33142 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Tribal land. We have determined that 

while no Tribes will be directly affected 

by this action, the delisting may result 

in changes to the flow regime for the 

Colorado River in and adjacent to the 

Grand Canyon. Several Tribes have an 

historic affiliation with the Grand 

Canyon and could be affected by flow 

changes, should they occur. The 

potentially impacted Tribes are the 

Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian 

Tribes, the Hualapai, the Hopi, the 

Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos 

Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute, 

the Navajo, and the Zuni. These Tribes 

were notified in advance of the 

publication of the proposed rule and 

have been informed of the finalization 

of the delisting. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055 or 

upon request from the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

staff members of the Service’s Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 14, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Ambersnail, Kanab’’ under 

SNAILS from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

Anissa Craghead, 

Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division 

of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13257 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[RTID 0648–XA797] 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of agency decision. 

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2021, the 

Regional Administrator of the West 

Coast Region, NMFS, with the 

concurrence of the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, approved 

Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fishery Management Plan. 

Amendment 18 implements a rebuilding 

plan for the northern subpopulation of 

Pacific sardine, which NMFS declared 

overfished in June 2019. 

DATES: The amendment was approved 

on June 14, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Coastal 

Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) as amended 

through Amendment 18, are available at 

the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 

Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384, or 

at this URL; https://www.pcouncil.org/ 

coastal-pelagic-species/fisherymanagement-plan-and-amendments/. 

The final Environmental Assessment 

(EA) prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

Amendment 18 is available on NMFS’ 

website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/ 

laws-and-policies/west-coast-regionnational-environmental-policy-actdocuments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Massey, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS, at lynn.massey@

noaa.gov or 562–436–2462; or Kerry 

Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, at kerry.griffin@noaa.gov or 

503–820–2409. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Amendment 18 expands Section 4.5 of 

the CPS FMP to include the rebuilding 

plan for Pacific sardine. There are no 

implementing regulations associated 

with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS 

did not promulgate proposed and final 

rules to implement this amendment. 

NMFS published a Notice of 

Availability for Amendment 18 on 

March 16, 2021 (86 FR 14401), and 

solicited public comments through May 

17, 2021. NMFS received five public 

comments in support of Amendment 18, 

one from a student and four from 

prominent fishing industry groups. The 

industry groups included the California 

Wetfish Producers Association, the West 

Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, the 

Sportfishing Association of California, 

and the West Coast Seafood Processors 

Association. NMFS received three 

public comments opposing Amendment 

18, one from a private citizen and two 

from the environmental nongovernmental organization Oceana. 

Oceana submitted two letters, one 

containing its public comment and the 

other containing a list of names that 

signed a petition campaigning against 

Amendment 18. NMFS summarizes and 

responds to the public comments below. 

NMFS responded to comments related 

to NEPA compliance in the final EA 

prepared for Amendment 18 (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comment 1: Oceana argues that by 

adopting the recommended 

management strategy for the rebuilding 

plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo 

Management) considered in the 

supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see 

ADDRESSES), NMFS is continuing failed 

policies that led to the overfished 

determination. 

Response: This comment 

misunderstands the biology of Pacific 

sardine, the structure of the CPS FMP, 

and the extraordinary and precautionary 

measures that the Council has built into 

the framework for managing CPS. 

Pacific sardines are well known to 

experience dramatic swings in 

abundance in response to 

environmental conditions, even in the 

absence of fishing pressure. The recent 

population decline of Pacific sardine 

appears to be due to poor recruitment. 

Specifically, the Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center’s (SWFSC) 2020 stock 

assessment states that recruitment has 

declined since 2005–2006 except for a 

brief period of modest recruitment 

success in 2009–2010, with the 2011– 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33143 

2018 year-classes being among the 

weakest in recent history. Such declines 

in population are by no means 

unprecedented. The Pacific sardine has 

undergone large population fluctuations 

for centuries even in the absence of 

industrial fishing as evidenced by 

historical records of scale deposits. 

Although this decrease in biomass 

triggered the requirement to declare the 

stock overfished, overfishing has never 

occurred for this stock, as Pacific 

sardine catch has been well below both 

the acceptable biological catch (ABC) 

and the overfishing limit (OFL) in every 

year. 

Most stocks managed under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) are managed 

with the goal of maintaining a fixed 

biomass level and use a constant 

exploitation rate to achieve that 

management goal. This is not the case 

for Pacific sardines, which as stated 

above, are well known to experience 

dramatic swings in abundance in 

response to environmental conditions 

and in the absence of fishing pressure. 

