-20-00, through 07-19-00; Correction: 65 FR 6561, 02-10-00; ER Extension: 65\nFR 36795, 06-12-00, effective 01-25-00, through 12-31-00; EA dated January 2000; FONSI\ndetermination 01-11-00\nImplement harvest sideboard limits and fishery cooperative management measures necessary to\nimplement the American Fisheries Act in 2000 - EIR: 65 FR 4520, 01-28-00; effective 01-21-00, through\n07-20-00; Correction: 65 FR 10722, 02-29-00; EIR Extension: 65 FR 39107, 06-23-00, effective 07-20-\n00, through 01-16-01; Correction: 65 FR 45930, 07-26-00; EA dated 01-07-00; FONSI determination 01-\n14-00\nExempted Fishing Permit for Groundfish Forum Inc., and At-Sea Processors Association to develop a\ndevice for the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries that would lower halibut bycatch rates without lowering Pacific\ncod catch rates (Excluder device) - Notice of receipt: 65 FR 19363, 04-11-00; Notice of Issuance of\nPermit 00-01: 65 FR 55223, 09-13-00; EA dated August 2000; FONSI determination 09-07-00\nVessel monitoring system for the Atka mackerel fishery in the Aleutian Islands subarea - PR: 65 FR\n36810, 06-12-00; FR: 65 FR 61264, 10-17-00, effective 11-16-00\nCorrection to the License Limitation Program licensing requirements, landings, qualifications for an \"A\"\nCategory vessel in the W. GOA: 65 FR 30549, 05-12-00, effective 01-01-99; Categorical exclusion from\nrequirements to prepare EA\nAmend regulations implementing the License Limitation Program to include provisions inadvertently\nomitted that would have made area endorsements and area/species endorsements specified on a license\nnon-severable from the license - FR: 65 FR 31103, 05-16-00, effective 05-11-00; Categorical exclusion\nfrom requirements to prepare EA\nRemove and revise regulations related to the expiration of the vessel moratorium program - FR/TA: 65\nFR 45316, 07-21-00; effective 07-21-00; Correction: 65 FR 52673, 08-30-00\nKodiak Island area closures to trawl gear (Central GOA), to support NMFS-sponsored research on the\neffect of fishing on localized pollock distribution and abundance - PR: 65 FR 41044, 07-03-00; Notice of\nwithdrawal: 65 FR 58727, 10-02-00, effective 10-02-00\nReduce certain observer coverage and experience requirements in the Community Development Quota\nfisheries - PR: 65 FR 45579, 07-24-00; FR: 65 FR 69483, 11-17-00, effective 12-18-00\nClose all Critical Habitat in the BSAI and GOA west of 144° W. longitude to trawling for groundfish;\nCourt-ordered injunction - ER: 65 FR 49766, 08-15-00; effective 08-09-00, until Order rescinded\nHalibut Donation Program permanent extension - PR: 65 FR 56860, 09-20-00; FR: not yet completed\nAppendix C - 18","Extend the Interim North Pacific Groundfish Program through 2002 - PR: 65 FR 66223, 11-03-00; FR:\nnot yet completed\nCorrection to the License Limitation Program Amendments published 10-01-98, correcting the definition\nof an eligible applicant for a Norton Sound LLP license - 65 FR 54971, 09-12-00; effective: 01-01-99\nPrepared November 21, 2000\nF/AKR2 - Gravel\nAppendix C - 19","APPENDIX D\nNotice of Intent","53305\nFederal Register Vol. 64, No. 0/Friday, October 1, 1999 Proposed Rules\nWashington, DC by November 26, 1999.\nstandards for the potential repository at\n9:00 p.m. and October 21, 1999 from\nAll comments received by EPA, whether\nYucca Mountain, Nevada. On August\n9:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon; and Kansas\n27, 1999, EPA published the proposed\nwritten or oral, will be given equal\nCity, MO, October 27, 1999, from 12:00\nconsideration in development of the\nradiation protection standards for Yucca\nNoon to 9:00 p.m. Specific locations for\nMountain, Nevada in the Federal\nfinal rule.\neach city are detailed in the next section\nRegister at 64 FR 46976-47016.\nADDRESSES. Procedures for pre-\nDated: September 27, 1999.\nSimultaneously, a 90-day public\nregistering for and testifying at these\nRobert Brenner,\ncomment period on the Agency's\npublic hearings are detailed in the\nActing Assistant Administrator for Air and\nproposed rule began. The public\n'Hearings Procedures\" subsection of the\nRadiation.\ncomment period closes November 26,\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.\n[FR Doc. 99-25566 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]\n1999. Once EPA's standards are\nADDRESSES: EPA's public hearings to\nBILLING CODE 6560-50-P\nfinalized, the Nuclear Regulatory\nreceive comments on the Agency's\nCommission is responsible for\nproposed radiation protection standards\nimplementing those standards.\nfor Yucca Mountain, Nevada will be\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nheld on October 13, 1999, at the Ronald\nHearings Procedures\nReagan Building (Federal Triangle\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric\nPersons wishing to testify at the\nMetro Stop), International Trade Center,\nAdministration\npublic hearings are requested to pre-\nHemisphere B Meeting Room, 1300\nregister by calling EPA's toll-free Yucca\nPennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,\n50 CFR Part 679\nMountain Information Line at 1-800-\nDC; on October 19, 1999, at the\n331-9477 between the hours of 12:00\n[I.D. 092799E]\nAmargosa Valley Community Center,\nNoon and 7:00 p.m. Eastern Standard\n821 East Farm Road, Amargosa Valley,\nGroundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of\nTime (EST) with the following\nNV; on October 20 and 21, 1999 at the\nAlaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian\ninformation: Name/Organizational\nLas Vegas Conference Suites and\nIslands Area\nAffiliation (if any)/hearing date,\nServices, Room 111, 101 Convention\nlocation, time(s) available to testify, and\nAGENCY: National Marine Fisheries\nCenter Drive, Las Vegas, NV; and on\na daytime telephone number. In order to\nService (NMFS), National Oceanic and\nOctober 27, 1999, at the Kansas City\nobtain a scheduled speaking time,\nAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),\nConvention Center, Conference Center-\nrequests must be received by EPA no\nCommerce.\nRoom 4201, 14th Street between\nlater than 7:00 p.m. EST October 12,\nACTION: Notice of intent; scoping\nWyandotte and Central, Kansas City,\n1999 for the hearings in Washington,\nmeetings; request for comments.\nMO.\nDC; October 18, 1999 for the hearings in\nEPA's official docket for this rule,\nAmargosa Valley and Las Vegas, NV;\nSUMMARY: NMFS announces its\nincluding technical support documents\nand October 22, 1999, for the hearings\nintention to prepare a programmatic\nand other documents and materials\nin Kansas City, MO. Speakers not\nsupplemental environmental impact\nrelevant to this rule, are filed in Docket\nregistered in advance may register at the\nstatement (SEIS) on Federal groundfish\nNo. A-95-12 of the Air Docket, located\ndoor. Individuals testifying on their own\nfishery management in the Exclusive\nin Room M-1500 (first floor in\nbehalf will be allowed 5 minutes. One\nEconomic Zone (EEZ) waters off Alaska.\nWaterside Mall near the Washington\nindividual may testify as the official\nThe scope of the analysis will include\nInformation Center), U.S. EPA, 401 M\nrepresentative or spokesperson on\nall activities addressing the conduct of\nStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20460-\nbehalf of groups and organizations and\ngroundfish fisheries authorized and\n0001. EPA has also established\nwill be allocated ten minutes for an oral\nmanaged under two of the North Pacific\n\"Information Files\" for this rule at two\npresentation. Time allowed is exclusive\nFishery Management Council's fishery\nlocations in Nevada: the Government\nof any time consumed by questions from\nmanagement plans (FMPs): Groundfish\nPublications Section of the Dickinson\nthe government panel and answers to\nof the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and\nLibrary at the University of Nevada-Las\nthese questions. Testimony from\namendments thereto; and Groundfish\nVegas, 4504 Maryland Parkway, Las\nindividuals and representatives of\nFishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian\nVegas, NV, and the Public Library in\norganizations is limited to one hearing\nIslands Area (BSAI), and amendments\nAmargosa Valley, NV.\nlocation. Substitutions will not be\nthereto.\nAs provided in EPA's regulations at\npermitted for any pre-registered person.\nNMFS will hold scoping meetings to\n40 CFR Part 2, and in accordance with\nRegistrants will not be permitted to\nreceive public input on the structure of\nnormal Air docket procedures, if copies\nyield their time to other individuals or\nthe alternatives and the range of issues\nof any docket materials are requested, a\ngroups, nor will hearing time be used to\nto be covered in the programmatic SEIS.\nreasonable fee may be charged for\n\"read into the record\" testimony from\nNMFS is accepting written comments\nphotocopying.\nindividuals not present at the hearings.\non the same topics.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nIn the event any person wishes to enter\nDATES: Written comments will be\nRafaela Ferguson, Office of Radiation\ncomments for the record, but either\naccepted through November 15, 1999\nand Indoor Air, (202) 564-9362 or call\ncannot or does not appear personally at\n(see ADDRESSES). See\nEPA's 24-hour toll-free Yucca Mountain\nthe hearings, written comments will be\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,\nInformation Line, 1-800-331-9477.\naccepted by EPA during the hearings.\nPublic Involvement for meeting dates.\nThese written comments will be\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.\nADDRESSES: Written comments and\nconsidered to the same extent as oral\nDepartment of Energy is developing a\nrequests to be included on a mailing list\ntestimony and will be included as part\npotential geologic repository at Yucca\nof the official hearings transcripts. The\nof persons interested in the\nMountain, Nevada, for disposal of spent\nprogrammatic SEIS should be sent to\nhearing transcript will constitute the\nnuclear fuel and high-level radioactive\nofficial record of the hearings. Written\nLori Gravel, Sustainable Fisheries\nwaste. As mandated by the Energy\nDivision, National Marine Fisheries\ncomments submitted outside of the\nPolicy Act of 1992, the Environmental\npublic hearings must be received by\nService, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK\nProtection Agency (EPA) has developed\n99802. Comments may also be hand-\nEPA Docket No. A-95-12 in\nsite-specific public health and safety","Federal Register Vol. 64, No. /Friday, October 1, 1999 Proposed Rules\n53306\nenvironmental impacts (including\ndelivered to Room 457-1 Federal Office\nSeattle (NO. C98-0492Z) ruled in\nGreenpeace NMFS that the 1998 SEIS\nbiological and socio-economic).\nBuilding, 907 West 9th Street, Juneau,\nThrough this scoping process, NMFS\nwas legally inadequate, and remanded\nAK. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION\nthe document to NMFS for further\nrequests public input on the\nPublic Involvement for meeting\nmanagement alternatives that should be\naction consistent with the requirements\nlocations.\nconsidered in this programmatic SEIS.\nof NEPA.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nIn this document, NMFS announces\nPrior to the scoping meetings, NMFS\nSteve Davis, NMFS, (907) 271-3523.\nits intent to prepare a programmatic\nwill publish in the Federal Register\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the\nSEIS that defines the Federal action\ndraft alternatives to be developed\nMagnuson-Stevens Fishery\nunder review as, among other things, all\nfurther at the public scoping meetings\nConservation and Management Act, the\nactivities authorized and managed\nand in the programmatic SEIS.\nUnited States has exclusive fishery\nunder the FMPs and all amendments\nmanagement authority over all living\nIssues\nthereto, and that addresses the conduct\nmarine resources found within the EEZ,\nThe environmental consequences\nof the GOA and BSAI groundfish\nexcept marine mammals and birds. The\nsection of the EIS will display the\nfisheries and the FMPs as a whole.\nmanagement of these marine resources\nimpacts of groundfish harvest accruing\nNMFS will present in the SEIS an\nis vested in the Secretary of Commerce\nwith present management regulations\noverview and an assessment of all\n(Secretary). Eight Regional Fishery\nand under a range of representative\nimpacts (including environmental,\nManagement Councils prepare FMPs for\nalternative management regulations on\nbiological, and socio-economic) that\napproval and implementation by the\nNorth Pacific and Bering Sea ecosystem\nresult from directed and incidental\nSecretary. The North Pacific Fishery\nissues. These issues include: (1) Marine\ngroundfish harvest regulations affecting\nManagement Council has the\nhabitat, (2) major species of fish,\namount of harvest, location of harvest,\nresponsibility to prepare FMPs for the\n(3) major species and groups of\ntime of harvest, method of harvest,\nfishery resources that require\ninvertebrates, (4) marine mammals, (5)\ndistribution of harvest among\nconservation and management in the\nseabirds, and (6) cumulative and\nfishermen, use of the harvest, and\nEEZ off Alaska. The North Pacific\nsynergistic impacts on species across\nmethods used to monitor harvest and\nFishery Management Council consists of\nthe foodweb. In addition, the\nthe fisheries. Also, NMFS will identify\nFederal and state officials having\nenvironmental consequences section\nand evaluate the significant changes that\nauthority for fishery management, and\nwill contain summary, interpretation,\nhave occurred in the GOA and BSAI\nof private persons nominated by the\nand predictions for socio-economic\ngroundfish fisheries, including\ngovernors of the States of Alaska,\nissues associated with conduct of those\nsignificant cumulative effects of\nOregon, and Washington, and appointed\nfisheries on the following groups of\nenvironmental and management\nby the Secretary.\nindividuals: (1) Those who participate\nchanges in the groundfish fisheries\nThe National Environmental Policy\nin harvesting the groundfish resources\nsince the issuance of the 1978 and 1981\nAct (NEPA) requires preparation of\nand other living marine resources, (2)\nEISs. Further, NMFS will also analyze\nenvironmental impact statements (EISs)\nthose who process and market the fish\nthe impacts (including environmental,\nfor major Federal actions significantly\nand fishery products, (3) those who are\nbiological and socio-economic) resulting\nimpacting the quality of the human\ninvolved in allied support industries, (4)\nfrom the current fishery management\nenvironment. 40 CFR 1502.9(c) states:\nthose who consume fishery products, (5)\nregime, and reasonable alternatives to\n\"Agencies shall prepare supplements to\nthose who rely on living marine\nthe current management regime. The\neither draft or final environmental\nresources in the management area either\nResponsible Program Manager for this\nimpact statements if: (i) The agency\nfor subsistence needs or for recreational\nSEIS is Steven Pennoyer, Alaska\nmakes substantial changes in the\nbenefits, (6) those who benefit from non-\nRegional Administrator, NMFS.\nproposed action that are relevant to\nconsumptive uses of living marine\nAlternatives\nenvironmental concerns; or (ii) There\nresources, (7) those involved in\nThe SEIS will consider a range of\nare significant new circumstances or\nmanaging and monitoring fisheries, and\ninformation relevant to environmental\nalternative harvest management\n(8) fishing communities.