In addition, Pacific sardine are 

important forage species and play a 

critical role in the marine ecosystem. 

Accordingly, management for Pacific 

sardine does not rely on a fixed 

exploitation rate or a single set of 

management measures. Instead, the 

Council has crafted a management 

framework that does two critical things: 

(1) The harvest control rule incorporates 

the stock’s current levels of productivity 

to adjust the exploitation rate based on 

whether the stock is experiencing high 

or low recruitment, and (2) implements 

stringent management measures as soon 

as the stock exhibits signs that it is 

entering a significant downswing in 

biomass. With respect to this latter 

element, the FMP takes the very 

precautionary step of mandating a 

closure of the primary directed fishery, 

when the stock reaches 150,000 metric 

tons (mt), a level three times higher than 

the overfished threshold. The primary 

directed fishery is the main driver of 

fishing mortality for Pacific sardines 

and its closure creates an automatic 

reduction in removals, even in the 

absence of changes to the annual catch 

limit (ACL). This FMP provision has 

kept the primary directed fishery closed 

since 2015 (7 years so far), which was 

4 years before the stock was even 

declared overfished. In addition, when 

the stock reached its overfished level of 

50,000 mt in 2019, the FMP 

automatically required a reduction on 

incidental catch limits of Pacific 

sardines in other CPS fisheries from 40 

percent to 20 percent, which also has 

major impacts on fishing mortality. The 

FMP explicitly acknowledges that this 

framework could constitute a rebuilding 

plan without further adjustment. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act provides 

Councils with 2 years to develop a 

rebuilding plan once a stock is declared 

overfished (a process which itself takes 

several months). Sometimes, if a 

Council fails to develop a rebuilding 

plan and NMFS must develop and 

implement its own plan, it can take 

more than 2 years to implement a plan. 

The Council took the extraordinary step 

to anticipate population fluctuations for 

this cyclical stock and not wait to 

respond to low productivity and 

decreasing stock size. Instead, the 

Council automatically implemented 

provisions that would be found in a 

rebuilding plan as soon as the stock 

passed certain biomass thresholds. This 

represents an extremely precautionary 

approach to management. 

Comment 2: Oceana claimed that 

Amendment 18 violates the MagnusonStevens Act because the recommended 

management strategy for the rebuilding 

plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo 

Management) considered in the 

supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see 

ADDRESSES) does not provide at least a 

50 percent probability of rebuilding the 

stock within the modeled rebuilding 

timeframe (through 2050). Relevant to 

this, Oceana also claims that NMFS did 

not use the best scientific information 

available for evaluating the effects 

Alternative 1 Status Quo Management 

in the EA. Furthermore, Oceana claims 

that NMFS mischaracterizes Alternative 

1 Status Quo Management to achieve a 

particular conclusion. 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

the information and analysis used to 

determine a rebuilding timeline based 

on status quo management is supported 

by the best scientific information 

available and that status quo 

management has not been 

mischaracterized for a specific outcome. 

To support their claim, Oceana 

highlights the results of the preliminary 

model run for Alternative 1 Status Quo 

Management provided in the SWFSC’s 

Pacific Sardine Rebuilding Analysis 

(Appendix A of the EA), which had an 

output that the stock would not rebuild 

before 2050. However, NMFS does not 

rely on these initial modeling results 

because they do not realistically reflect 

the biological impacts that would result 

from management under Alternative 1 

Status Quo Management. Instead, NMFS 

relied on several sources of information 

when selecting Ttarget (i.e., the target 

rebuilding time frame). First, additional 

modeling results using a 2,200 mt 

constant catch level predict that the 

stock has at least a 50 percent chance of 

rebuilding in 17 years, only one year 

later than the 16 years predicted under 

Alternative 3 (Five Percent Fixed U.S. 

Harvest Rate). Second, both rebuilding 

timelines under Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 3 are likely overestimated by 

the modeling results since both 

alternatives do not account for the fact 

that in recent years only a small portion 

of the already-small U.S. Pacific sardine 

landings are from the northern 

subpopulation of Pacific sardine (i.e., 

the population managed under the CPS 

FMP), with a greater proportion coming 

from the southern subpopulation. Third, 

NMFS took into account the biology of 

the sardine stock and its changing 

productivity based on ocean conditions. 