\nconcerns and bearing on the proposed\nregimes, incorporating variations on\nConsultations\nvarious elements of the FMPs. It will not\naction or its impacts.\nPursuant to section 7(a)(2 of the\nThe Council prepared, and the\nconsider detailed alternatives for every\nEndangered Species Act (ESA),\nSecretary approved, the Fishery\naspect of the FMPs. A principal\nconsultations for listed species and\nManagement Plan for Gulf of Alaska\nobjective, therefore, of the scoping and\ncritical habitat affected by these\nGroundfish in 1978 and the Fishery\npublic input processes is to identify a\nfisheries have been or will be initiated\nManagement Plan for Groundfish\nreasonable set of programmatic\nand will be prepared in parallel with\nFishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian\nmanagement alternatives that, with\ndevelopment of the programmatic SEIS.\nIslands Area in 1981. EISs were\nadequate analysis, will sharply define\nThese consultations will be conducted\nprepared for those FMPs and were filed\ncritical issues and provide a clear basis\nin accordance with the ESA and\nin 1978 and 1981, respectively. Both\nfor choice among the alternatives.\nFMPs have been amended numerous\nManagement of the GOA and the\nimplementing regulations, 50 CFR 402\nBSAI groundfish fisheries pursuant to\net seq., and will analyze the individual\ntimes. NEPA environmental documents\nthe FMPs involves decision making that\nand cumulative impacts of activities\n(categorical exclusion, environmental\nassessments, or EISs) have been\ncan result in changes to the harvest\nrelating to the groundfish fisheries\nmanagement strategy. Accordingly, in\nauthorized and managed under the\nprepared for each FMP amendment and\nregulatory amendment. Additionally,\nthe programmatic SEIS, NMFS will\nFMPs, and amendments thereto, to\ndetermine whether the cumulative\nNMFS prepared and issued an SEIS for\nconsider a full range of management\nalternatives, including the No Action\nimpacts of the groundfish fisheries are\nthe groundfish fisheries authorized\nlikely to jeopardize the continued\nunder both FMPs in December 1998. In\nalternative (i.e., the management regime\nexistence of listed species, including\nJuly 1999, the U.S. District Court,\ncurrently in place would continue to\nSteller sea lions, or adversely modify\nWestern District of Washington at\napply), and evaluate their potential","53307\nFederal Register / Vol. 64, No. 190 /Friday, October 1, 1999 / Proposed Rules\nSand Point Way NE, Building 4, Room\nSeattle Airport, Doubletree Hotel,\ncritical habitat. Results from these\nOctober 10 through 18, 1999.)\n2039, Seattle, WA.\nconsultations will be incorporated into\nSubsequent scoping meetings will be\nthe SEIS to the maximum extent\nSpecial Accommodations\nheld in Anchorage, Juneau, Kodiak, and\npracticable. The schedule for\nSeattle at the following times and\ncompletion of consultation will\nTheses meetings are physically\ncorrespond generally to the schedule for\nlocations:\naccessible to people with disabilities,\n1. Juneau-November 8, 1999, 1-3\nthe issuance of the programmatic SEIS\nReqests for sign language interpretation\np.m., Juneau Federal Building, Room\nas the information, evaluations, and\nor other auxiliary aids should be\n445, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.\nconclusions that are required for both\ndirected to Rebecca Campbell (907)\n2. Anchorage-November 9, 1999, 1-\ndocuments will be similar in many\n586-7228 at least 5 days before the\n3 p.m., Anchorage Federal Building,\nmeeting dates.\nrespects.\nRoom 135, 222 West Seventh Avenue,\nDated: September 27, 1999.\nPublic Involvement\nAnchorage, AK.\nBruce C. Morehead,\n3. Kodiak-November 10, 1999, 1-3\nScoping for the programmatic SEIS\nActing Director, Office of Sustainable\np.m., Kodiak Inn, 236 West Rezanof\nbegins with publication of this notice.\nFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.\nAn informational presentation of the\nDrive, Kodiak, AK.\n[FR Doc. 99-25573 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]\n4. Seattle-November 12, 1-3 p.m.,\nproject will be made during the\nAlaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600\nCouncil's October meeting (Seattle, WA,\nBILLING CODE 3510-22-F","APPENDIX E\nScoping Notice","Federal Register 64, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 1999 /Proposed Rules\n59730\nenvironmental impact statement (SEIS)\nequitable allocations; keep management\nCrews, A.K. 1939. A study of the Oregon\noptions open for the future; prevent\nwhite-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus\non Federal groundfish fishery\nleucurus (Douglas). M.S. thesis. Oregon\noverfishing and rebuild overfished\nmanagement in the Exclusive Economic\nState College. Corvallis. 46 pp.\nstocks; manage stocks as a unit; promote\nZone (EEZ) off Alaska. This document\nGavin, T.A. 1984. Pacific Northwest. in:\nprotection of the safety of human life at\nalso provides an extension of the\nWhite-tailed deer, ecology and\nsea; promote regulatory and fishing\nscoping period from November 15 until\nmanagement. L.K. Halls, editor. A Wildlife\nefficiency; use the best available data;\nDecember 15, 1999.\nManagement Institute publication. Pages\naccount for all fishery related removals.\nDATES: Written comments must be\n491-492.\nIn deciding on particular new\nreceived on or before December 15,\nGavin, T.A. 1978. Status of the Columbian\nmanagement measures, NMFS and the\nwhite-tailed deer: some quantitative uses of\n1999.\nNorth Pacific Fishery Management\nbiogeographic data. Pages 185-202 in:\nADDRESSES: Written comments should\nCouncil review reasonable alternatives\nThreatened Deer. IUCN. Morges,\nbe sent to Lori Gravel, Sustainable\nfor achieving one or more of those goals\nSwitzerland. 434 pp.\nFisheries Division, National Marine\nOregon Department of Fish Wildlife. 1999.\nand objectives, then base decisions\nFisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668,\nDeer census and population trend data.\naccording to the views of competing\nJuneau, AK 99802. Comments may also\nUnpublished ODFW report, Southwest\ninterests and concerns.\nbe hand delivered to Room 457-1\nRegional Office. 4 pages.\nWith this programmatic\nFederal Office Building, 907 West 9\nOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.\nenvironmental impact analysis, NMFS\nStreet, Juneau, AK.\n1995. Columbian white-tailed deer\nwill evaluate how successfully the\nbiological status assessment. Report to\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\ncurrent management regime achieves\nOregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. 83\nSteven Davis, NMFS, (907) 271-3523 or\nthose goals and objectives. The SEIS\npp.\nsteven.k.davis@noaa.gov.\nwill support these determinations by\nSmith, W.P. 1985. Current geographic\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS\ndistribution and abundance on the\npresenting an analysis of the\npublished in the Federal Register, a\nColumbian white-tailed deer, Odocoileus\nenvironmental impacts of the current\nnotice of intent to prepare an SEIS on\nvirginianus leucurus (Douglas). Northwest\nregime and compare them to\nFederal groundfish fishery management\nScience 59:243-251.\nconfigurations of alternatives\nU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Revised\nin the EEZ off Alaska and announced\nmanagement measures that would also\nColumbian white-tailed deer recovery plan.\nscoping meetings (64 FR 53305, October\nachieve those goals and objectives.\nPortland, Oregon. 75 pp.\n1, 1999). The reason for undertaking the\nanalysis, and the issues to be analyzed,\nAlternatives\nAuthor: The primary author of this\nare detailed in the notice of intent and\nnotice is Barbara Behan of the Regional\nNMFS has chosen to analyze broad\nare not repeated here. In the notice,\nOffice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,\nthematic alternatives that will provide,\nNMFS indicated that, prior to the\n911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon\nin a programmatic sense, a conceptual\nscoping meetings, NMFS will publish in\n97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6131).\nframework for understanding how\nthe Federal Register draft alternatives to\neffectively alternative harvest\nAuthority\nbe developed further during the scoping\nmanagement regimes achieve the\nThe authority of this action is the\nprocess.\narticulated goals and objectives and\nNMFS manages the Bering Sea and\nEndangered Species Act of 1973, as\nwhat their environmental impacts\namended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).\nAleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of\nwould be. The SEIS will look at the\nAlaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries to\nthemes: (1) Who harvests groundfish; (2)\nDated: October 26, 1999.\nachieve the goals and objectives of the\nwhat groundfish is harvested; (3) when\nThomas Dwyer,\nMagnuson-Stevens Fishery\nand where is groundfish harvested; and\nRegional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.\nConservation and Management Act\n(4) how groundfish is harvested. Sub-\n[FR Doc. 99-28696 Filed 11-2-99; 8:45 am]\n(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Fishery\nalternatives will be developed for each\nBILLING CODE 4310-55-P\nManagement Plans (FMPs) for the\ntheme. The alternatives and sub-\nGroundfish Fisheries in the BSAI Area,\nalternatives NMFS is currently\nand the Groundfish of the GOA. The\nconsidering include the following:\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\ngoals and objectives reflect the\nAllocative Schemes (Who harvests\ncomplicated array of often competing\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric\ngroundfish?)\nconcerns that affect the Alaska\nAdministration\ngroundfish fisheries. In some instances,\nSub-alternative 1 - Status quo:\ncontradictory objectives are articulated\nAllocation of groundfish harvest is\n50 CFR Part 679\nwithin a single goal. For example,\ncurrently based on the species or\n[I.D. 102699G]\nparaphrasing from the Magnuson-\nspecies group and is made to\nStevens Act and the FMPs, we find they\nindividuals, cooperatives, and Olympic-\nGroundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of\ngenerally contain the following goals\nstyle fisheries (i.e., non-Community\nAlaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian\nand objectives: Assure continuing\nDevelopment Quota (CDQ), non-\nIslands Area\navailability of food supply and\nIndividual Fishing Quota (IFQ)\nrecreational opportunities; minimize\nAGENCY: National Marine Fisheries\nfisheries) by sector.\nirreversible adverse effects on fishery\nSub-alternative 2 IFQ: Expand or\nService (NMFS), National Oceanic and\nresources and the marine environment,\nreduce allocations to individuals by\nAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),\nincluding essential fish habitat;\nspecies or species group.\nCommerce.\nmaximize economic benefits to the\nSub-alternative 3 Cooperatives:\nACTION: Notification of draft alternatives;\nNation and to the states; provide for\nExpand or reduce allocations to\nextension of scoping and comment\nsustained participation of fishing\ncooperatives by species or species\nperiod.\ncommunities; minimize waste, reduce\ngroup.\nbycatch and the mortality of bycatch,\nSub-alternative 4 Open access:\nSUMMARY: NMFS is publishing draft\nencourage development of underused\nReduce or remove limited access\nalternatives to be analyzed in a\nfisheries; control effort; promote\nsystems.\nprogrammatic supplemental","59731\nFederal Register / Vol. 64, No. 212 Wednesday, November 3, 1999 / Proposed Rules\nSub-alternative 5 - Allocation: Expand\nvarious conservation objectives. Among\nbanning non-pelagic trawl gear in\nor reduce the use of sector allocations or\nthe purposes served are closures to\nflatfish fisheries.\nalter the amounts of allocations.\nminimize fishery interactions with\nSub-alternative 3 - Restrict use of\nSub-alternative 6 - License Limitation:\nspecies listed under the Endangered\ntrawl, longline, and/or pot gear to\nExpand or reduce the use of license\nSpecies Act, prohibited species, and\nhabitat areas with substrates composed\nlimitation.\ncrab habitat.\nof unconsolidated sediments.\nSub-alternative 2 - Steller sea lion\nHarvest Level (What is harvested?)\nSub-alternative 4 - Restrict authorized\nfocus: Add additional closures based on\nfishing gear to those capable of\nSub-alternative 1 - Status quo: Total\ntheir potential to minimize indirect\nminimizing bycatch significantly below\nAllowable Catch levels (TACs) are set by\ninteractions with Steller sea lion\nlevels presently considered clean for\nspecies or species group and the sum of\nforaging habitat.\neach directed fishery.\nthe TACs must stay within the OY of the\nSub-alternative 3 - Prohibited species\ngroundfish complex.\nfocus: Add additional closures based on\nSub-alternative 5 - Allow all gear\nSub-alternative 2 - Increase the TACs:\ntheir potential to minimize take of\ntypes and allow fishermen to select the\nSet fishing mortality equal to the\nprohibited species.\nmost effective type.\nmaximum acceptable biological catch\nSub-alternative 4 - Habitat focus: Add\nPublic Involvement\n(going above OY of the groundfish\nadditional closures based on their\npotential to minimize disturbance of\ncomplex).\nScoping for the programmatic SEIS\nSub-alternative 3 - Decrease the TACs:\nmarine substrates.\nbegan with publication of a Notice of\nSub-alternative 5 - Market focus:\nSet fishing mortality equal to 50 percent\nIntent in the Federal Register on\nModify seasonal and area restrictions to\nof the maximum acceptable biological\nOctober 1, 1999. This notice extends the\nincrease value of harvest and/or\ncatch.\nscoping period from November 15, to\nSub-alternative 4 - Stabilize the TACs:\nimprove the efficiency of fishing\nDecember 15, 1999, to provide the\nSet fishing mortality equal to the 1994-\noperations.\npublic and NMFS with additional time\n1998 average fishing mortality.\nGear Limitations (How is groundfish\nto refine these alternatives.\nSub-alternative 5 - Authorize zero\nharvested?)\nharvest: Set the TACs at zero.\nDated: October 27, 1999.\nSub-alternative 1 - Status quo. Fishing\nTime/Area Closures (When and Where\nBruce C. Morehead,\ngear as described in regulations with\ndoes harvest occur?)\nActing Director, Office of Sustainable\nsector allocations made in annual total\nFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.\nSub-alternative 1 - Status quo:\nallowable catch specifications.\n[FR Doc. 99-28643 Filed 11-2-99; 8:45 am]\nNumerous time/area closure schemes\nSub-alternative 2 - Further restrict\nfishing gear contact with the sea floor by\nare currently in use serving to achieve\nBILLING CODE 3510-22-F","APPENDIX F\nScoping Report; Notice of Availability","Federal Register 65, No. 67 Thursday, April 6, 2000 Notices\n18074\nADDRESSES: Copies of the Scoping\nspecifies otherwise, the hearing, if\nCorporation and The Torrington\nReport may be obtained from Steven K.\nrequested, will be held two days after\nCompany V. United States, 822 F. Supp.\nDavis, phone or e-mail: 907-271-3523,\nthe date for submission of rebuttal\n782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council\nor from steven.k.davis@noaa.gov or\nbriefs. The Department will publish the\nV. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT\nwrite to: NMFS, 222 West 7th Street,\nfinal results of this administrative\n1993). Therefore, the cash deposit rates\nRoom 517, Anchorage, AK 99508, or\nreview, including the results of its\nfor all companies except those covered\nCarol Tocco, phone or e-mail: 907-586-\nby this review will be unchanged by the\nanalysis of issues raised in any case or\n7032 or carol.tocco@noaa.gov or write\nrebuttal brief or at a hearing.\nresults of this review.\nto: NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th\nWe will instruct Customs to continue\nThis notice serves as a preliminary\nStreet, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK\nto collect cash deposits for non-\nreminder to importers of their\n99802. The Scoping Report also is\nreviewed companies at the most recent\nresponsibility to file a certificate\navailable on the NMFS, Alaska Region's\ncompany-specific or country-wide rate\nregarding the reimbursement of\nWorld Wide Web site at\napplicable to the company. Accordingly,\ncountervailing duties prior to\nwww.fakr.noaa.gov.\nthe cash deposit rates that will be\nliquidation of the relevant entries\nWritten comments on the scoping\napplied to non-reviewed companies\nduring this review period. Failure to\nsummary report should be submitted to\ncovered by this order will be the rate for\ncomply with this requirement could\nLori Gravel, National Marine Fisheries\nthat company established in the most\nresult in the Secretary's presumption\nService, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668,\nrecently completed segment of this\nthat reimbursement of countervailing\nJuneau, AK 99802. Comments also may\nadministrative proceeding under the\nduties occurred and the subsequent\nbe hand delivered to Room 443-5, in the\nAct, as amended by the URAA. If such\nassessment of double countervailing\nFederal Office Building, 907 West 9th\na review has not been conducted, the\nduties.\nStreet, Juneau, AK, or sent via facsimile\nrate established in the most recently\nThis administrative review is issued\n(fax) to 907-586-7255. Comments will\ncompleted administrative proceeding\nand published in accordance with\nnot be accepted if submitted via e-mail\nconducted pursuant to the statutory\nsection 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act\nprovisions that were in effect prior to\nor Internet.\n(19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C.\nthe URAA amendments is applicable.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\n1677f(i)(1)).\nSee Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe\nSteven K. Davis, NMFS, 907-271-3523\nDated: March 30, 2000.\nand Tube Products from Turkey; Final\nor steven.k.davis@noaa.gov.\nRobert S. LaRussa,\nResults of Countervailing Duty\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nAssistant Secretary for Import\nAdministrative Review, 53 FR 9791\n(1) Alternative 1 (no action), continue\nAdministration.\n(March 25, 1988). These rates shall\nwith existing management policy;\n[FR Doc. 00-8572 Filed 4-5-00; 8:45 am]\napply to all non-reviewed companies\n(2) Alternative 2, adopt a new\nuntil a review is requested. In addition,\nBILLING CODE 3510-DS-P\nmanagement policy framework that\nfor the period January 1, 1998 through\nemphasizes increased protection for\nDecember 31, 1998, the assessment rates\nmarine mammals and seabirds;\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\napplicable to all non-reviewed\n(3) Alternative 3, adopt a new\ncompanies covered by this order are the\nmanagement policy framework that\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric\ncash deposit rates in effect at the time\nemphasizes increased protection for\nAdministration\nof entry.\ntarget groundfish species;\n(4) Alternative 4, adopt a new\nPublic Comment\n[I.D. 032800D]\nmanagement policy framework that\nPursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the\nemphasizes increased protection for\nGroundfish Fisheries of the Bering\nDepartment will disclose to parties to\nnon-target and forage fish species;\nSea/Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf\nthe proceeding any calculations\n(5) Alternative 5, adopt a new\nperformed in connection with these\nof Alaska\nmanagement policy framework that\npreliminary results within five days\nemphasizes increased protection for fish\nAGENCY: National Marine Fisheries\nafter the date of publication of this\nService (NMFS), National Oceanic and\nhabitat; and\nnotice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309,\n(6) Alternative 6, adopt a new\nAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),\ninterested parties may submit written\nmanagement policy framework that\nCommerce.\ncomments in response to these\nemphasizes an increase in long-term\nACTION: Notice of availability; request\npreliminary results. Case briefs must be\nsocioeconomic benefits.\nsubmitted within 30 days after the date\nfor comments.\nDated: March 31, 2000.\nof publication of this notice, and\nSUMMARY: NMFS is publishing a report\nBruce Morehead,\nrebuttal briefs, limited to arguments\nsummarizing the results of the scoping\nraised in case briefs, must be submitted\nDirector, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,\nprocess used to initiate a programmatic\nno later than five days after the time\nNational Marine Fisheries Service.\nsupplemental environmental impact\nlimit for filing case briefs. Parties who\n[FR Doc. 00-8397 Filed 3-31-00; 4:37 pm)\nstatement (SEIS) on Federal groundfish\nsubmit argument in this proceeding are\nBILLING CODE 3510-22-F\nfishery management in the Exclusive\nrequested to submit with the argument:\nEconomic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska. The\n(1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a\nScoping Report summarizes the scoping\nbrief summary of the argument. Case\nCONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY\nprocess, identifies issues raised during\nand rebuttal briefs must be served on\nCOMMISSION\nscoping, and describes the SEIS\ninterested parties in accordance with 19\nstructure and content including\nCFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19\nSunshine Act Meeting\nalternatives for analysis that resulted\nCFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date\nAGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety\nfrom scoping.\nof publication of this notice, interested\nCommission, Washington, DC 20207.\nDATES: Comments on the Scoping\nparties may request a public hearing on\nTIME AND DATE: Thursday, April 13,\nReport may be submitted until May 1,\narguments to be raised in the case and\n2000, 2 p.m.\nrebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary\n2000.","APPENDIX G\nNorth Pacific Fishery Management Council Comprehensive\nManagement Goals","Comprehensive Fishery Management Goals\nPrepared by the staff of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council\nNovember 21, 2000","North Pacific Fishery Management Council\n(K)\nMailing Address: P.O. Box 103136\nJames O. Campbell, Chairman\nJim H. Branson, Executive Director\nAnchorage, Alaska 99510\n411 West 4th Avenue\nTelephone: (907) 274-4563\nAnchorage, Alaska 99510\nFTS 271-4064\nCOMPREHENSIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT GOALS\nAdopted 12/7/84\nINTRODUCTION\nThe nine Comprehensive Fishery Management Goals which the Council adopted on\nDecember 7, 1984 are intended to convey targets for future Council action a\nsense of direction for the course of fishery management over the next decade.\nThey must be considered as an integrated whole, not as separable elements, and\nsome address values conflicting with those in other goals. The order of\nlisting does not imply priority.\nThese Comprehensive Goals will serve as a basic framework for fishery-by-\nfishery development of specific goals, operational objectives, and strategies\nfor ultimate incorporation into fishery management plans. All goals should be\nconsidered in the context of the amplifying statements, issues and concerns\nappended to them.\nThe Council fully accepts and endorses the purposes, policies, and seven\nNational Standards mandated by the Congress in the Magnuson Fishery\nConservation and Management Act (MFCMA). Briefly summarized, these National\nStandards require that the Council and its Fishery Management Plans (FMPs):\nwill not allow overfishing, and will manage for optimum yield;\n1.\nwill use the best available scientific information;\n2.\nwill manage a stock throughout its range;\n3.\nwill not discriminate among residents of different states;\n4.\nwill promote efficient utilization of fishery resources;\n5.\n6.\nwill be flexible;\nwill manage in a cost-effective fashion.\n7.\nThe Council's Comprehensive Goals are consistent with these national mandates,\nand are intended to supplement and apply them to specific issues and needs of\nthe Region. Because socio-economic aspects of fishery development in the Gulf\nof Alaska and Bering Sea require particularly complex and difficult decisions,\na major proportion of Council Goals address the need for amplification of the\nNational Standards as applied to these aspects. In this context, consistent\nwith the MFCMA, the term \"United States fishing industry\" refers to the full\nrange of economic activities that are related to the harvesting, processing,\nmarketing, and transportation of fish by nationals and vessels of the United\nStates.\n12/7/84\n-1-\nHA1/HH","Following is an explanation of how these goals will be employed in the\nCouncil's planning processes.\nAs the Council develops amendments to management plans and promulgates\nregulations governing related fisheries, it will be mindful of its\nresponsibility to assure future productivity of fish stocks by guarding\nagainst overfishing, protecting critical habitat, and taking into account\nthe varied interactions of those stocks with other elements of the\necosystem (Goal 1). At the same time, the Council will support the\nstability and economic well-being of the fishing industry and the\ncommunities dependent upon that industry. Contributing goals include\noptimum U.S. utilization of Alaska's fishery resources through domestic\nharvesting, processing, and distribution (Goal 4); assurance of stability\nof fishery management processes to promote reasonable returns from\ninvestments in the fishery (Goal 7); and providing opportunities for\nmaritime communities to participate in these economic and social benefits\n(Goal 3) In addition, the Council has an obligation both to the fishing\nindustry and the general public to conduct its business efficiently -- to\ndevelop high quality information bases for decision-making, and\nto\nimprove the timeliness and effectiveness of the entire decision-making\nprocess (Goals 8 and 9)\nBeyond question, the Council's most difficult decisions usually will\nconcern allocation of harvest privileges among competing users. Here the\nCouncil will seek to minimize the negative impacts on established\nfisheries of developing fisheries for underutilized species by the U.S.\nindustry (Goal 6). Maintenance of traditional fisheries is important to\nthe well-being of maritime communities and to the stability of the\neconomic market place, and to the degree possible, development of\nfisheries for underutilized resources should not interfere with those\nestablished fisheries. While the Council recognizes the inevitability of\ncompetition among users for a limited resource, the Council expects each\nfishery to develop harvest techniques which avoid needless by-catch waste\nof non-target species, and which minimize interference with other\nfisheries that depend upon the same species or fish the same grounds\n(Goal 5).\nFinally, while the Council intends that its management practices and\ndecisions provide all possible encouragement for a healthy and prosperous\ndomestic fishing industry, the Council also is mindful of its responsi-\nbilities as custodian of a valuable portion of the Nation's publicly-\nowned resources, and the attendant responsibility to manage those\nresources for the benefit of society as a whole (Goal 2).\n12/7/84\nHA1/HH\n-2-","FINDINGS BY THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL\nREGARDING FISHERY MANAGEMENT POLICY\nThe North Pacific Fishery Management Council finds the following:\n1.\nMarine and anadromous fish off Alaska, which comprise approximately 80%\nof the total fishery resources in the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone, are\na valuable and renewable natural resource which contributes significantly\nto the food supply, economy, health and recreational opportunities of the\nRegion and the Nation.\n2.\nThe fishery resources off Alaska are the property of the United States\nand should be managed for the benefit of everyone in the U.S. in accord-\nance with the provisions of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and\nManagement Act.\n3.\nThe common property nature of fishery resources tends to cause over-\ncapitalization in the industry, increases the chances of resource\ndepletion, and decreases the incentive for conservation of the resource\nby the users.\n4.\nBecause fishery resources are limited, proper management requires alloca-\ntion of fishery resources among users.\n5.\nCommercial and recreational fisheries are a major source of employment\nand significant contributors to the economy of the Region and Nation.\nFull domestic utilization of resources off Alaska would increase their\ncontribution and lessen the Nation's foreign trade imbalance by\nreducing domestic dependence on imported fish products.\n6.\nThe lack of timely and adequate data has hampered decision-making and\nmanagement to the detriment of the resource and the economy.\n7.\nManagement of the fishery resources off Alaska requires consideration of\nall components of the ecosystem, including birds and mammals.\n8.\nThe existing administrative process of management should be more timely\nand responsive and regional fisheries management and policy development\nshould be fully embodied in the Council as intended by the Magnuson\nFishery Conservation and Management Act.\n9.\nClearly specified goals and objectives are necessary for development of a\nregional management system that will conserve and fully utilize the\nRegion's fishery resources.\nHA1/HH\n-3-\n12/7/84","Statement of Goals\nGOAL 1:\nCONSERVE AND MANAGE FISHERY RESOURCES OF THE REGION TO ASSURE LONG-\nTERM PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIGENOUS MARINE AND ANADROMOUS FISH STOCKS,\nMAINTENANCE OF HABITAT QUALITY AND QUANTITY, AND FULL CONSIDERATION\nFOR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ECOSYSTEM.\nThis goal ensures, first and foremost, that marine fish and related resources\nare properly protected and, whenever advantageous, enhanced.\nThis goal serves Purpose 1 of Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act\n[Sec. (b) (1) ], which is, \"to conserve and manage the fishery resources found\noff the coasts of the United States, and the anadromous species and\nContinental Shelf fishery resources of the United States\n11\nAs set out in\nthe Act, \"conservation and management\" refers to all the rules, regulations,\nconditions, methods, and other measures (A) which are required to rebuild,\nrestore, or maintain\nany fishery resource and the marine environment;\nand (B) which are designed to assure that (i) a supply of food and their\nproducts may be taken, and that recreational benefits may be obtained, on a\ncontinuing basis; (ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fishery\nresources and the marine environment are avoided; and (iii) there will be a\nmultiplicity of options available with respect to future uses of these\nresources.