In addition, Alternative 1 Status Quo 

management allows the stock to rebuild 

on a similar timeline as Alternative 3, 

but also prevents further economic harm 

to the fishing industry, which has 

already been declared a Federal disaster 

since 2015 when NMFS closed the 

primary directed fishery. NMFS believes 

that the stock has at least a 50 percent 

chance of rebuilding by the Council’s 

recommended Ttarget of 14 years 

(reduced from the modeled 17 years for 

2,200 mt constant catch to account for 

the fact that only a small portion of the 

2,200 mt is from the northern 

subpopulation, discussed more further 

below). 

When analyzing the effects of 

Alternative 1 Status Quo Management, 

NMFS relied on several sources of 

information to support its conclusion. 

These are not separate characterizations 

of the alternative, as the comment 

suggests. Instead, NMFS recognized that 

the model available was not capable of 

capturing all aspects of the Pacific 

sardine stock and that other sources of 

information should be used to evaluate 

the alternatives and select rebuilding 

criteria, including the additional model 

results for a constant catch of 2,200 mt 

(intended to represent expected average 

catch by fishery during the rebuilding 

period), the mixed stock composition of 

Pacific sardine landings, and the biology 

of the sardine stock and its changing 

productivity based on ocean conditions. 

The initial model run calculated 

rebuilding probabilities as though the 

full ABC is harvested, which has never 

been the case due the non-discretionary 

harvest restrictions already in place 

pursuant to the CPS FMP that 

purposefully restrict the fishery from 

catching the full ABC. These include the 

continued closure of the primary 

directed fishery (i.e., the largest fishery 

that takes the majority of Pacific sardine 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33144 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

catch) and restrictions on incidental 

harvest of Pacific sardine in other CPS 

fisheries (which are currently less than 

half of typical incidental limits). 

Therefore, although NMFS is required to 

set an OFL and ABC every year for 

Pacific sardine, those reference points 

have not been the drivers for annual 

catch levels. Instead, removals of Pacific 

sardine are driven by the management 

measures required by the FMP and 

included in this rebuilding plan. 

Therefore the Council and NMFS 

determined that analyzing removals at 

the level of the ABC would be 

inaccurate and fail to realistically 

evaluate the effectiveness of the 

rebuilding plan management strategies 

and their effects on fishing 

communities. The results of the final 

model run (i.e., 2,200 mt constant catch) 

that the Council and NMFS find more 

representative of Alternative 1 Status 

Quo Management projects that the stock 

has at least a 50 percent chance of 

rebuilding in 17 years, which is in 

between the Council’s recommended 

Tmin of 12 years and Tmax of 24 years. 

NMFS’ determination that 14 years is 

the time period that is as short as 

possible while taking into account the 

factors set forth by the MagnusonStevens Act, including the biology of 

the stock and the needs of fishing 

communities, was further informed by 

the stock composition of the removals 

counted against the ACL and included 

in the 2,200-mt average. There are two 

stocks of Pacific sardine that can occur 

off the U.S. West Coast, known as the 

northern subpopulation and the 

southern subpopulation. The northern 

subpopulation is the dominate stock off 

the U.S. West Coast, is the stock 

managed in the CPS FMP, and is the 

stock that is overfished and will be 

managed under this rebuilding plan. 

The southern subpopulation usually 

resides off the coast of Mexico, however 

in the summer months it usually 

migrates north into waters off southern 

California. Although the southern 

subpopulation prefers warmer water 

than the northern subpopulation, 

meaning the two subpopulations 

generally inhabit different geographic 

ranges, they do typically mix in the 

summertime and it is impossible to 

distinguish between the subpopulations 

at the time of landing. Therefore, in an 

abundance of caution, NMFS counts all 

landed Pacific sardine against the ACL 

(which is set based on the biomass of 

the northern subpopulation only), 

regardless of which subpopulation they 

might belong to. Since the closure of the 

primary Pacific sardine fishery, the 

remaining small levels of catch of 

Pacific sardine have occurred in the 

summertime when the southern 

subpopulation is mixing with the 

northern subpopulation in the Southern 

California Bight. Post-season 

reconstruction, for purposes of assigning 

landings in stock assessments, has 

demonstrated that in recent years, only 

472 mt on average of the 2,200-mt 

average catch are assumed to be from 

northern subpopulation. The Council 

recognized, therefore, that the modeled 

2,200 mt was significantly 

overestimating the impact of the fishery 

on the northern subpopulation and 

adjusted the Ttarget accordingly. NMFS 

notes that the rebuilding timeline under 

Alternative 3 is also likely 

overestimated for the same reasons, 

however this does not change the fact 

that the modeling shows Alternative 3 

only rebuilding slightly faster than 

Alternative 1. 