\" [Sec. 3(2)]\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n(1) management practices\na. preventing overfishing\nb. rebuilding depleted fish stocks\nC. minimizing waste of resources as by-catch\nd. maintaining the integrity and stock strength of individual\nspecies\ne. stock enhancement\n(2) habitat quality\na. minimizing damage by fishing gear\nb. reducing losses of fish, marine mammals and birds, due to\nderelict fishing gear and other marine debris\nconcerns for coastal development impacts on critical habitats\nC.\nd.\nconcerns for OCS developments: potential pollution and habitat\ndestruction\nconcerns for freshwater habitats of anadromous species\ne.\n(3)\nfood chain interdependency\nimpacts of management on marine mammals and birds\na.\nb.\nimpacts of management on food chains--shifting prey-predator\nrelations, etc.\nHA1/HH\n-4-\n12/7/84","GOAL 2: ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES BENEFIT FROM OPTIMUM\nUTILIZATION OF THE NATION'S PUBLICLY-OWNED FISHERY RESOURCES.\nThis goal recognizes public ownership of fishery resources and the obligation\ntherefore to serve the public interest under the optimum yield concept defined\n1)\nin MFCMA.\nIt requires that fishery resources available for harvesting make\nthe highest possible contribution to the economic and social development of\nthe people of the United States. Its achievement requires recognition of\ndiverse public concerns for securing consumer products at reasonable prices;\naccess to recreational opportunities; achievement of economic viability for\nthe fishing industry and supporting community services for the social and\neconomic benefit of the Nation; and minimal public costs of resource manage-\n27\nUnder this goal, the Council accepts the need to consider overall\nment.\npublic benefits in allocation of resource uses, and the need to develop\nimproved effort controls as management tools.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n1.\nproduction of high quality fish products over the maximum season at\nacceptable prices;\n2.\nprovision for recreational and subsistence opportunities;\n3.\neconomic self-sufficiency and viability of the domestic fishing\nindustry and supporting infrastructure (cf. Goals 4 and 5) ;\n4.\nincreased domestic fishery utilization and resultant reductions in\nnegative balance of payments (cf. Goal 3)\n3\n/\n5.\ngeneration of reasonable economic rent-\nfrom utilization of\npublicly-owned resources;\n6.\npositive benefit-cost ratio for public management operations.\n1.\nMFCMA National Standard 1 [Sec. 301(a)(1)] states:\n\"Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while\nachieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.\"\nOptimum yield is defined [Sec. 3(18) as follows: \"\nthe amount of\nfish (A) which will return the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,\nwith particular reference to food production and recreational opportuni-\nties; and (B) which is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum\nsustainable yield from such fishery, as modified by any relevant economic,\nsocial, or ecological factor.\" (Emphasis Added)\nMFCMA National Standard 7 [Sec. 301(a)(7)] states: \"Conservation and\n2.\nmanagement measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid\nunnecessary duplication.\"\n3.\ni.e., The return to the resource as a factor of production in addition to\ncapital and labor.\nHA1/HH\n-5-\n12/7/84","GOAL 3:\nPROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY, GROWTH AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN MARITIME\nCOMMUNITIES.\nFor existing as well as developing fisheries, consideration shall be given to\nhow\nmanagement programs will affect the economic conditions of maritime\ncommunities. A maritime community is a coastal community whose structure, in\npart, depends on regional fishery resources and related industries. Improving\nthe opportunity for these maritime communities to enhance their self-\nsufficiency will benefit the Region and the Nation. As mandated by National\nStandard 4 of the MFMCA, actions under this goal will not discriminate among\nresidents of different States.\nEconomic conditions will be enhanced by:\n1.\nstabilizing the flow of fishery-related revenues through a community so\nthat revenues occur during longer and more regular periods of time\nthroughout the year. This is more beneficial than short, intermittent\nbursts of activity;\n2.\nmaximizing recreational and subsistence opportunities and associated\neconomic benefits.\n3.\nincreasing the opportunities for fishery-related economic activity; and\nthereby\n4.\nfuller and more consistent utilization of fishery resources.\n5.\nextending, within biological limits, the availability of fishery\nresources to the industry over the longest feasible season. This\nstrategy recognizes that maximum benefits from a fishery may be generated\nby rationalizing harvest effort and product flow to market which will\ntend to:\ndiscourage overcapitalization;\na.\nb.\nminimize waste;\nminimize gear conflicts;\nC.\nd.\nprevent overfishing;\nminimize cost of management;\ne.\nf.\nminimize costs of labor and operations;\nencourage wise planning;\ng.\nprovide a steady supply of high quality/reasonably priced\nh.\nfishery products to consumers;\nstabilize the seafood industry and associated maritime\ni.\ncommunities.\nHA1/HH\n-6-\n12/7/84","GOAL 4:\nACHIEVE OPTIMUM UTILIZATION BY THE U.S. FISHING INDUSTRY OF FISHERY\nRESOURCES IN THE FISHERY CONSERVATION ZONE OFF ALASKA.\nThis goal recognizes the economic importance of this nation's fishery\nresources and the need for U.S. citizens to reap full benefits of those\nresources, with, however, full recognition of harvest rights of other\njurisdictions to fair sharing of transboundary stocks.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n1. U.S. balance of trade deficits;\n2. domestic processing capabilities and economic incentives;\n3. fluctuations in employment in maritime communities;\n4. equitable allocation among domestic user groups;\n5. development of underutilized fisheries;\n6. domestic vs. foreign markets;\n7. tax incentives (or disincentives) ;\n8. capabilities of domestic fleets;\n9. open entry vs. limited access;\n10. implementation of \"fish and chips\";\n11. promotion of non-commercial domestic marine fisheries.\nHA1/HH\n-7-\n12/7/84","GOAL 5: MINIMIZE THE CATCH, MORTALITY, AND WASTE OF NON-TARGET SPECIES, AND\nREDUCE THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF ONE FISHERY ON ANOTHER.\nThis goal intends to encourage the development of gear and techniques that\nreduce the catch of non-target species. Management should strive to reduce or\neliminate non-productive or damaging by-catches and sources of conflict\nbetween fisheries. In addressing this goal, it should be recognized that a\nby-catch is in fact an allocation from the optimum yield of the by-catch\nspecies. Decisions concerning such allocations must take into account, along\nwith other factors, the comparative costs and benefits to competing fisheries\nof any such allocations.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\nby-catch waste of fish with negative impact on other fisheries;\n1.\n2.\ngear conflicts;\ncompetition for fishery grounds;\n3.\n4. timing of seasons;\nconflict for harvesting, processing or support capabilities;\n5.\n6.\ngear impact on habitat.\n12/7/84\n-8-\nHA1/HH","GOAL 6:\nSUPPORT EFFORTS BY THE U.S. INDUSTRY TO DEVELOP NEW FISHERIES FOR\nUNDERUTILIZED SPECIES, WHILE MINIMIZING THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON\nEXISTING U.S. FISHERIES.\nFishery management measures should promote and support the economic viability\nof existing U.S. fisheries to the greatest extent practicable. The domestic\ndevelopment of underutilized fisheries should not be permitted to interfere\nwith traditional U.S. fisheries except when overriding and significant\neconomic or social benefits to the Region and the Nation can be demonstrated.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n1.\nthe present share of the resource available to existing fisheries;\n2. the economic and social stability in fisheries and communities.\n3.\ngear or ground competition caused by the developing fishery;\n4.\nthe timing of fisheries that cause conflicts for processing or support\ncapabilities;\n5.\nthe development of techniques that minimize the conflict between existing\nand developing fisheries.\nHA1/HH\n-9-\n12/7/84","GOAL 7:\nTO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COMPREHENSIVE GOALS PROMOTE THE\nECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE DOMESTIC FISHING INDUSTRY: ENCOURAGE THE\nPROFITABLE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERUTILIZED RESOURCES: DISCOURAGE\nUNNEEDED INVESTMENTS IN FISHERIES WITH EXCESS HARVESTING CAPACITY.\nThis can be accomplished by creating a healthy business environment that\nencourages investments and provides a reasonable opportunity to generate\nprofits comparable to other high risk variable industries.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n1. fishery management should endeavor to provide stable populations of raw\nmaterial (within the limits of natural fluctuations) harvested during\nperiods when those populations are in prime marketable condition.\n2.\nfishery management strategies shall consider harvesting and processing\ncapacities and market demands.\n3.\ntax incentives and subsidy programs should be examined and coordinated to\nguard against overcapitalization but, at the same time, to provide\nassistance to developing fisheries and for competing with heavily\nsubsidized foreign fishing activity.\n4.\nevaluation of shipping and trade regulations that may impede expansion of\nthe domestic fishing industry, and promotion of reforms as needed.\n5.\nevaluation and employment of appropriate management strategies, such as\nreduction of regulated inefficiencies, control of investment incentives,\nand limited entry as a means of effort management.\n6.\nregulations should be reasonably consistent through time and area.\nAbrupt changes in seasons, areas, gear limitations, fish size, etc.\ncreate hindrances that detract from a healthy and attractive business\nenvironment.\nHA1/HH\n-10-\n12/7/84","GOAL 8:\nSTRENGTHEN FISHERIES RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS TO\nENSURE A SOUND INFORMATION BASE FOR COUNCIL DECISIONS.\nThis goal addresses the need for an adequate information base for decision\nmaking which:\n(1) includes relevant biological, economic, and social information;\n(2) is properly formatted and documented;\n(3) is provided early in the decision-making process to allow adequate\nanalysis, public review and application to issues of concern.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n(1) assurance that fishery management decisions are based upon\nbiological, economic and social information and not catch data only;\n(2) establishing procedures to provide an adequate data base from the\ndomestic fishing industry;\n(3) assuring industry participation in development of the information\nbase to assure adequate scope and timeliness of information\nprograms;\n(4)\nproviding specific mandates to fishery agencies to fund, develop,\nand maintain an adequate information base.\nHA1/HH\n-11-\n12/7/84","GOAL 9: IMPROVE THE FLEXIBILITY, TIMELINESS AND EFFICIENCY OF FISHERY\nMANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES.\nThis goal recognizes current impediments to effective and timely\nimplementation of fishery regulations because of unwieldly administrative\nrequirements for FMP approval. It also recognizes the need to remove\nunnecessary impediments to management while still retaining straight-forward\nprocesses for public review of management proposals.\nIssues and concerns that may be addressed under this goal include:\n(1) Council procedures must foster timely decisive action at minimum\ncost to participants in the process.\n(2) management policies must be formulated and decisions made at the\nRegional level, with due consideration for National concerns;\n(3) rulemaking processes must be responsive to changing conditions in\nthe resource or the fisheries;\n(4) unnecessary delays in rulemaking must be minimized to reduce\nconfusion and inefficiencies in the fisheries;\n(5) fishery management requires development of framework procedures and\nother mechanisms to assure prompt responses to fisheries problems;\n(6) review processes must be simplified to reduce management costs and\nstabilize the investment environment in fisheries;\n(7) efficient and timely licensing processes must be promoted.\n-12-\n12/7/84\nHA1/HH","APPENDIX H\nNon-Target Species List","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 1\nPacific sand lance\nBSAI Forage Category\nAmmodytes hexapterus\ndeepsea smelt unident.\nBathylagidae unident.\nPacific blacksmelt\nBathylagus pacificus\nblacksmelt unident.\nBathylagus sp.\n50 species codes\nrobust blacksmelt\nBathylagus milleri\nnorthern smoothtongue\nLeuroglossus schmidti\npopeye blacksmelt\nBathylagus ochotensis\nLeuroglossus stilbius\nCalifornia smoothtongue\nPacific sandfish\nTrichodon trichodon\nbristlemouth unident.\nGonostomatidae\nCyclothone sp.\nbenttooth bristlemouth\nCyclothone acclinidens\nhatchetfish unident.\nSternoptychidae unident.\nlanternfish unident.\nMyctophidae\nStenobrachius sp.\nnorthern lampfish\nStenobrachius leucopsarus\nStenobrachius nannochin\ngarnet lampfish\nDiaphus sp.\nCalifornia headlightfish\nDiaphus theta\nLampanyctus sp.\nbroadfin lanternfish\nLampanyctus ritteri\npinpoint lampfish\nLampanyctus regalis\nbrokenline lampfish\nLampanyctus jordani\nHygophum reinhardtii\nslender lanternfish\nProtomyctophum sp.\nnorthern flashlightfish\nProtomyctophum thompsoni\nCalifornia lanternfish\nSymbolophorus californiensis\nsmelt unident.\nOsmeridae\nThaleichthys pacificus\neulachon\nMallotus villosus\ncapelin\nrainbow smelt\nOsmerus mordax\nHypomesus olidus\npond smelt\nprickleback unident.\nStichaeidae\nLumpenus sp.\nEumesogrammus praecisus\nfourline snakeblenny\nArctic shanny\nStichaeus punctatus\ndaubed shanny\nLumpenus maculatus\nLumpenus medius\nstout eelblenny\nslender eelblenny\nLumpenus fabricii\nsnake prickleback\nLumpenus sagitta\nAcantholumpenus mackayi\npighead prickleback\nlongsnout prickleback\nLumpenella longirostris\nChirolophis sp.\nChirolophis decoratus\ndecorated warbonnet\nbearded warbonnet\nChirolophis snyderi\nwhitebarred prickleback\nPoroclinus rothrocki\nChirolophis nugator\nmosshead warbonnet","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nBryozoichthys lysimus\nnutcracker prickleback\nBryozoichthys marjorius\npearly prickleback\nPholidae\ngunnel unident.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 2\nPacific sand lance\nAmmodytes hexapterus\nGOA Forage Category\ndeepsea smelt unident.\nBathylagidae unident.\nPacific blacksmelt\nBathylagus pacificus\nblacksmelt unident.\nBathylagus sp.\n54 species codes\nrobust blacksmelt\nBathylagus milleri\nnorthern smoothtongue\nLeuroglossus schmidti\npopeye blacksmelt\nBathylagus ochotensis\nLeuroglossus sp.\nCalifornia smoothtongue\nLeuroglossus stilbius\nPacific sandfish\nTrichodon trichodon\nbristlemouth unident.\nGonostomatidae\nCyclothone sp.\nArgyropelecus sp.\ntropical hatchetfish\nArgyropelecus lychnus\nlanternfish unident.\nMyctophidae\nStenobrachius sp.\nnorthern lampfish\nStenobrachius leucopsarus\ngarnet lampfish\nStenobrachius nannochir\nDiaphus sp.\nCalifornia headlightfish\nDiaphus theta\nLampanyctus sp.\nbroadfin lanternfish\nLampanyctus ritteri\npinpoint lampfish\nLampanyctus regalis\nbrokenline lampfish\nLampanyctus jordani\npatchwork lampfish\nNotoscopelus resplendens\nProtomyctophum sp.\nnorthern flashlightfish\nProtomyctophum thompsoni\nsmelt unident.\nOsmeridae\nThaleichthys pacificus\neulachon\nsurf smelt\nHypomesus pretiosus\nwhitebait smelt\nAllosmerus elongatus\ncapelin\nMallotus villosus\nrainbow smelt\nOsmerus mordax\nnight smelt\nSpirinchus starksi\nlongfin smelt\nSpirinchus thaleichthys\nprickleback unident.\nStichaeidae\nLumpenus sp.\nArctic shanny\nStichaeus punctatus\ndaubed shanny\nLumpenus maculatus\nslender eelblenny\nLumpenus fabricii\nsnake prickleback\nLumpenus sagitta\npighead prickleback\nAcantholumpenus mackayi\nlongsnout prickleback\nLumpenella longirostris\nChirolophis sp.\ndecorated warbonnet\nChirolophis decoratus\nbearded warbonnet\nChirolophis snyderi\nwhitebarred prickleback\nPoroclinus rothrocki","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nChirolophis nugator\nmosshead warbonnet\nBryozoichthys lysimus\nnutcracker prickleback\nBryozoichthys marjorius\npearly prickleback\nBryozoichthys sp.\nPholidae\ngunnel unident.\nPholis sp.\nPholis laeta\ncrescent gunnel","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 3\nPacific halibut\nHippoglossus stenolepis\nBSAI Prohibited\nPacific herring\nClupea pallasi\nCategory\nsalmon and trouts unident.\nSalmonidae\nchinook salmon\nOncorhynchus tshawytscha\n22 species codes\ncoho salmon\nOncorhynchus kisutch\npink salmon\nOncorhynchus gorbuscha\nchum salmon\nOncorhynchus keta\nsockeye salmon\nOncorhynchus nerka\nsteelhead\nOnchorynchus mykiss\ntanner crab unident.\nChionoecetes sp.\ngrooved Tanner crab\nChionoecetes tanneri\nTanner crab\nChionoecetes bairdi\ntriangle Tanner crab\nChionoecetes angulatus\nnarrow snow crab(=tanner\nChionoecetes opilio\ncrab(opilio))\ntanner crab (hybrid)\nChionoecetes hybrid\nLithodes sp.\nLithodes couesi\ngolden king crab\nLithodes aequispina\nParalithodes sp.\nred king crab\nParalithodes camtschaticus\nblue king crab\nParalithodes platypus\nbrown king crab\nParalithodes brevipes\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 4\nPacific halibut\nHippoglossus stenolepis\nGOA Prohibited\nPacific herring\nClupea pallasi\nCategory\nsalmon and trouts unident.\nSalmonidae\nsalmon unident.\nOncorhynchus sp.\n23 species codes\nchinook salmon\nOncorhynchus tshawytscha\ncoho salmon\nOncorhynchus kisutch\nOncorhynchus gorbuscha\npink salmon\nchum salmon\nOncorhynchus keta\nsockeye salmon\nOncorhynchus nerka\ntanner crab unident.\nChionoecetes sp.\ngrooved Tanner crab\nChionoecetes tanneri\nTanner crab\nChionoecetes bairdi\ntriangle Tanner crab\nChionoecetes angulatus\nnarrow snow crab(=tannen\nChionoecetes opilio\ncrab(opilio))\ntanner crab (hybrid)\nChionoecetes hybrid\nLithodes sp.\nLithodes couesi\ngolden king crab\nLithodes aequispina\nParalithodes sp.\nParalithodes camtschaticus\nred king crab","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nParalithodes platypus\nblue king crab\nParalithodes brevipes\nbrown king crab\nParalithodes californiensis","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 5\nshark unident.\nBSAI Other Category\nsalmon shark\nLamna ditropis\nspiny dogfish\nSqualus acanthias\nPacific sleeper shark\nSomniosus pacificus\n115 species codes\nskate unident.\nRajidae unident.\nskate egg case unident.\nBathyraja sp. egg case\nRaja sp.\nBathyraja sp.\nBathyraja spinosissima\nwhite skate\ndeepsea skate\nBathyraja abyssicola\nbig skate\nRaja binoculata\nBering skate\nBathyraja interrupta\nlongnose skate\nRaja rhina\nstarry skate\nRaja stellulata\nBathyraja taranetzi (=Rhinoraja longii)\nmud skate\nblack skate\nBathyraja trachura\nAlaska skate\nBathyraja parmifera\nAleutian skate\nBathyraja aleutica\ncommander skate\nBathyraja lindbergi\nwhiteblotched skate\nBathyraja maculata\nwhitebrow skate\nBathyraja minispinosa\ngolden skate\nBathyraja smirnovi\nOkhotsk skate\nBathyraja violacea\nsculpin unident.\nCottidae\nflabby sculpin\nZesticelus profundorum\nsponge sculpin\nThyriscus anoplus\nnorthern sculpin\nIcelinus borealis\nspotfin sculpin\nIcelinus tenuis\nGymnocanthus sp.\nthreaded sculpin\nGymnocanthus pistilliger\nArctic staghorn sculpin\nGymnocanthus tricuspis\narmorhead sculpin\nGymnocanthus galeatus\nslim sculpin\nRadulinus asprellus\nsharpnose sculpin\nClinocottus acuticeps\nGymnocanthus detrisus\nArtediellus sp.\nbride sculpin\nArtediellus miacanthus\nPacific hookear sculpin\nArtediellus pacificus\nArtediellus scaber\nhamecon\nArctic hookear sculpin\nArtediellus uncinatus\nBolinia euryptera\nMalacocottus sp.\nMalacocottus kincaidi\nblackfin sculpin\ndarkfin sculpin\nMalacocottus zonurus\nHemilepidotus sp.\nIrish lord\nHemilepidotus gilberti\nbanded Irish lord","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nHemilepidotus spinosus\nbrown Irish lord\nHemilepidotus zapus\nlongfin Irish lord\nHemilepidotus hemilepidotus\nred Irish lord\nHemilepidotus jordani\nyellow Irish lord\nHemilepidotus papilio\nbutterfly sculpin\nArchistes plumarius\nTriglops sp.\nTriglops forficata\nscissortail sculpin\nCommon name\nTable 5\nScientific name\ncrescent-tail sculpin\nBSAI Other Category\nTriglops metopias\nspectacled sculpin\nContinued\nTriglops scepticus\nribbed sculpin\nTriglops pingeli\nTriglops macellus\nroughspine sculpin\nMicrocottus sellaris\nbrightbelly sculpin\nMyoxocephalus verrucosus\nwarty sculpin\nMyoxocephalus niger\nwarthead sculpin\nMyoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus\ngreat sculpin\nMyoxocephalus jaok\nplain sculpin\nMyoxocephalus stelleri\nfrog sculpin\nMyoxocephalus sp.\nMegalocottus platycephalus\nbelligerent sculpin\nMyoxocephalus quadricornis\nfourhorn sculpin\nMyoxocephalus scorpioides\nArctic sculpin\nPacific staghorn sculpin\nLeptocottus armatus\nGilbertidia sigalutes\nsoft sculpin\nEnophrys sp.\nbuffalo sculpin\nEnophrys bison\nleister sculpin\nEnophrys lucasi\nantlered sculpin\nEnophrys diceraus\nspinyhead sculpin\nDasycottus setiger\nPsychrolutes sp.\nPsychrolutes paradoxus\ntadpole sculpin\nPsychrolutes phrictus\nblob sculpin\nBlepsias bilobus\ncrested sculpin\nNautichthys pribilovius\neyeshade sculpin\nNautichthys oculofasciatus\nsailfin sculpin\nNautichthys robustus\nshortmast sculpin\nHemitripterus bolini\nbigmouth sculpin\nHemitripterus villosus\nsea raven\nEurymen gyrinus\nsmoothcheek sculpin\nTriglops xenostethus\nIcelus spiniger\nthorny sculpin\nIcelus canaliculatus\nporehead sculpin\nIcelus euryops\nIcelus spatula\nspatulate sculpin\nIcelus uncinalis\nuncinate sculpin\nRastrinus scutiger\nroughskin sculpin\nJordania zonope\nlongfin sculpin\nIcelus sp.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nthornback sculpin\nParicelinus hopliticus\ncephalopod unident.\nCephalopoda unident.\ncuttlefish unident.\noctopus unident.\npelagic octopus unident.\nsmoothskin octopus\nOctopus leioderma\nflapjack devilfish\nOpisthoteuthis californiana\ngiant octopus\nOctopus dofleini\nBenthoctopus sp.\nVampyroteuthis infernalis\nsquid unident.\neastern Pacific bobtail\nRossia pacifica\nCalifornia market squid\nLoligo opalescens\nGonatus sp.\nclawed armhook squid\nGonatus onyx\nmagistrate armhook squid\nBerryteuthis magister\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 5\nGonatopsis sp.\nBSAI Other Category\nboreopacific armhook squid\nGonatopsis borealis\nContinued\nrobust clubhook squid\nMoroteuthis robusta\nTaonius pavo\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 6\nshark unident.\nGOA Other Category\ncartilaginous fish unident.\nChondrichthyes unident.\nsixgill shark\nHexanchus griseus\nsalmon shark\nLamna ditropis\n103 species codes\nbasking shark\nCetorhinus maximus\nspiny dogfish\nSqualus acanthias\nPacific sleeper shark\nSomniosus pacificus\nskate unident.\nRajidae unident.\nskate egg case unident.\nBathyraja sp. egg case\nRaja sp. egg case\nRaja sp. egg case\nRaja sp.\nBathyraja sp.\ndeepsea skate\nBathyraja abyssicola\nbig skate\nRaja binoculata\nBering skate\nBathyraja interrupta\nlongnose skate\nRaja rhina\nstarry skate\nRaja stellulata\nBathyraja taranetzi (=Rhinoraja longii)\nmud skate\nblack skate\nBathyraja trachura\nAlaska skate\nBathyraja parmifera\nAleutian skate\nBathyraja aleutica\ncommander skate\nBathyraja lindbergi\nwhiteblotched skate\nBathyraja maculata\nwhitebrow skate\nBathyraja minispinosa\nsculpin unident.\nCottidae","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nThyriscus anoplus\nsponge sculpin\nIcelinus oculatus\nfrogmouth sculpin\nIcelinus filamentosus\nthreadfin sculpin\nIcelinus borealis\nnorthern sculpin\nIcelinus tenuis\nspotfin sculpin\nGymnocanthus sp.\nGymnocanthus pistilliger\nthreaded sculpin\nGymnocanthus galeatus\narmorhead sculpin\nRadulinus asprellus\nslim sculpin\nArtediellus sp.\nArtediellus pacificus\nPacific hookear sculpin\nMalacocottus sp.\nMalacocottus kincaidi\nblackfin sculpin\nMalacocottus zonurus\ndarkfin sculpin\nHemilepidotus sp.\nIrish lord\nHemilepidotus spinosus\nbrown Irish lord\nHemilepidotus zapus\nlongfin Irish lord\nHemilepidotus hemilepidotus\nred Irish lord\nHemilepidotus jordani\nyellow Irish lord\nHemilepidotus papilio\nbutterfly sculpin\nTriglops sp.\nTriglops forficata\nscissortail sculpin\nTriglops scepticus\nspectacled sculpin\nTriglops pingeli\nribbed sculpin\nTable 6\nScientific name\nCommon name\nGOA Other Category\nTriglops macellus\nroughspine sculpin\nContinued\nMicrocottus sellaris\nbrightbelly sculpin\nArtedius lateralis\nsmoothhead sculpin\nMyoxocephalus verrucosus\nwarty sculpin\nMyoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus\ngreat sculpin\nMyoxocephalus jaok\nplain sculpin\nMyoxocephalus stelleri\nfrog sculpin\nMyoxocephalus sp.\nMyoxocephalus quadricornis\nfourhorn sculpin\nLeptocottus armatus\nPacific staghorn sculpin\nGilbertidia sigalutes\nsoft sculpin\nEnophrys bison\nbuffalo sculpin\nEnophrys diceraus\nantlered sculpin\nDasycottus setiger\nspinyhead sculpin\nPsychrolutes sp.\nPsychrolutes paradoxus\ntadpole sculpin\nPsychrolutes phrictus\nblob sculpin\nBlepsias bilobus\ncrested sculpin\nBlepsias cirrhosus\nsilverspotted sculpin\nNautichthys pribilovius\neyeshade sculpin\nNautichthys oculofasciatus\nsailfin sculpin\nRhamphocottus richardsoni\ngrunt sculpin\nHemitripterus bolini\nbigmouth sculpin\nEurymen gyrinus\nsmoothcheek sculpin","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ndusky sculpin\nIcelinus burchami\nthorny sculpin\nIcelus spiniger\nIcelus euryops\nspatulate sculpin\nIcelus spatula\nuncinate sculpin\nIcelus uncinalis\nlongfin sculpin\nJordania zonope\nIcelus sp.\nthornback sculpin\nParicelinus hopliticus\ncephalopod unident.\nCephalopoda unident.\noctopus unident.\nsmoothskin octopus\nOctopus leioderma\nflapjack devilfish\nOpisthoteuthis californiana\ngiant octopus\nOctopus dofleini\nBenthoctopus sp.\nVampyroteuthis infernalis\nsquid unident.\nrhomboid squid\nTaningia danae\neastern Pacific bobtail\nRossia pacifica\nCalifornia market squid\nLoligo opalescens\nGonatus sp.\nmagistrate armhook squid\nBerryteuthis magister\nGonatopsis sp.\nboreopacific armhook squid\nGonatopsis borealis\nmakko armhook squid\nGonatopsis makko\nrobust clubhook squid\nMoroteuthis robusta\nboreal clubhook squid\nOnychoteuthis borealijaponicus\nTaonius pavo\njewel squids\nHistioteuthis sp.\nHistioteuthis hoylei (=H. dofleini)","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCommon name\nTable 7\nScientific name\nBSAI Non-specified\nPetromyzontidae\nlamprey unident.\nPacific lamprey\nCategory\nLampetra tridentata\nMyxinidae\nhagfish unident.\n812 species codes\nAgonidae\npoacher unident.\nPallasina barbata\ntubenose poacher\nPercis japonicus\ndragon poacher\nSarritor leptorhynchus\nlongnose poacher\nSarritor frenatus\nsawback poacher\nAgonopsis vulsa\nnorthern spearnose poacher\nOdontopyxis trispinosa\npygmy poacher\nBathyagonus sp.\nstarsnout poacher unident.\nBathyagonus alascanus\ngray starsnout\nBathyagonus infraspinatus\nspinycheek starsnout\nBathyagonus pentacanthus\nbigeye poacher\nBathyagonus nigripinnis\nblackfin poacher\nPodothecus acipenserinus\nsturgeon poacher\nAspidophoroides bartoni\nAleutian alligatorfish\nAspidophoroides olriki\nArctic alligatorfish\nAnoplagonus inermis\nsmooth alligatorfish\nOccella verrucosa\nwarty poacher\nOccella dodecaedron\nBering poacher\nHypsagonus quadricornis\nfourhorn poacher\nslickhead unident.\nAlepocephalidae\nAlepocephalus tenebrosus\nCalifornia slickhead\nAnarrhichthys ocellatus\nwolf-eel\nAnarhichas orientalis\nBering wolffish\nAulorhynchus flavidus\ntube-snout\nargentine unident.\nArgentinidae\nNansenia candida\nbluethroat argentine\nBathymasteridae\nronquil unident.\nRonquilus jordani\nnorthern ronquil\nBathymaster caeruleofasciatus\nAlaskan ronquil\nBathymaster signatus\nsearcher\nBathymaster derjugini\nRathbunella hypoplecta\nsmooth ronquil\nOphidiidae\ncusk-eel unident.\nCeratiidae unident.\nseadevils unident.\nChauliodontidae\nviperfish unident.\nChauliodus macouni\nPacific viperfish\nAlosa sapidissima\nAmerican shad\nMacrouridae\ngrenadier unident.\nCoryphaenoides sp.\nCoryphaenoides acrolepis\nPacific grenadier\nAlbatrossia pectoralis\ngiant grenadier\nCoryphaenoides cinereus\npopeye grenadier\nCoryphaenoides filifer\nfilamented grenadier\nCoryphaenoides longifilis","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nbarred sand bass\nParalabrax nebulifer\nshortnose swallower\nKali indica\nPacific tomcod\nMicrogadus proximus\nArctic cod\nBoreogadus saida\ncodlings unident.\nMoridae\nPacific flatnose\nAntimora microlepis\nLaemonema longipes\nsaffron cod\nEleginus gracilis\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 7\nthreespine stickleback\nGasterosteus aculeatus\nBSAI Non-specified\nninespine stickleback\nPungitius pungitius\nCategory Continued\ngreenling unident.\nHexagrammidae\nHexagrammos sp.\nmasked greenling\nHexagrammos octogrammus\nwhitespotted greenling\nHexagrammos stelleri\nrock greenling\nHexagrammos lagocephalus\nkelp greenling\nHexagrammos decagrammus\nshortspine combfish\nZaniolepis frenata\nragfish\nIcosteus aenigmaticus\nlumpsucker unident.\nCyclopterinae\nsmooth lumpsucker\nAptocyclus ventricosus\nLethotremus muticus\nround lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus birulai\nPacific spiny lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus orbis\nleatherfin lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus derjugini\npimpled lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus andriashevi\nspiny lumpsuckers\nEumicrotremus sp.\nsnailfish unident.\nLiparidinae\nLiparis sp.\nslipskin snailfish\nLiparis fucensis\nLiparis bristolense\nmarbled snailfish\nLiparis dennyi\ndusky snailfish\nLiparis gibbus\nblotched snailfish\nCrystallichthys cyclospilus\nLiparis megacephalus\nshowy snailfish\nLiparis pulchellus\nspotted snailfish\nLiparis callyodon\nLiparis ochotensis\nribbon snailfish\nLiparis cyclopus\nringtail snailfish\nLiparis rutteri\nElassodiscus sp.\nhumpback snailfish\nElassodiscus caudatus\nElassodiscus tremebundus\nCareproctus sp.\nblacktail snailfish\nCareproctus melanurus\nmonster snailfish\nCareproctus phasma\nblackfin snailfish\nCareproctus cypselurus\nforktail snailfish\nCareproctus furcellus\nCareproctus abbreviatus","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCareproctus scottae\npeachskin snailfish\nCareproctus gilberti\nsmalldisk snailfish\nCareproctus colletti\nAlaska snailfish\nCareproctus rastrinus\nsalmon snailfish\nCareproctus ovigerum\nabyssal snailfish\nLiparis tunicatus\nCareproctus zachirus\nParaliparis dactylosus\nred snailfish\nParaliparis cephalus\nswellhead snailfish\nParaliparis sp.