Comment 3: Oceana claims that 

harvest levels allowed under Alternative 

1 Status Quo Management will not 

allow the stock to rebuild because the 

sea surface temperature index used to 

calculate the EMSY parameter (i.e., the 

exploitation rate at maximum 

sustainable yield) in the OFL harvest 

control rule causes the OFL, and hence 

other harvest specifications, to be 

inflated. Oceana supports this claim by 

citing recent Council documents and a 

2019 scientific paper from NMFS’ 

SWFSC that indicates that the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation is a better predictor 

of sea surface temperature than the 

currently used 3-year average of 

California Cooperative Fisheries 

Investigation (CalCOFI) sea surface 

temperature measurements. Relevant to 

this, Oceana claims that NMFS should 

calculate EMSY based on the mean EMSY

from recent stock assessments rather 

than the 3-year average of CalCOFI sea 

surface temperature measurements. 

Response: Changing how EMSY is 

calculated is outside the scope of this 

action, however NMFS would still like 

to provide a response to this comment. 

NMFS is aware of the scientific 

publications and ongoing Council 

discussions related to EMSY, and is 

committed to participating in these 

ongoing discussions about new science 

and whether that new science justifies 

a change for how EMSY is calculated for 

management purposes. Regarding recent 

Council discussion: The Council’s 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC), which is the scientific advisory 

body responsible for recommending 

changes to EMSY, has the ability to 

recommend changes to EMSY at any 

time. The Council’s SSC has not done 

this since 2014 when they 

recommended that NMFS switch from 

using the 3-year average of Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography sea surface 

temperature measurements to using the 

3-year average of CalCOFI sea surface 

temperature measurements to inform 

EMSY. During this time, NMFS used a 

static EMSY of 18 percent that was 

produced by a management strategy 

evaluation. The implementation of 

Status Quo Management during the 

rebuilding period for Pacific sardine 

will not supersede the ability to change 

EMSY if and when a recommendation 

from the Council is made. Regarding the 

recent 2019 paper from the SWFSC: 

Research regarding the appropriate 

temperature index to inform EMSY is 

ongoing, and the SWFSC has not yet 

determined whether a change in how 

EMSY is calculated is necessary for 

management purposes based on this 

publication. The best predictor of sea 

surface temperature will likely change 

with time as equilibrium ocean 

conditions shift with climate change. 

The recent 2019 paper highlights new 

sea surface temperature-sardine 

recruitment relationships, however it 

does not actually provide a new method 

to calculate EMSY for management 

purposes. NMFS and the SWFSC will 

continue to collaborate on whether this 

new publication warrants a change in 

management. If a change is determined 

to be necessary, NMFS will promulgate 

a new action that will go through the 

proper Council process and will include 

public input during the Council process 

and during NMFS’ subsequent 

rulemaking process. 

Comment 3: Oceana stated that NMFS 

must base its analysis on a productivity 

scenario representing the best known 

long-term boom and bust dynamics of 

the sardine population. Oceana points 

out several shortcomings of the 

Rebuilder tool that was used to analyze 

rebuilding timelines under certain 

management alternatives, including the 

fact that it analyzes a limited range of 

years for recruitment scenarios. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges and 

agrees that the boom and bust dynamics 

of Pacific sardines are critical to 

analyzing rebuilding for this stock. 

Consideration of this biological 

characteristic of the stock was an 

important part of NMFS’ analysis. The 

Council analyzed two productivity 

scenarios for each management 

alternative. The model used data inputs 

from the 2020 benchmark stock 

assessment that covers the time period 

2005–2020. The two modeled time 

periods, 2005–2018 and 2010–2018, 

were chosen to represent different levels 

of potential future productivity (i.e., 

recruitment scenarios) for this stock. 