\nNectoliparis pelagicus\ntadpole snailfish\nRhinoliparis sp.\nRhinoliparis attenuatus\nslim snailfish\nAcantholiparis opercularis\nspiny snailfish\nMelamphaidae\nbigscale unident.\nPoromitra crassiceps\ncrested bigscale\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name\nBSAI Non-specified\nMelamphaes lugubris\nhighsnout bigscale\nCategory Continued\nAllocyttus folletti\noxeye oreo\nscaleless dragonfish unident.\nMelanostomiidae\nTactostoma macropus\nlongfin dragonfish\nCaristius macropus\nmanefish\nMerluccius productus\nPacific hake\nNemichthyidae\nsnipe eel unident.\nOneirodidae\ndreamer unident.\nOneirodes sp.\nOneirodes acanthias\nspiny dreamer\nOneirodes thompsoni\nParalepididae\nbarracudina unident.\nParalepis atlantica\nduckbill barracudina\nLestidiops ringens\nslender barracudina\nNotolepsis risso\nribbon barracudina\nCoregonus laurettae\nBering cisco\nScombridae\nmackerel unident.\nCololabis saira\nPacific saury\nBenthalbella sp.\nBenthalbella dentata\nnorthern pearleye\nScopelosaurus harryi\nscaly paperbone\nAlepisaurus ferox\nlongnose lancetfish\nSagamichthys abei\nshining tubeshoulder\nLyconectes aleutensis\ndwarf wrymouth\nCryptacanthodes giganteus\ngiant wrymouth\nIcichthys lockingtoni\nmedusafish\nTrachipterus altivelis\nking-of-the-salmon\nDolichopteryx sp.\nMacropinna microstoma\nbarreleye\nZaprora silenus\nprowfish\nZoarcidae\neelpout unident.\nBothrocara brunneum\ntwoline eelpout","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nsnakehead eelpout\nEmbryx crotalinus\nbigfin eelpout\nLycodes cortezianus\nLycenchelys sp.\nKamchatka eelpout\nLycenchelys camchatica\nblackmouth eelpout\nLycodapus fierasfer\npallid eelpout\nLycodapus mandibularis\nLycodes sp.\nLycodes rossi\nmarbled eelpout\nLycodes raridens\nwattled eelpout\nLycodes palearis\nsaddled eelpout\nLycodes mucosus\nebony eelpout\nLycodes concolor\nCanadian eelpout\nLycodes polaris\npolar eelpout\nLycodes turneri\nblack eelpout\nLycodes diapterus\nshortfin eelpout\nLycodes brevipes\nfish doctor\nGymnelus viridis\nGymnelus sp.\nGymnelus hemifasciatus\nblackbelly eelpout\nLycodes pacificus\nBothrocara sp.\nLycodapus sp.\nsmallhead eelpout\nLycodapus parviceps\ncoral eelpout\nPuzanovia rubra\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 7\nloosejaw unident.\nMalacostiedae\nBSAI Non-specified\nshining loosejaw\nAristostomias scintillans\nCategory Continued\nroundfish unident.\nHydrozoa (class)\nhydroid unident.\nHydractinia sp.\nSertularia robusta\njellyfish unident.\nScyphozoa (class)\nchrysaora jellyfish\nChrysaora sp.\nAnthozoa (class)\nsoft coral unident.\nAlcyonacea (order)\noctocoral unident.\nAlyconaria unident.\nGersemia sp. (=Eunephthya sp.)\nsea raspberry\nGersemia rubiformis (=Eunephthya\nrubiformis)\nAnthomastus sp.\nAnthomastus sp. A (red)\ngorgonian coral unident.\nGorgonacea (order)\nPrimnoa sp.\nred tree coral\nPrimnoa willeyi\nParagorgia sp.\nKamchatka coral\nParagorgia arborea\nCallogorgia sp.\nCalcigorgia sp.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCalcigorgia spiculifera\nPennatulacea (order)\nsea pen or sea whip unident.\nVirgularia sp.\nsmoothstem seawhip\nVirgularidae\nsea whip unident.\nStylatula sp.\nslender seawhips\nStylatula gracile\nroughstem seawhip\nHalipteris (=Pavonaria) sp.\nHalipteris (=Pavonaria) finmarchica\nPtilosarcus gurneyi\norange sea pen\nActiniaria (order)\nsea anemone unident.\nMetridium sp.\nMetridium senile\nclonal plumose anemone\nStomphia sp.\nUrticina (=Tealia) sp.\nUrtinca (=Tealia) crassicornis\nmottled anemone\nCribrinopsis fernaldi\nchevron-tentacled anemone\nLiponema brevicorne\ntentacle-shedding anemone\nScleractinia unident.\nstony coral unident.\nJavania borealia\nCaryophyllia sp.\nCaryophyllia alaskensis\nAlaska cup coral\nStylasterina unident.\nhydrocoral unident.\nStylaster sp.\nStylaster verrilli\nStylaster brochi\nStylaster cancellatus\nStylaster elassotomus\nStylaster polyorchis\nCrypthelia trophostega\nCyclohelia lancellata\nDistichopora sp.\nDistichopora borealis\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name\nBSAI Non-specified\nErrinopora zarhyncha\nCategory Continued\nErrinopora sp.\nErrinopora nanneca\nPlumarella sp. 1\nThouarella sp.\nKeratoisis sp.\nbamboo coral\nFanellia sp.\nFanellia compressa\nFanellia fraseri\nMuriceides sp.\nAmphilaphis sp.\nAmphilaphis sp. 1\nAmphilaphis sp. 2\nAmphilaphis sp. 3\nArthrogorgia sp.\nCtenophora (phylum)\ncomb jelly unident.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\npolychaete worm unident.\nPolychaeta (class)\ntube worm unident.\nOweniidae\nsea mouse unident.\nAphroditidae\nAphrodita sp.\nAphrodita japonica\nAphrodita negligens\nGlycera sp.\nNephtyidae unident.\nNereis sp.\nCheilonereis cyclurus\nscale worm unident.\nPolynoidae\nEunoe sp.\ngiant scale worm\nEunoe nodosa\ndepressed scale worm\nEunoe depressa\nsabellid unident.\nSabellidae\nSerpula vermicularis\nbristle worm unident.\nleech unident.\nHirudinea unident.\nCarcinobdella sp.\nstriped sea leech\nCarcinobdella cyclostomum\nNotostombdella sp.\ncrustacean unident.\nCrustacea (subphylum)\namphipod unident.\ngammarid amphipod unident.\nGammaridae\nMelita dentata\nAnonyx sp.\ncaprellid amphipod unident.\nCaprella sp.\nisopod unident.\nIsopoda (order)\nSaduria entomon\ncumacean unident.\nCumacea (order)\neuphausiid unident.\nEuphausiacea (order)\nmysid unident.\nMysidacea (order)\ncopepod unident.\nCopepoda (class)\nCirripedia (class)\nbarnacle unident.\nThoracica (order)\nLepas sp.\nBalanus sp.\nBalanus balanus\nBalanus evermanni\ngiant barnacle\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 7\ncrab barnacle\nBSAI Non-specified\nBalanus hesperius\nbeaked barnacle\nCategory Continued\nBalanus rostratus\nshrimp unident.\nsergestid shrimp unident.\nSergestidae\nSergestes sp.\npandalid shrimp unident.\nPandalidae\nPandalus sp.\ndock shrimp\nPandalus danae","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nPandalus jordani\nocean shrimp\nPandalus borealis\nnorthern shrimp\nPandalus tridens\nyellowleg pandalid\nPandalus platyceros\nspot shrimp\nPandalus goniurus\nhumpy shrimp\nPandalus hypsinotus\ncoonstripe shrimp\nPandalopsis aleutica\nPandalopsis dispar\nsidestripe shrimp\nPandalopsis ampla\nHippolytidae (family)\nhippolytid shrimp unident.\nSpirontocaris sp.\nSpirontocaris lamellicornis\nSpirontocaris snyderi\nEualus sp.\nEualus barbatus\nEualus gaimardii belcheri\nEualus macilenta\nEualus biunguis\nEualus suckleyi\nLebbeus sp.\nLebbeus groenlandicus\nLebbeus polaris\nHeptacarpus sp.\nCrangonidae (family)\ncrangonid shrimp unident.\nCrangon sp.\nCrangon abyssorum\nabyssal crangon\nCrangon alaskensis\nshell shrimp (northern crangon)\nCrangon communis\ntwospine crangon\nCrangon dalli\nridged crangon\nLissocrangon stylirostris (=Crangon\nsmooth crangon\nstylirostris)\nCrangon septemspinosa\nsevenspine bay shrimp\nArgis sp.\nArgis alaskensis\ncommon argid\nArgis dentata\nArctic argid\nSclerocrangon sp.\nSclerocrangon boreas\nsculptured shrimp\nRhynocrangon alata\nsaddleback shrimp\nArgis lar\nkuro argid\nArgis crassa\nrough argid\nArgis levior\nNelson's argid\nPasiphaeidae (family)\npasiphaeid shrimp unident.\nPasiphaea pacifica\nPacific glass shrimp\nPasiphaea tarda\ncrimson pasiphaeid\nHymenodora sp.\nHymenodora frontalis\nAcanthephyra sp.\ncrab unident.\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ncancer crab unident.\nBSAI Non-specified\nCancer sp.\nDungeness crab\nCategory Continued\nCancer magister\nOregon rock crab\nCancer oregonensis\nred rock crab\nCancer productus\nspider crabs unident.\nMajidae unident.\nOregonia bifurca\ngraceful decorator crab\nOregonia gracilis\nLonghorned decorator crab\nChorilia longipes\ncircumboreal toad crab\nHyas coarctatus\nPacific lyre crab\nHyas lyratus\nhelmet crab\nTelmessus cheiragonus\nAnomura\nhermit crab unident.\nPaguridae\nPagurus sp.\nsponge hermit\nPagurus brandti\nAleutian hermit\nPagurus aleuticus\nsplendid hermit\nLabidochirus splendescens\nknobbyhand hermit\nPagurus confragosus\nPagurus cornutus\nwhiteknee hermit\nPagurus dalli\nbluespine hermit\nPagurus kennerlyi\nfuzzy hermit crab\nPagurus trigonocheirus\nAlaskan hermit\nPagurus ochotensis\nlongfinger hermit\nPagurus rathbuni\nlonghand hermit\nPagurus tanneri\nwidehand hermit crab\nElassochirus tenuimanus\nhairy hermit crab\nPagurus capillatus\npurple hermit\nElassochirus cavimanus\nPacific red hermit\nElassochirus gilli\nstone crab unident.\nLithodidae unident.\nfuzzy crab\nAcantholithodes hispidus\nDermaturus mandti\nHapalogaster sp.\nHapalogaster grebnitzkii\nRhinolithodes wosnessenskii\nrhinoceros crab\nParalomis multispina\nscaled crab\nPlacetron wosnessenskii\nhorsehair crab\nErimacrus isenbeckii\nHyas sp.\nkelp crab\nPugettia sp.\nPugettia gracilis\nScyra acutifrons\ngalatheid crab unident.\nGalatheidae (family)\nChirostylus sp.\nMunida quadrispina\nsea spider unident.\nPycnogonida (class)\nColossendeis dofleini\nmollusk unident.\nMollusca (phylum)\nAplacophora","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nPolyplacophora unident.\nchiton unident.\nCryptochiton stelleri\ngiant Pacific (gumboot) chiton\nAmicula vestita\nPlaciphorella sp.\nPlaciphorella atlantica\nLeptochiton alveolus\ngastropod eggs\nsnail eggs\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name\nBSAI Non-specified\nBuccinum sp. Eggs\nCategory Continued\nFusitriton oregonensis eggs\nNeptunea sp. eggs\nNeptunea sp. eggs\nNudibranchia unident.\nnudibranch unident.\nOnchidoris bilamellata\nbarnacle-eating onchidoris\nTochuina tetraquetra\ngiant orange tochui\nDendronotus sp.\nDendronotus dalli\nDall's dendronotid\nDendronotus frondosus\nfrond-aeolis\nDendronotus subramosus\nstubby frond-aeolis\nTritonia sp.\nTritonia diomedea\nrosy tritonia\nArmina californica (=Pleurophyllidia c)\nCalifornia armina\nAnisodoris nobilis\nPacific sea lemon\ndorid nudibranch unident.\nArchidoris odhneri\nwhite night doris\nCranopsis major\ngreat puncturella\nlimpet unident.\nGastropod unident.\nsnail unident.\nAsterophila japonica\nNaticidae\nBulbus fragilis\nfragile moonsnail\nNatica sp.\nNatica clausa\nArctic moonsnail\nNatica aleutica\nAleutian moonsnail\nNatica russa\nrusty moonsnail\nMuricidae (=Thaididae)\nNucella canaliculata (=Thais c)\nchannelled dogwinkle\nPolinices lewisi\nPolinices sp.\nPolinices pallidus\npale moonsnail\nOnchidiopsis glacialis\nicy lamellaria\nCapulacmaea commoda (=Piliscus c)\nwidemouth lamellaria\nEpitonium (=Boreoscala) greenlandica\nGreenland wentletrap\nTachyrhynchus sp.\nTachyrhynchus erosus\neroded turretsnail\nTachyrhynchus reticulatus\nreticulated turretsnail\nCrepidula sp.\nslipper shell\nCrepidula grandis\ngreat slippersnail\nwhelk unident.\nColus sp.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ngarter whelk\nColus periscelidus\nthin-ribbed whelk\nColus herendeenii\noblique whelk\nColus hypolispus\nshady whelk\nColus ombronius\nrosy whelk\nColus roseus\nColus esychus\nthick-ribbed whelk\nColus spitzbergensis\noblique whelk\nColus aphelus\nshrew whelk\nColus halli\nColus datuzenbergii\nColus bristolensis\nJapelion aleutica\nHabavolutopsius hirosei\nPyrulofusus dexius\nVolutopsius sp. (=Pyrulofusus sp.)\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 7\nwarped whelk\nPyrulofusus deformis\nBSAI Non-specified\nleft-hand whelk\nVolutopsius harpa\nCategory Continued\nfragile whelk\nVolutopsius fragilis\nregular whelk\nVolutopsius regularis\nthreaded whelk\nVolutopsius filosus\nvolute whelk\nVolutopsius castaneus\nPyrulofusus melonis\nsimple whelk\nVolutopsius simplex\nshouldered whelk\nVolutopsius stefanssoni\ntulip whelk\nVolutopsius middendorffii\nfrilled whelk\nVolutopsius trophonius\nBeringius sp.\nBeringius kennicottii\nBeringius frielei\nBeringius beringii\nBeringius stimpsoni\nthick-cord whelk\nBeringius crebricostatus\nBeringius undatus\nNeoberingius sp.\nNeptunea sp.\nNeptunea amianta\nPribilof whelk\nNeptunea pribiloffensis\nNeptunea borealis\nNeptunea eulimata\nNeptunea nasuta\nlyre whelk\nNeptunea lyrata\nNeptunea vermii\nfat whelk\nNeptunea ventricosa\nNeptunea heros\nNeptunea magna (=Clinopegma magna) helmet whelk\nPlicifusus (=Colus) sp.\nPlicifusus (=Colus) kroyeri\nPlicifusus (=Colus) incisus","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nPlicifusus (=Colus) brunneus\nbrown whelk\nPlicifusus (=Colus) verkruzeni\nVolutopsius callorhinus\nPlicifusus (=Colus) griseus\ngray whelk\nSulcosinus taphrius\nLiomesus sp.\nLiomesus ooides\negg whelk\nAncistrolepis sp.\nAntiplanes sp.\nAforia sp. (=Leucosyrinx sp.)\nAforia goodei (=Leucosyrinx persimilis )\nAforia circinata\nkeeled aforia\nOenopota sp.\nOenopota harpa\nObesotoma simplex\nTrichotropidae\nTrichotropis insignis\ngray hairysnail\nTrichotropis coronata\ncrowned hairysnail\nTrichotropis bicarinata\ntwo-keel hairysnail\nTrichotropis kroyeri\nTorellia ammonia\nrams-horn hairysnail\nBoreotrophon muriciformis\n(=Trophon=Trophonopsis dalli)\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name\nBSAI Non-specified\nBoreotrophon clathratus\nclathrate trophon\nCategory Continued\nBoreotrophon sp.\nBoreotrophon pacificus\nelegant trophon\nFusitriton oregonensis\nOregon triton\nFusitriton sp.\ntrochid unident.\nMargarites sp.\nMargarites pupillus\nlittle margarite\nMargarites giganteus\ngiant margarite\nMargarites argentatus\nMargarites costalis\nboreal rosy margarite\nSolariella sp.\nSolariella obscura\nobscure solarelle\nSolariella varicosa\nvaricose solarelle\nBuccinum sp.\nBuccinum polium\nBuccinum ochotense\nOkhotsk whelk\nBuccinum angulosum\nangular whelk\nBuccinum fringillum\nfinch whelk\nBuccinum sigmatopleura\nBuccinum simulatum\nBuccinum oedematum\nswollen whelk\nBuccinum eugrammatum\nlirate whelk\nBuccinum strigillatum\nBuccinum plectrum\nsinuous whelk (prev. lyre whelk)","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nladder whelk (prev. silky whelk)\nBuccinum scalariforme\npolar whelk\nBuccinum polare\nBuccinum solenum\nglacial whelk\nBuccinum glaciale\nBuccinum tenellum\nchestnut whelk\nBuccinum castaneum\ndire whelk\nSearlesia dira\nArctomelon stearnsii (=Boreomelon\nAlaska volute\nstearnsii)\nVolutomitra alaskana\nwavy lamellaria\nVelutina undata\nVelutina nana\noblique lamellaria\nVelutina plicatilis\nconical lamellaria\nVelutina conica\nelongate lamellaria\nVelutina prolongata\nsmooth lamellaria\nVelutina velutina\nVelutina sp.\nnorthern admete\nAdmete virdula\nAdmete laevior\nnoble admete\nAdmete regina\nwhite chalice-bubble\nCylichna alba\nbivalve unident.\nBivalvia unident.\nmussel unident.\nMytilidae\nnorthern horsemussel\nModiolus modiolus\nMytilus sp.\nblue mussel\nMytilus edulis\nscallop unident.\nPectinid unident.\nChlamys sp.\nIceland scallop\nChlamys behringiana\nreddish scallop\nChlamys rubida\nfalse iceland scallop\nChlamys pseudoislandica\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 7\nweathervane scallop\nPatinopecten caurinus\nBSAI Non-specified\nRandolph scallop\nDelectopecten randolphi\nCategory Continued\nAlaska glass-scallop\nParvamussium alaskense\nCyclopecten sp.\nPanopea abrupta (=P. generosa)\nPacific geoduck\nArctic hiatella\nHiatella arctica\nArctic roughmya\nPanomya arctica\nsmooth nutclam\nNucula tenuis\nYoldia sp.\ncrisscrossed yoldia\nYoldia scissurata\nYoldia myalis (prev. file yoldia)\noval yoldia\nbroad yoldia\nYoldia thraciaeformis\nnorthern yoldia\nYoldia hyperborea\nPortlandia sp.\nYoldiella sp.\nNuculana sp.\nnorthern nutclam\nNuculana pernula","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nNuculana fossa\ntrenched nutclam\nNuculana buccata\nstout nutclam\nLimopsis akutanica\nAkutan limops\nMusculus sp.\nMusculus niger\nblack mussel\nMusculus discors\ndiscordant mussel\nMusculus olivaceus\nCrenella seminuda (=Musculus\npartly-sculptured crenella\nseminudus)\nAstarte crenata\ncrenulate astarte\nAstarte sp.\nTridonta borealis (=Astarte borealis)\nboreal tridonta\nAstarte polaris\npolar astarte\nTridonta rollandi (=astarte rollandi)\nRolland tridonta\nCardita sp.\nCrassicardia crassidens (=cyclocardia)\nthick carditid\nCyclocardia crebricostata\nmany-rib cyclocardia\nCyclocardia sp.\nKelliidae\nKellia laperousii\nLa Perouse kellyclam\nClinocardium sp.\ncockle unident.\nClinocardium nuttallii\nNuttall cockle\nClinocardium ciliatum\nhairy cockle\nClinocardium californiense\nCalifornia cockle\nClinocardium funcanum\nstrait cockle\nSaxidomus nuttalli\nWashington clam\nSaxidomus giganteus\nbutter clam\nLiocyma fluctosa\nwavy liocyma\nTresus nuttallii\nPacific gaper\nMactromeris sp. (=Spisula sp.)\nMactromeris polynyma (=Spisula p)\nArctic surfclam\nTellina sp.\nTellina carpenteri\ncarpenter tellin\nTellina nuculoides\nsalmon tellin\nTellina lutea\nAlaska great-tellin\nMacoma sp.\nMacoma nasuta\nbent-nose macoma\nMacoma calcarea\nchalky macoma\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name\nBSAI Non-specified\nMacoma secta\nwhite-sand macoma\nCategory Continued\nMacoma brota\nheavy macoma\nSiliqua sp.\nSiliqua patula\nPacific razor\nSiliqua alta\nAlaska razor\nSerripes sp.\nSerripes groenlandicus\nGreenland cockle\nSerripes laperousii\nbroad cockle\nMya arenaria\nsoftshell (prev. soft shelled clam)","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ntruncate softshell\nMya truncata\nfalse softshell\nMya pseudoarenaria\nMya elegans\nelegant soft shell\nCardiomya sp.\nAlaska falsejingle\nPododesmus macroschisma\nPododesmus sp.\nAnomia sp.\nfalsejingles unident.\nAnomiidae\nscaphopod unident.\nScaphopoda unident.\nDentalium sp.\nRhabdus dalli (=Dentalium dalli)\nDall tuskshell\nstarfish unident.\nAsteroidea unident.\nCeramasten leptoceramus\nOphiacantus sp.\nEvasterias sp.\nEvasterias troschelii\nEvasterias echinosoma\nOrthasterias koehleri\nLeptasterias groenlandica\nLeptasterias hexactis\nLeptasterias hylodes\nPycnopodia helianthoides\nLethasterias nanimensis\nPedicellasten sp.\nPedicellasten magister\nStephanasterias albula\nPisaster sp.\nHenricia sp.\nHenricia sanguinolenta\nHenricia aspera\nHenricia leviuscula\nHenricia tumida\nLeptasterias polaris\nLeptasterias arctica\nLeptasterias sp.\nLeptasterias camtschatica\nGephyreaster swifti\nPseudarchasten sp.\nHippasteria sp.\nHippasteria spinosa\nPseudarchasten parelii\nMediaster sp.\nMediaster aequalis\nCeramaster sp.\nred bat star\nCeramaster japonicus\nCeramaster patagonicus\norange bat star\nCeramaster arcticus\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 7\nBSAI Non-specified\nCeramaster clarki","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCategory Continued\nDermasterias imbricata\nSolaster sp.\nSolaster endeca\nSolaster hypothrissus\nSolaster dawsoni\nSolaster stimpsoni\nSolaster paxillatus\nCrossaster sp.\nCrossaster borealis\nCrossaster papposus\nrose sea star\nLophaster sp.\nLophaster furcilliger\nPteraster sp.\nPteraster tesselatus\nPteraster militaris\nPteraster tesselatus arcuatus\nPteraster obscurus\nDiplopteraster multipes\nAsterias sp.\nAsterias amurensis\npurple-orange seastar\nCtenodiscus sp.\nCtenodiscus crispatus\ncommon mud star\nLeptychaster sp.\nLeptychaster pacificus\nLeptychaster arcticus\nCladaster validus\nDipsacaster sp.\nDipsacaster borealis\nLuidiaster dawsoni\nBrisingella pusilla\nAnteliaster sp.\nEchinacea unident.\nsea urchin unident.\nStrongylocentrotus droebachiensis\ngreen sea urchin\nStrongylocentrotus franciscanus\nred sea urchin\nStrongylocentrotus pallidus\nwhite sea urchin\nAllocentrotus fragilis\norange-pink sea urchin\nAllocentrotus sp.\nheart urchin unident.\nBrisaster sp.\nBrisaster townsendi\nBrisaster latifrons\nsand dollar unident.\nEchinarachnius parma\nParma sand dollar\ncrinoid unident.\nHeliometra glacialis\nFlorometra sp.\nFlorometra serratissima\nfeatherstar crinoid\nOphiuroid unident.\nbrittlestarfish unident.\nGorgonocephalus eucnemis (prev G.\nbasketstarfish","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ncaryi)\nAsteronyx sp.\nAsteronyx loveni\nOphiura sp.\nOphiura sarsi\nAmphiophiura ponderosa\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 7\nBSAI Non-specified\nOphiopholis sp.\nCategory Continued\nOphiopholis aculeata\nAmphiodia rossica\nsea cucumber unident.\nHolothuroidea unident.\nCucumaria japonica\nParastichopus sp.\nParastichopus californicus\nMolpadia arenicola\nMolpadia sp.\nMolpadia intermedia\nPentamera lissoplaca\nBathyplotes sp.\nCucumaria sp.\nCucumaria fallax\nStichopus japonicus\nPsolus sp.\nPsolus fabricii\nPsolus japonicus\nforaminiferan unident.\nForaminifera\nsponge unident.\nPorifera\nvase sponge\nDemospongiae\nSuberites ficus\nhermit sponge\nSuberites domuncula\nAphrocallistes vastus\nclay pipe sponge\nwhite claypipe sponge\nMycale loveni\ntree sponge\nHalichondria panicea\nbarrel sponge\nLeucandra heathi\nspiny vase sponge\nRhabdocalyptus sp.\ncloud sponge\nMycale bellabellensis\nlampshade sponge\nbrain sponge\nMyxilla incrustans\nscallop sponge\nsoft green sponge\nmushroom sponge\nPolymastia sp.\nspud sponge\nclub sponge\nLeucosolenia blanca\nyellow leafy sponge\nTethya sp.\nball sponge\nfiberoptic sponge\nHylonema sp.\nstaghorn sponge\norange ball sponge","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\norange sponge\nyellow bowl sponge\nPolymastia pachymastia\nblack-orange spud sponge\nHalichondria sitiens\nblack papilliate sponge\nHalichondria cf. sitiens\nyellow green papillate sponge\nfirm yellow green sponge\nStylissa sp.\ndrumstick sponge\nHexactinellida\nglass sponge unident.\nPlatyhelminthes (phylum)\nflatworm unident.\nPolycladida (order)\npolyclad flatworm unident.\nNemertea (phylum)\nnemertean worm unident.\nPriapula (phylum)\npriapulid worm unident.\nNematoda (phylum)\nnematode worm unident.\nSipuncula (phylum)\nsipunculid worm unident.\nTable 7\nScientific name\nCommon name\nEchiura (phylum)\nechiuroid worm unident.\nBSAI Non-specified\nCategory Continued\nPhoronida (phylum)\nphoronida tube worm unident.\nBryozoa unident.\nbryozoan unident.\nbryozoan sp. A unident.\nEucratea loricata\nfeathery bryozoan\nleafy bryozoan\nFlustra serrulata\nMyriozoum subgracile\nPorella compressa\nflattened bryozoan\nEscharopsis sarsi\nRhamphostomella costata\nribbed bryozoan\nCellepora ventricosa\ncoral bryozoan\nMicroporina articulata\nbrachiopod unident.\nlampshells unident.\ncommon brachiopod\nTerebratalia transversa\nLaqueus californianus\nAscidian unident.\ntunicate unident.\ncow-eye tunicate (new species a)\ntransparent tunicate (new sp b)\nThaliacea unident.\nsalps unident.\nStyela sp.\nStyela rustica\nsea potato\nBoltenia sp.\nBoltenia ovifera\nHalocynthia sp.\nsea peach unident.\nHalocynthia aurantium\nsea peach\ncompound ascidian unident.\nAmaroucium sp.\nChelyosoma orientale\nAplidium sp.\nsea glob\nAplidium new species a\norange aplidium\nSynoicum sp.\nsea blob\nMolgula sp.\nMolgula grifithsii\nsea grape\nMolgula retortiformis\nsea clod","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ninvertebrate unident.\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 8\nlamprey unident.\nGOA Non-specified\nPetromyzontidae\nPacific lamprey\nLampetra tridentata\nCategory\nhagfish unident.\nMyxinidae\nspotted ratfish\nHydrolagus colliei\n730 species codes\nHydrolagus colliei egg case\npoacher unident.\nAgonidae\ntubenose poacher\nPallasina barbata\ndragon poacher\nPercis japonicus\nSarritor sp.\nlongnose poacher\nSarritor leptorhynchus\nsawback poacher\nSarritor frenatus\nnorthern spearnose poacher\nAgonopsis vulsa\npygmy poacher\nOdontopyxis trispinosa\nblacktip poacher\nXeneretmus latifrons\nsmootheye poacher\nXeneretmus leiops\nXeneretmus sp.\nstarsnout poacher unident.\nBathyagonus sp.\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 8\ngray starsnout\nBathyagonus alascanus\nGOA Non-specified\nspinycheek starsnout\nBathyagonus infraspinatus\nCategory Continued\nbigeye poacher\nBathyagonus pentacanthus\nblackfin poacher\nBathyagonus nigripinnis\nsturgeon poacher\nPodothecus acipenserinus\nAleutian alligatorfish\nAspidophoroides bartoni\nsmooth alligatorfish\nAnoplagonus inermis\nwarty poacher\nOccella verrucosa\nBering poacher\nOccella dodecaedron\nfourhorn poacher\nHypsagonus quadricornis\nAlepocephalus sp.\nthreadfin slickhead\nTalismania bifurcata\nwolf-eel\nAnarrhichthys ocellatus\nBering wolffish\nAnarhichas orientalis\nAulorhynchus flavidus\ntube-snout\nargentine unident.\nArgentinidae\nbluethroat argentine\nNansenia candida\nPacific argentine\nArgentina sialis\nronquil unident.\nBathymasteridae\nnorthern ronquil\nRonquilus jordani\nAlaskan ronquil\nBathymaster caeruleofasciatus\nsmallmouth ronquil\nBathymaster leurolepis\nBathymaster signatus\nsearcher\nseadevils unident.\nCeratiidae unident.\nviperfish unident.\nChauliodontidae\nPacific viperfish\nChauliodus macouni\ngrenadier unident.\nMacrouridae","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCoryphaenoides sp.\nCoryphaenoides acrolepis\nPacific grenadier\nAlbatrossia pectoralis\ngiant grenadier\nCoryphaenoides cinereus\npopeye grenadier\nCoryphaenoides filifer\nfilamented grenadien\nEmbiotocidae\nsurfperch unident.\nCymatogaster aggregata\nshiner perch\nMicrogadus proximus\nPacific tomcod\nAntimora microlepis\nPacific flatnose\nEleginus gracilis\nsaffron cod\nSyngnathidae\npipefish unident.\nGobiidae\ngoby unident.\nHexagrammidae\ngreenling unident.\nOphiodon elongatus\nlingcod\nHexagrammos sp.\nmasked greenling\nHexagrammos octogrammus\nHexagrammos stelleri\nwhitespotted greenling\nHexagrammos lagocephalus\nrock greenling\nHexagrammos decagrammus\nkelp greenling\nZaniolepis frenata\nshortspine combfish\nIcosteus aenigmaticus\nragfish\nCyclopteridae\nlumpsucker or snailfish unident.\nCyclopterinae\nlumpsucker unident.\nAptocyclus ventricosus\nsmooth lumpsucker\nLethotremus muticus\nEumicrotremus birulai\nround lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus orbis\nPacific spiny lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus derjugini\nleatherfin lumpsucker\nEumicrotremus sp.\nspiny lumpsuckers\nTable 8\nScientific name\nCommon name\nGOA Non-specified\nCyclopteropsis phrynoides\ntoad lumpsucker\nCategory Continued\nLiparidinae\nsnailfish unident.\nLiparis sp.\nLiparis fucensis\nslipskin snailfish\nLiparis dennyi\nmarbled snailfish\nLiparis gibbus\ndusky snailfish\nCrystallichthys cyclospilus\nblotched snailfish\nLiparis pulchellus\nshowy snailfish\nLiparis cyclopus\nribbon snailfish\nElassodiscus caudatus\nhumpback snailfish\nCareproctus sp.\nCareproctus melanurus\nblacktail snailfish\nCareproctus phasma\nmonster snailfish\nCareproctus cypselurus\nblackfin snailfish\nCareproctus furcellus\nforktail snailfish\nCareproctus scottae\npeachskin snailfish\nCareproctus gilberti\nsmalldisk snailfish\nCareproctus colletti\nAlaska snailfish\nCareproctus rastrinus\nsalmon snailfish","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nred snailfish\nParaliparis dactylosus\nprickly snailfish\nParaliparis deani\nParaliparis sp.\ntadpole snailfish\nNectoliparis pelagicus\nRhinoliparis barbulifer\nslim snailfish\nRhinoliparis attenuatus\nAcantholiparis opercularis\nspiny snailfish\nbigscale unident.\nMelamphaidae\ncrested bigscale\nPoromitra crassiceps\nhighsnout bigscale\nMelamphaes lugubris\nlongfin dragonfish\nTactostoma macropus\nMerluccius productus\nPacific hake\ndaggertooth\nAnotopterus pharao\nsnipe eel unident.\nNemichthyidae\nAvocettina sp.\nblackline snipe eel\nAvocettina infans\nOneirodes sp.\nspiny dreamer\nOneirodes acanthias\nhairy-lure dreamer\nOneirodes bulbosus\nduckbill barracudina\nParalepis atlantica\nslender barracudina\nLestidiops ringens\nmackerel unident.\nScombridae\nPacific saury\nCololabis saira\nBenthalbella sp.\nnorthern pearleye\nBenthalbella dentata\nScopelosaurus harryi\nscaly paperbone\nlongnose lancetfish\nAlepisaurus ferox\nshining tubeshoulder\nSagamichthys abei\nLyconectes aleutensis\ndwarf wrymouth\ngiant wrymouth\nCryptacanthodes giganteus\nking-of-the-salmon\nTrachipterus altivelis\nspookfish unident.\nOpisthoproctidae\nbarreleye\nMacropinna microstoma\nprowfish\nZaprora silenus\neelpout unident.\nZoarcidae\ntwoline eelpout\nBothrocara brunneum\nBothrocara pusillum\nAlaska eelpout\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nGOA Non-specified\nBothrocara remigerum\nlongfin eelpout\nCategory Continued\nBothrocara molle\nsoft eelpout\nsnakehead eelpout\nEmbryx crotalinus\nLycodes cortezianus\nbigfin eelpout\nLycenchelys sp.\nLycenchelys jordani\nshortjaw eelpout\nLycodapus fierasfer\nblackmouth eelpout\nLycodes sp.\nLycodes palearis\nwattled eelpout\nLycodes concolor\nebony eelpout\nCanadian eelpout\nLycodes polaris","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nLycodes diapterus\nblack eelpout\nLycodes brevipes\nshortfin eelpout\nLycodes pacificus\nblackbelly eelpout\nBothrocara sp.\nLycodapus sp.\nLycodapus grossidens\nbigtooth eelpout\nAcipenseridae\nsturgeon unident.\nLampris guttatus\nopah\nHowella sherborni\nroundfish unident.\nHydrozoa (class)\nhydroid unident.\nScyphozoa (class)\njellyfish unident.\nChrysaora sp.\nchrysaora jellyfish\nPeriphylla sp.\nPeriphylla periphylla\nChrysaora melanaster\nPhacellophora camtchatica\nAequorea sp.\nAtolla sp.\nAurelia sp.\nCyanea sp.\nCyanea capillata\nlion's mane\nAnthozoa (class)\nAlcyonacea (order)\nsoft coral unident.\nAlyconaria unident.\noctocoral unident.\nAlcyonium sp.\nGersemia sp. (=Eunephthya sp.)\nsea raspberry\nAnthomastus sp.\nAnthomastus sp. A (red)\nAnthomastus sp. B (gray)\nGorgonacea (order)\ngorgonian coral unident.\nPrimnoa sp.\nPrimnoa willeyi\nred tree coral\nAntipatheria\nblack coral\nAntipathes sp.\nParantipathes sp.\nParagorgia arborea\nKamchatka coral\nEuplexaura sp.\nEuplexaura marki\nCallogorgia sp.\nCalcigorgia sp.\nPennatulacea (order)\nsea pen or sea whip unident.\nVirgularia sp.\nsmoothstem seawhip\nVirgularidae\nsea whip unident.\nTable 8\nScientific name\nCommon name\nGOA Non-specified\nStylatula sp.\nslender seawhips\nCategory Continued\nStylatula gracile\nroughstem seawhip\nHalipteris (=Pavonaria) sp.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nHalipteris (=Pavonaria) finmarchica\nHalipteris californica\nPtilosarcus gurneyi\norange sea pen\nsea anemone unident.\nActiniaria (order)\nreticulate anemone\nActinauge verrillii\nrough purple sea anemone\nParactinostola faeculenta\nCorallimorphus sp.\nMetridium sp.\nclonal plumose anemone\nMetridium senile\nMetridium giganteum\ngigantic anemone\ncowardly anemone\nStomphia didemon\nStomphia sp.\nUrticina (=Tealia) sp.\nUrtinca (=Tealia) crassicornis\nmottled anemone\nCribrinopsis fernaldi\nchevron-tentacled anemone\ntentacle-shedding anemone\nLiponema brevicorne\nstony coral unident.\nScleractinia unident.\nCaryophyllia sp.\nhydrocoral unident.\nStylasterina unident.\nStylaster sp.\nStylaster brochi\nCrypthelia trophostega\nCyclohelia lancellata\nErrinopora sp.\narticulated bamboo coral\nIsidella sp.\nPlumarella sp. 1\nThouarella sp.\nbamboo coral\nKeratoisis sp.\nFanellia sp.\nFanellia compressa\nMuriceides sp.\nAmphilaphis sp.\nArthrogorgia sp.\ncomb jelly unident.\nCtenophora (phylum)\npolychaete worm unident.\nPolychaeta (class)\nworm unident.\ntube worm unident.\nsea mouse unident.\nAphroditidae\nAphrodita sp.