Each of these productivity scenarios was 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33145 

also analyzed with two Mexican harvest 

scenarios including a fixed tonnage 

(6,044 mt) and a fixed rate (9.9 percent 

of Pacific sardine biomass). The 

Council’s CPS Management Team chose 

to include only the modeling results for 

the 2005–2018 productivity scenario as 

part of its rationale for its 

recommendations because this time 

period represents a broader range of 

recruitment observed for this stock than 

the modeled subset of years 2010 to 

2018, which include only years with 

low Pacific sardine productivity. The 

modeling results for 2010–2018 also 

provided a relatively low spawning 

stock biomass target (i.e., the model’s 

estimated rebuilding target under this 

productivity scenario) of only 38,122 

mt, which is less than the overfished 

threshold of 50,000 mt in the CPS FMP. 

As a result, the CPS Management Team 

determined that the model results from 

the low productivity scenario do not 

adequately represent the fluctuating 

Pacific sardine population, and 

therefore relied on analysis of the model 

results for the moderate productivity 

scenario when developing management 

alternatives. The decision was also 

made to consider the modeling runs 

based on the fixed rate assumption for 

Mexico versus a fixed catch level on the 

presumption that it is reasonable to 

assume Mexican catch might go up and 

down based on stock size. Despite the 

model’s limitations (discussed above in 

the response to Comment #2), it is the 

best model available to project Pacific 

sardine biomass forward in time, taking 

into account recruitment, fishing 

mortality, etc. and was an appropriate 

source of information for NMFS to rely 

on when reaching its decision. 

Furthermore, the Council’s SSC 

endorsed the use of the model for this 

purpose. 

However, NMFS acknowledges the 

limitations of the model and took that 

into account in reaching its decision by 

relying on other sources of information 

to inform its decision. When evaluating 

the Council’s recommendation, NMFS 

took several other aspects into 

consideration, including the basic 

biology and life history of Pacific 

sardine estimates of its large population 

fluctuations over thousands of years, 

and the history of the Pacific sardine 

fishery on the west coast of North 

America. One of the primary drivers of 

Pacific sardine biology that the model 

cannot take into account is the widerscale oceanographic conditions that 

drive Pacific sardine recruitment. There 

is no model that exists that can 

accurately predict when ocean 

conditions will ultimately allow for 

more favorable Pacific sardine 

recruitment. NMFS understands these 

limitations and explained the caveats of 

the modeling results and analyzed them 

holistically with other non-model based 

considerations. NMFS notes that the 

shortcomings of the Rebuilder Tool and 

the SWFSC’s resulting Pacific Sardine 

Rebuilding Analysis highlighted by 

Oceana apply to all of the alternatives 

analyzed. 

Comment 4: Oceana claims that 

NMFS must establish a rebuilding 

biomass level target consistent with the 

long-term BMSY (i.e., the biomass at 

maximum sustainable yield) from 

previous management strategy 

evaluations. In addition to a 2014 

management strategy evaluation, 

Oceana also cites a value from a 2012 

SWFSC scientific paper for 

consideration of a BMSY. Relevant to 

this, Oceana also claims that the 

proposed BMSY of 150,000 mt age 1+ 

biomass in Amendment 18 is too low 

because below that threshold, the 

primary directed fishery for Pacific 

sardine is prohibited from operating. 

Response: NMFs has determined that 

the established rebuilding target is 

supported by the best scientific 

information available and represents a 

level consistent with producing the 

maximum sustainable yield under 

prevailing environmental conditions. 

Because Pacific sardine biomass 

fluctuates drastically with prevailing 

oceanographic conditions, BMSY also 

fluctuates with the stock’s productivity. 

This is why so many values that could 

potentially be used for BMSY exist in 

relevant literature, and also why the 

Council and NMFS have never 

explicitly defined a single BMSY

reference point for Pacific sardine. The 

two values that Oceana implies NMFS 

should consider using for BMSY are 

based on older stock assessment data. In 

recommending a rebuilt level of 150,000 

mt age 1+ biomass, the Council and 

NMFS used the most recent data from 

the 2020 Pacific sardine stock 

assessment which includes the recent 

decline in the population and recent 

low recruitments. The Council’s SSC 

endorsed using the 2020 stock 

assessment and the model for this 

purpose. 