\nAphrodita negligens\nNereidae\nNereis sp.\nCheilonereis cyclurus\nscale worm unident.\nPolynoidae\nEunoe sp.\nEunoe nodosa\ngiant scale worm\ndepressed scale worm\nEunoe depressa\nsabellid unident.\nSabellidae\nSerpula vermicularis","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nbristle worm unident.\nHirudinea unident.\nleech unident.\nCarcinobdella cyclostomum\nstriped sea leech\nCrustacea (subphylum)\ncrustacean unident.\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nGOA Non-specified\namphipod unident.\nCategory Continued\nIsopoda (order)\nisopod unident.\nLironeca sp.\nCumacea (order)\ncumacean unident.\nEuphausiacea (order)\neuphausiid unident.\nMysidacea (order)\nmysid unident.\nGnathophausia gigas\nGnathophausia ingens\nCirripedia (class)\nThoracica (order)\nbarnacle unident.\nLepas sp.\nBalanus sp.\nBalanus evermanni\ngiant barnacle\nBalanus hesperius\ncrab barnacle\nBalanus rostratus\nbeaked barnacle\nScalpellum cornutum\neared barnacle\nshrimp unident.\nSergestidae\nsergestid shrimp unident.\nSergestes sp.\npandalid shrimp unident.\nPandalidae\nPandalus sp.\nPandalus danae\ndock shrimp\nPandalus jordani\nocean shrimp\nPandalus borealis\nnorthern shrimp\nPandalus tridens\nyellowleg pandalid\nPandalus platyceros\nspot shrimp\nPandalus goniurus\nhumpy shrimp\nPandalus hypsinotus\ncoonstripe shrimp\nPandalopsis dispar\nsidestripe shrimp\nPandalopsis ampla\nHippolytidae (family)\nhippolytid shrimp unident.\nSpirontocaris sp.\nSpirontocaris lamellicornis\nSpirontocaris snyderi\nEualus sp.\nEualus barbatus\nEualus macilenta\nEualus macrophthalmus\nEualus stoneyi\nEualus suckleyi\nLebbeus sp.\nLebbeus grandimana\ncandy stripe shrimp\nLebbeus groenlandicus\nCrangonidae (family)\ncrangonid shrimp unident.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nCrangon sp.\nabyssal crangon\nCrangon abyssorum\nshell shrimp (northern crangon)\nCrangon alaskensis\ntwospine crangon\nCrangon communis\nCrangon resima\nridged crangon\nCrangon dalli\nsevenspine bay shrimp\nCrangon septemspinosa\nArgis sp.\ncommon argid\nArgis alaskensis\nArctic argid\nArgis dentata\nSclerocrangon sp.\nsculptured shrimp\nSclerocrangon boreas\nCommon name\nScientific name\nTable 8\nkuro argid\nGOA Non-specified\nArgis lar\nrough argid\nCategory Continued\nArgis crassa\nsplit-eye argid\nArgis ovifer\nParacrangon echinata\npasiphaeid shrimp unident.\nPasiphaeidae (family)\nPacific glass shrimp\nPasiphaea pacifica\ncrimson pasiphaeid\nPasiphaea tarda\nspinyridge shrimp\nNotostomus japonicus\ncrab unident.\ncancer crab unident.\nCancer sp.\nDungeness crab\nCancer magister\nOregon rock crab\nCancer oregonensis\nred rock crab\nCancer productus\ngraceful rock crab\nCancer gracilis\nXanthidae\npea crab\nPinnixa occidentalis\nspider crabs unident.\nMajidae unident.\nOregonia bifurca\ngraceful decorator crab\nOregonia gracilis\nLonghorned decorator crab\nChorilia longipes\ncircumboreal toad crab\nHyas coarctatus\nPacific lyre crab\nHyas lyratus\nhelmet crab\nTelmessus cheiragonus\nAnomura\nhermit crab unident.\nPaguridae\nPagurus sp.\nsponge hermit\nPagurus brandti\nAleutian hermit\nPagurus aleuticus\nsplendid hermit\nLabidochirus splendescens\nknobbyhand hermit\nPagurus confragosus\nPagurus cornutus\nwhiteknee hermit\nPagurus dalli\nbluespine hermit\nPagurus kennerlyi\nfuzzy hermit crab\nPagurus trigonocheirus\nAlaskan hermit\nPagurus ochotensis\nlongfinger hermit\nPagurus rathbuni","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nPagurus tanneri\nlonghand hermit\nElassochirus tenuimanus\nwidehand hermit crab\nPagurus capillatus\nhairy hermit crab\nElassochirus cavimanus\npurple hermit\nElassochirus gilli\nPacific red hermit\nElassochirus sp.\nLithodidae unident.\nstone crab unident.\nLopholithodes sp.\nbox crab unident.\nLopholithodes foraminatus\nbox crab\nLopholithodes mandtii\nAcantholithodes hispidus\nfuzzy crab\nHapalogaster mertensii\nHapalogaster grebnitzkii\nRhinolithodes wosnessenskii\nrhinoceros crab\nCryptolithodes typica\nCryptolithodes sp.\nParalomis sp.\nPlacetron wosnessenskii\nscaled crab\nErimacrus isenbeckii\nhorsehair crab\nHyas sp.\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nGOA Non-specified\nPugettia sp.\nkelp crab\nCategory Continued\nPugettia gracilis\nScyra acutifrons\nGalatheidae (family)\ngalatheid crab unident.\nMunida quadrispina\nPycnogonida (class)\nsea spider unident.\nmollusk unident.\nMollusca (phylum)\nAplacophora\nPolyplacophora unident.\nchiton unident.\ngiant Pacific (gumboot) chiton\nCryptochiton stelleri\nLepidozona trifida\nLepidozona abyssicola\nAmicula vestita\nPlaciphorella sp.\nPlaciphorella pacifica\nLeptochiton alveolus\ngastropod eggs\nsnail eggs\nBuccinum sp. Eggs\nFusitriton oregonensis eggs\nNeptunea sp. eggs\nNeptunea sp. eggs\nNudibranchia unident.\nnudibranch unident.\nTochuina tetraquetra\ngiant orange tochui\nDendronotus sp.\nTritonia sp.\nTritonia diomedea\nrosy tritonia\nTriopha catalinae\nsea-clown triopha\nArmina californica (=Pleurophyllidia c)\nCalifornia armina\nChlamylla sp.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nPacific sea lemon\nAnisodoris nobilis\ndorid nudibranch unident.\nwhite night doris\nArchidoris odhneri\ngreat puncturella\nCranopsis major\nAcmaea sp.\nlimpet unident.\nsnail unident.\nGastropod unident.\nNaticidae\nfragile moonsnail\nBulbus fragilis\nNatica sp.\nArctic moonsnail\nNatica clausa\nAleutian moonsnail\nNatica aleutica\nrusty moonsnail\nNatica russa\nNucella lamellosa (=Thais lamellosa)\nfrilled dogwinkle\nPolinices lewisi\nPolinices sp.\npale moonsnail\nPolinices pallidus\nslipper shell\nCrepidula sp.\nwhelk unident.\nColus sp.\nthin-ribbed whelk\nColus herendeenii\nthick-ribbed whelk\nColus spitzbergensis\nColus georgianus\nVolutopsius sp. (=Pyrulofusus sp.)\nwarped whelk\nPyrulofusus deformis\nleft-hand whelk\nVolutopsius harpa\nfragile whelk\nVolutopsius fragilis\nvolute whelk\nVolutopsius castaneus\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nshouldered whelk\nGOA Non-specified\nVolutopsius stefanssoni\nVolutopsius middendorffii\ntulip whelk\nCategory Continued\nBeringius sp.\nBeringius kennicotti\nBeringius beringii\nBeringius undatus\nBeringius sp. eggs\nBeringius sp. eggs\nNeptunea sp.\nNeptunea amianta\nNeptunea pribiloffensis\nPribilof whelk\nNeptunea middendorffii\nNeptunea lyrata\nlyre whelk\nNeptunea ventricosa\nfat whelk\nNeptunea heros\nPlicifusus (=Colus) kroyeri\nVolutopsius callorhinus\nPlicifusus (=Colus) griseus\ngray whelk\nMohnia robusta\nAforia sp. (=Leucosyrinx sp.)\nAforia circinata\nkeeled aforia","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nTorellia ammonia\nrams-horn hairysnail\nBoreotrophon stuarti\nwinged trophon\nBoreotrophon sp.\nCeratostoma foliatum\nfoliate thornmouth\nFusitriton oregonensis\nOregon triton\nFusitriton sp.\nCalliostoma sp.\nTegula pulligo\nBathybembix bairdii\nCidarina cidaris\nBuccinum picturatum\nBuccinum sp.\nBuccinum oedematum\nswollen whelk\nBuccinum eugrammatum\nlirate whelk\nBuccinum strigillatum\nBuccinum plectrum\nsinuous whelk (prev. lyre whelk)\nBuccinum scalariforme\nladder whelk (prev. silky whelk)\nBuccinum polare\npolar whelk\nBuccinum ciliatum\nBuccinum glaciale\nglacial whelk\nBathybuccinum clarki\nRoger's buccinid\nBathybuccinum ovulum\nArctomelon stearnsii (=Boreomelon s)\nAlaska volute\nBivalvia unident.\nbivalve unident.\nMytilidae\nmussel unident.\nModiolus modiolus\nnorthern horsemussel\nMytilus sp.\nMytilus californianus\nCalifornia mussel\nMytilus edulis\nblue mussel\nPectinid unident.\nscallop unident.\nChlamys sp.\nChlamys behringiana\nIceland scallop\nChlamys rubida\nreddish scallop\nChlamys hericia\nPatinopecten caurinus\nweathervane scallop\nHiatella sp.\nCommon name\nTable 8\nScientific name\nGOA Non-specified\nHiatella arctica\nArctic hiatella\nCategory Continued\nYoldia sp.\nYoldia scissurata\ncrisscrossed yoldia\nYoldia myalis (prev. file yoldia)\noval yoldia\nYoldia thraciaeformis\nbroad yoldia\nNuculana sp.\nNuculana pernula\nnorthern nutclam\nNuculana fossa\ntrenched nutclam\nLimopsis akutanica\nAkutan limops\nLimopsis vaginata\nMusculus niger\nblack mussel\nMusculus discors\ndiscordant mussel","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\ncrenulate astarte\nAstarte crenata\nAstarte sp.\nTridonta borealis (=Astarte borealis)\nboreal tridonta\nCardita sp.\nstout cyclocardia\nCyclocardia ventricosa (=Cardita\nventricosa)\nmany-rib cyclocardia\nCyclocardia crebricostata\nLa Perouse kellyclam\nKellia laperousii\nClinocardium sp.\ncockle unident.\nNuttall cockle\nClinocardium nuttallii\nhairy cockle\nClinocardium ciliatum\nCalifornia cockle\nClinocardium californiense\nstrait cockle\nClinocardium funcanum\nCompsomyax subdiaphanus\nmilky venus\nKennerleys venus\nHumilaria kennerleyi\nPacific gaper\nTresus nuttallii\nMactromeris sp. (=Spisula sp.)\nMactromeris polynyma (=Spisula p)\nArctic surfclam\nTellina sp.\nMacoma sp.\nchalky macoma\nMacoma calcarea\nheavy macoma\nMacoma brota\nSiliqua sp.\nAlaska razor\nSiliqua alta\nSerripes sp.\nGreenland cockle\nSerripes groenlandicus\nbroad cockle\nSerripes laperousii\nMya sp.\nfalse softshell\nMya pseudoarenaria\nShipworm unident.\nfeathery shipworm\nBankia setacea\nsandy lyonsia\nLyonsia arenosa\nAlaska falsejingle\nPododesmus macroschisma\nPododesmus sp.\nrock scallops unident\nHinnites sp.\nfalsejingles unident.\nAnomiidae\nscaphopod unident.\nScaphopoda unident.\nCompressidens stearnsii (=Cadulus s)\nStearns toothshell\nstarfish unident.\nAsteroidea unident.\nCeramaster leptoceramus\nOphioscolax sp.\nOphiacantus sp.\nEvasterias sp.\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nGOA Non-specified\nEvasterias troschelii\nCategory Continued\nDiamphiodia occidentalis\nEvasterias echinosoma\nOrthasterias sp.","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nOrthasterias koehleri\nLeptasterias hylodes\nLeptasterias coei\nRathbunaster californicus\nPycnopodia helianthoides\nStylasterias forreri\nStylasterias sp.\nLethasterias nanimensis\nPedicellaster sp.\nPedicellaster magister\nPisaster sp.\nPoraniopsis inflata\nHenricia sp.\nHenricia clarki\nHenricia sanguinolenta\nHenricia aspera\nHenricia leviuscula\nHenricia tumida\nHenricia asthenactis\nHenricia longispina\nLeptasterias polaris\nLeptasterias sp.\nLeptasterias camtschatica\nGephyreaster swifti\nPseudarchaster sp.\nPseudarchaster parelii alascensis\nHippasteria sp.\nHippasteria californica\nHippasteria heathi\nHippasteria spinosa\nPseudarchaster parelii\nMediaster sp.\nMediaster aequalis\nCeramaster sp.\nCeramaster japonicus\nred bat star\nCeramaster patagonicus\norange bat star\nCeramaster arcticus\nLuidia sp.\nLuidia foliolata\nDermasterias imbricata\nSolaster sp.\nSolaster endeca\nSolaster sp. B\nSolaster dawsoni\nSolaster stimpsoni\nSolaster paxillatus\nCrossaster sp.\nCrossaster borealis\nCrossaster papposus\nrose sea star","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nHeterozonias alternatus\nLophaster sp.\nLophaster furcilliger\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nGOA Non-specified\nPteraster sp.\nCategory Continued\nPteraster temnochiton\nPteraster tesselatus\nPteraster jordani\nPteraster militaris\nPteraster tesselatus arcuatus\nPteraster obscurus\nPteraster pulvillus\nDiplopteraster multipes\nAsterias sp.\npurple-orange seastar\nAsterias amurensis\nCtenodiscus sp.\ncommon mud star\nCtenodiscus crispatus\nLeptychaster sp.\nLeptychaster pacificus\nLeptychaster arcticus\nCladaster validus\nDipsacaster sp.\nDipsacaster borealis\nBenthopectinidae\nLuidiaster dawsoni\nNearchaster sp.\nNearchaster pedicellaris\nBrisingella exilis\nMyoxoderma platyacanthum\nMyoxoderma sacculatum\nsea urchin unident.\nEchinacea unident.\nStrongylocentrotus droebachiensis\ngreen sea urchin\nStrongylocentrotus sp.\nStrongylocentrotus echinoides\nStrongylocentrotus franciscanus\nred sea urchin\nStrongylocentrotus polyacanthus\nStrongylocentrotus purpuratus\npurple sea urchin\nStrongylocentrotus pallidus\nwhite sea urchin\nAllocentrotus fragilis\norange-pink sea urchin\nAllocentrotus sp.\nheart urchin unident.\nBrisaster sp.\nBrisaster latifrons\nsand dollar unident.\nEchinarachnius parma\nParma sand dollar\ncrinoid unident.\nHeliometra glacialis\nFlorometra sp.\nFlorometra acririma","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nFlorometra serratissima\nfeatherstar crinoid\nFlorometra asperima\nOphiuroid unident.\nbrittlestarfish unident.\nGorgonocephalus eucnemis (G. caryi)\nbasketstarfish\nAsteronyx sp.\nAsteronyx loveni\nOphiura sarsi\nAmphiophiura ponderosa\nOphiacantha sp.\nOphiopholis sp.\nOphiopholis longispina\nTable 8\nScientific name\nCommon name\nGOA Non-specified\nOphiopholis aculeata\nCategory Continued\nOphiothrix sp.\nOphiothrix spiculata\nAmphiuridae unident.\nHolothuroidea unident.\nsea cucumber unident.\nCucumaria japonica\nParastichopus sp.\nParastichopus leucothele\nParastichopus californicus\nPseudostichopus sp.\nPseudostichopus mollis\nsandy sea cucumber\nMolpadia sp.\nMolpadia intermedia\nPentamera lissoplaca\nBathyplotes sp.\nCucumaria sp.\nCucumaria fallax\nStichopus japonicus\nPsolidae (Family)\nPsolus sp.\nPsolus fabricii\nPannychia sp.\nPannychia moseleyi\nsponge unident.\nPorifera\nhairy lemon sponge\nvase sponge\nSuberites sp.\nSuberites ficus\nhermit sponge\nAphrocallistes vastus\nclay pipe sponge\nwhite claypipe sponge\nMycale loveni\ntree sponge\nHalichondria panicea\nbarrel sponge\nneon yellow vase sponge\nLeucandra heathi\nspiny vase sponge\nRhabdocalyptus sp.\ncloud sponge\nMycale bellabellensis\nlampshade sponge\nbrain sponge","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nPhakellia cribrosa\nscallop sponge\nMyxilla incrustans\nsoft green sponge\nmushroom sponge\nspud sponge\nPolymastia sp.\nclub sponge\nyellow leafy sponge\nLeucosolenia blanca\nball sponge\nTethya sp.\nfiberoptic sponge\nHylonema sp.\nstaghorn sponge\norange ball sponge\norange sponge\nyellow bowl sponge\nblack-orange spud sponge\nPolymastia pachymastia\nblack papilliate sponge\nHalichondria sitiens\nyellow green papillate sponge\nHalichondria cf. sitiens\norange encrusting sponge\nfirm yellow green sponge\ndrumstick sponge\nStylissa sp.\nScientific name\nCommon name\nTable 8\nGOA Non-specified\nstone sponge\nNeoesperiopsis rigida\nsoft finger sponge\nCategory Continued\nglass sponge unident.\nHexactinellida\nPlatyhelminthes (phylum)\nflatworm unident.\npolyclad flatworm unident.\nPolycladida (order)\nacoel turbellarian\nAcoelida (order)\nnemertean worm unident.\nNemertea (phylum)\nnematode worm unident.\nNematoda (phylum)\nsipunculid worm unident.\nSipuncula (phylum)\nechiuroid worm unident.\nEchiura (phylum)\nbryozoan unident.\nBryozoa unident.\nfluffy sponge\nEucratea loricata\nfeathery bryozoan\nleafy bryozoan\nFlustra serrulata\nMyriozoum subgracile\nPorella compressa\nflattened bryozoan\nEscharopsis sarsi\nRhamphostomella costata\nribbed bryozoan\nbrachiopod unident.\nlampshells unident.\nTerebratulina sp.\ncommon brachiopod\nTerebratalia transversa\nshakeshead brachiopod\nTerebratulina unguicula\nLaqueus californianus\nAscidian unident.\ntunicate unident.\ncow-eye tunicate (new species a)\nThaliacea unident.\nsalps unident.\nStyela rustica\nsea potato\nBoltenia sp.\nBoltenia villosa","Appendix H SEIS Non-Target Species List Compiled from RACEBASE\nBoltenia ovifera\nHalocynthia sp.\nsea peach unident.\nHalocynthia aurantium\nsea peach\nBotrylloides sp.\ncompound ascidian unident.\nAplidium sp.\nsea glob\nSynoicum sp.\nsea blob\nAscidia paratropa\nglassy tunicate\nHalocynthia hispidus\nhairy tunicate\nMolgula sp.\nMolgula grifithsii\nsea grape\nMolgula retortiformis\nsea clod\ninvertebrate unident."]}