Regarding Oceana’s claim that 

150,000 mt age 1+ biomass is too low 

because it represents a level where ‘‘the 

population is too low to support a 

commercial fishery,’’ the comment 

misunderstands the structure of the CPS 

FMP and the precaution built into its 

framework. The Council chose a 

‘‘CUTOFF’’ threshold at which it would 

automatically close the primary directed 

fishery not because the stock could not 

support a fishery at that level, but in 

order to provide additional protections 

to the stock as biomass began decreasing 

in response to environmental 

conditions. This CUTOFF threshold is 

part of the optimum yield 

considerations built into the Pacific 

sardine harvest guideline control rule. A 

stock on an upward trend does not 

require the same safeguards. In addition, 

NMFS notes that the CUTOFF value is 

three times the overfished biomass 

level, demonstrating both how 

precautionary the automatic closure 

level is and that it represents the level 

at which the stock will produce 

maximum sustainable yield. 

Additionally, when developing a 

rebuilding plan it is important to 

consider the current environmental and/ 

or reproductive conditions the stock is 

experiencing, which is why the model 

used to project rebuilding timelines 

used the most recent stock assessment. 

Although history and science have 

shown that the Pacific sardine 

population can recover quickly when 

conditions are favorable, as previously 

stated it is unknown when those 

conditions will change. If the modeling 

analysis to determine an appropriate 

rebuilt level or the rebuilding plan 

included high biomass levels and high 

recruitment levels witnessed in the past 

as suggested by Oceana, then the model 

could potentially over assume the level 

of catches that could occur for 

rebuilding. 

Comment 5: Oceana claims that 

NMFS fails to use the best scientific 

information available on international 

catch levels in its consideration of 

Amendment 18. Specifically, Oceana 

claims that the Distribution parameter 

in the Pacific sardine harvest control is 

inconsistent with recent high catch 

levels by Mexico published in the 2020 

Pacific sardine stock assessment. 

Response: NMFS notes that changes 

to the management framework of Pacific 

sardine and to the Pacific sardine 

harvest control rules are set in the CPS 

FMP and are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. However, NMFS would like 

to respond to this comment. 

The value for the Distribution 

parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest 

control rules has recently been 

reviewed. In 2015, a 3-day meeting was 

held that included agency and nonagency scientists to review the 

Distribution parameter. The results of 

this workshop were then presented to 

the Council and its advisory bodies, 

including the SSC. The Council 

subsequently concluded that there was 

no superior data to inform this 

parameter. Additionally, NMFS notes 

that the Distribution parameter in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33146 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

various Pacific sardine control rules is 

not a required element dictated by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act or National 

Standard 1. Instead, it is an additional 

precautionary policy adopted and used 

by the Council to further reduce the 

harvest of Pacific sardine beyond what 

is required. Amendment 18 does not 

supersede the Council’s ability to 

recommend a change to the Distribution 

parameter if and when they deem it 

necessary. 

Comment 6: Oceana claims that 

NMFS has not, and therefore must 

analyze the effects of each alternative on 

essential fish habitat (EFH) for salmon, 

groundfish, and highly migratory 

species. 

Response: NMFS notes that this 

action is a rebuilding plan intended 

only to continue limiting fishing 

mortality in order to allow the Pacific 

sardine population to rebuild. The 

closure of the primary directed fishery 

is maintained through this action. There 

are no anticipated impacts to EFH that 

have not already been considered in 

prior EFH consultations on the Pacific 

sardine fishery, even when the primary 

directed fishery was open. Only the 

smaller sectors of the fishery with very 

limited take of Pacific sardine (e.g., the 

live bait fishery) would occur under 

Amendment 18, as the primary directed 

fishery will remain closed until the 

stock reaches its rebuilding target. 

Comment 7: Oceana claimed that 

NMFS has not adequately consulted on 

the potential effects from Amendment 

18 on Endangered Species Act (ESA)- 

listed predators, and that NMFS must 

reinitiate an ESA consultation for this 

action. 

Response: Oceana did not introduce 

any new scientific information that 

would require NMFS to reinitiate 

consultation under the ESA. Prior ESA 

consultations on the Pacific sardine 

fishery concluded that there would be 

no significant impact to ESA-listed 

species, and those consultations 

analyzed effects when the primary 

directed fishery was open. Amendment 

18 maintains the closure of the primary 

directed fishery and only allows a very 

limited amount of take for the remaining 

small sectors of the fishery. As it relates 

to this action, potential impacts to 

species listed under the ESA would be 

if this action somehow changed the type 

of gear used by the fishery, or the timing 

or location of fishing. This action does 

not do any of those things. 

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

Dated: June 14, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13349 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES