70286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 140304195–4947–02] 

RIN 0648–BE06 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Steller Sea Lion 

Protection Measures for the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish 

Fisheries Off Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to 

implement Steller sea lion protection 

measures to insure that groundfish 

fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area (BSAI) off 

Alaska are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the western 

distinct population segment (WDPS) of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat. 

These management measures disperse 

fishing effort temporally and spatially to 

provide protection from potential 

competition for important Steller sea 

lion prey species. This action is 

intended to protect the endangered 

Steller sea lions, as required by the 

Endangered Species Act, and to 

minimize, to the extent practicable, the 

economic impact of fishery management 

measures, as required by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

DATES: Effective December 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of: 

• The Steller Sea Lion Protection 

Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), the Record of 

Decision, and the Regulatory Impact 

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this 

action are available from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

sustainablefisheries/sslpm/eis/

default.htm. 

• The 2001 Biological Opinion for the 

Authorization of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska 

Groundfish Fisheries (2001 BiOp), the 

2010 Biological Opinion on the 

Authorization of Groundfish Fisheries 

under the Fishery Management Plans 

(FMP BiOp), and the 2014 Biological 

Opinion for the Authorization of Alaska 

Groundfish Fisheries under the 

Proposed Revised Steller Sea Lion 

Protection Measures (2014 BiOp) are 

available at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/stellers/

section7.htm. 

• The 2008 Revised Steller Sea Lion 

Recovery Plan (2008 Recovery Plan) is 

available from the NMFS Alaska Region 

Web site at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/stellers/

recovery.htm. 

• The Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area FMP 

is available from the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council Web site 

at http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/

PDFdocuments/fmp/BSAI/BSAIfmp.pdf. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to NMFS at the above 

address and by email to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202– 

395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

published a proposed rule to implement 

Steller sea lion protection measures on 

July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37486). The 

comment period on the proposed rule 

ended on August 15, 2014. NMFS 

received 17 letters of comments on the 

proposed rule. Additional background 

information and detail on this action is 

provided in the proposed rule and is 

briefly summarized in this final rule. 

NMFS manages groundfish fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 

under the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMP under the authority of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 

1801, et seq. Regulations governing 

fisheries and implementing the FMP 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. 

NMFS has management responsibility 

for certain threatened and endangered 

species, including Steller sea lions, 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. 

NMFS has the authority to promulgate 

regulations to enforce provisions of the 

ESA to protect such species. As the 

action agency, NMFS is responsible for 

conducting a section 7 consultation to 

insure that the Federal action of 

authorizing the Alaska groundfish 

fisheries is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of an ESA-listed 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of its designated 

critical habitat. Under the provisions of 

section 7 of the ESA, NMFS Alaska 

Region Sustainable Fisheries Division 

(SFD) is the action agency and consults 

with the NMFS Alaska Region Protected 

Resources Division (PRD) on the 

impacts of groundfish fisheries for most 

ESA-listed species of marine mammals, 

including Steller sea lions. 

NMFS listed the WDPS of Steller sea 

lions as endangered under the ESA in 

1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997). 

Throughout this preamble, the term 

‘‘Steller sea lions’’ means the WDPS of 

Steller sea lions unless otherwise 

specified. Steller sea lions are 

distributed from Prince William Sound 

through the Aleutian Islands in Alaska 

and in Russia on the Kamchatka 

peninsula, Kuril Islands, and the Sea of 

Okhotsk. NMFS uses six sub-regions 

within Alaska for trend and status 

monitoring of Steller sea lions. These 

sub-regions include the eastern Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA), central GOA, and 

western GOA, the eastern Aleutian 

Islands/Bering Sea, central Aleutian 

Islands, and the western Aleutian 

Islands. A seventh sub-region is located 

outside of the United States and is 

commonly referred to as the Russian 

sub-region because most of the Steller 

sea lion population in that sub-region is 

concentrated in Russia. 

NMFS designated critical habitat for 

Steller sea lions and identified haulouts, 

rookeries, and foraging locations 

throughout Alaska waters ranging 

throughout the GOA, the Bering Sea, 

and the Aleutian Islands (58 FR 45269, 

August 27, 1993). Since publication of 

critical habitat definitions in 1993 (see 

50 CFR 226.202), NMFS has identified 

19 additional haulouts in the BSAI and 

the GOA as important areas for Steller 

sea lions needing additional protection 

from the potential effects of groundfish 

fishing. More information and 

justification for including these 

haulouts are contained in the 2001 BiOp 

(see ADDRESSES). NMFS is currently 

considering revisions to the critical 

habitat designation to take into account 

new information that has become 

available since NMFS designated 

critical habitat in 1993 (79 FR 46392, 

August 8, 2014). 

Since listing Steller sea lions, NMFS 

has implemented a number of 

management measures, commonly 

known as Steller sea lion protection 

measures, to protect Steller sea lion prey 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70287 

from the potential effects of groundfish 

fishing. Steller sea lion protection 

measures disperse catch of groundfish 

prey species in time (temporal 

dispersion) and space (spatial 

dispersion) through a variety of harvest 

limitations and closure areas. Many of 

these Steller sea lion protection 

measures apply specifically to Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock, 

which are important prey species for 

Steller sea lions. 

Section 3.5.3 of the FMP, approved by 

the Secretary of Commerce under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, authorizes 

regulations for fishery management 

measures to protect marine mammals, 

without requiring amendment of the 

FMP itself (see ADDRESSES). Steller sea 

lion protection measures for the Alaska 

groundfish fisheries have been 

implemented under this FMP authority 

since 1998. 

NMFS has revised the Steller sea lion 

protection measures several times. 

NMFS has conducted several ESA 

consultations to assess the impact of the 

groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. 

Previous actions to implement Steller 

sea lion protection measures and their 

accompanying ESA consultations have 

been subject to litigation. A detailed 

history of previous Steller sea lion 

protection measures, ESA section 7 

consultations (i.e., biological opinions), 

and litigation is provided in Chapter 1 

of the EIS (see ADDRESSES). 

The most recent Steller sea lion 

protection measures were implemented 

in 2011 with the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule (75 FR 77535, December 13, 2010; 

corrected 75 FR 81921, December 29, 

2010). Steller sea lion protection 

measures implemented in the 2010 

Interim Final Rule limit harvest of Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod. NMFS 

implemented these management 

measures consistent with the reasonable 

and prudent alternative (RPA) 

recommended in the 2010 FMP BiOp 

that NMFS determined were necessary 

to insure that the Alaska groundfish 

fisheries were not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of Steller sea 

lions or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of their designated 

critical habitat. The 2010 Interim Final 

Rule established Steller sea lion 

protection measures primarily in the 

Aleutian Islands, based on the 

population trends of the Steller sea lions 

and the harvest of principal prey species 

by the groundfish fisheries in the 

Aleutian Islands. This action retains 

some and modifies some of the Steller 

sea lion protection measures 

implemented by the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule. 

This final rule implements a suite of 

management measures for the Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries primarily in the Aleutian 

Islands. These management measures 

protect Steller sea lion prey to comply 

with the ESA requirement that NMFS 

insure that its actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

endangered species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. To 

protect Steller sea lion prey availability, 

this final rule protects specific areas that 

are important to Steller sea lions and 

limits the amount of fishing within 

Steller sea lion critical habitat. This 

final rule maintains a precautionary 

approach to the management of Steller 

sea lion prey species by spatially and 

temporally dispersing catch, 

particularly in critical habitat, to 

prevent localized depletion of these 

important prey resources. While 

protecting Steller sea lion prey, this 

final rule also enhances fishing 

opportunities and minimizes potential 

adverse economic impacts on fishery 

participants and communities by 

removing restrictions on fishing 

implemented by the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule that have been determined to be 

unnecessary based on the 2014 BiOp. 

NMFS analyzed the impacts of the 

action and its alternatives in an EIS (see 

ADDRESSES). NMFS published a notice 

of intent to prepare the EIS in the 

Federal Register on April 17, 2012 (77 

FR 22750). The scoping period for the 

EIS was approximately 6 months with 

the period ending October 15, 2012. 

NMFS also held a public scoping 

meeting in coordination with a Council 

meeting on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 

52674, August 30, 2012). NMFS released 

the draft EIS for public review on May 

17, 2013 (78 FR 29131). The comment 

period for the draft EIS ended on July 

16, 2013. NMFS released the final EIS 

on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29759). 

The decision analyzed in the EIS was 

whether to maintain the existing suite of 

Steller sea lion protection measures 

(Alternative 1, the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule) or to implement a new suite of 

Steller sea lion protection measures 

(Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). To provide 

a comprehensive analysis of the effects 

of the alternatives, the EIS compares the 

six alternatives relative to each other 

and relative to a baseline period used to 

assess the environmental conditions 

affecting Steller sea lions (generally 

from 2004 through 2010). NMFS 

developed these alternatives through a 

collaborative process with the Council 

and its Steller Sea Lion Mitigation 

Committee, and considered public 

comments received during the scoping 

process for the EIS and during the 

public review of the draft EIS. 

NMFS developed all alternatives with 

the understanding that a preferred 

alternative could only be selected as the 

proposed action and implemented 

through rule making if NMFS could 

insure that the action was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Steller sea lions or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

their designated critical habitat. The 

Council and NMFS understood that a 

preferred alternative and any resulting 

rule must meet the requirements of the 

ESA before factors that minimize the 

economic impacts on fishery 

participants could be considered. A 

detailed discussion of the purpose and 

need for the action is provided in the 

EIS (see ADDRESSES). 

The alternatives ranged from 

Alternative 6, an alternative that would 

restrict fishing more than the status quo 

alternative (Alternative 1), to 

Alternative 4, the alternative that would 

allow the most fishing opportunities. 

Alternative 4 would reinstate the Steller 

sea lion protection measures that were 

in place prior to the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule, with a few exceptions. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provided more 

fishing opportunities and fewer 

protection measures than Alternative 1, 

but included more protection measures 

than Alternative 4. Additional 

description of the alternatives is 

available in the EIS (see ADDRESSES). 

In October 2013, the Council 

recommended Alternative 5 as the 

preferred alternative for the EIS. 

Alternative 5 is a suite of management 

measures for the Atka mackerel, Pacific 

cod, and pollock fisheries that includes 

fishery closures and limitations on catch 

in specific areas to mitigate the potential 

adverse effects of fishing on Steller sea 

lion prey resources. Alternative 5 

retains important Steller sea lion 

protection measures in Alternative 1 

and also allows more fishing by 

removing or modifying some of 

measures in Alternative 1. Alternative 5 

includes authorization for specific 

fishery research in the BSAI. This final 

rule implements the Steller sea lion 

protection measures in Alternative 5. 

The Council recommended 

Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative 

based on the analysis in the draft EIS, 

public comments, advice from its Steller 

Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, input 

from the Council’s Advisory Panel and 

Scientific and Statistical Committee, 

and the best available scientific 

information. The Council considered 

the findings of the 2010 FMP BiOp, a 

review of the 2010 FMP BiOp sponsored 

by NMFS and conducted by the Center 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

for Independent Experts, and a review 

of the FMP BiOp sponsored by the 

States of Alaska and Washington. In 

recommending Alternative 5 as its 

preferred alternative, the Council 

determined that Alternative 5 would 

implement management measures that 

protect Steller sea lion prey as required 

by the ESA. The Council determined 

that Alternative 5 would protect specific 

areas that are important to Steller sea 

lions and limit the amount of fishing 

within Steller sea lion critical habitat in 

order to protect Steller sea lion prey 

availability. Alternative 5 maintains a 

precautionary approach to the 

management of Steller sea lion prey 

species in critical habitat by spatially 

and temporally dispersing catch to 

prevent localized depletion of these 

important prey resources. 

NMFS conducted a consultation on 

the proposed action as required under 

section 7 of the ESA to determine 

whether fishing under Alternative 5 

would be likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Steller sea lions 

or destroy or adversely modify their 

critical habitat. NMFS issued a 

biological opinion on April 2, 2014 

(2014 BiOp, see ADDRESSES). New 

information in the external reviews of 

the 2010 FMP BiOp and the new 

analyses that NMFS conducted in 

response to those external reviews were 

incorporated into the 2014 BiOp to 

further understand the effects of the 

groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. 

The 2014 BiOp found that the 

implementation of the proposed action 

(Alternative 5) was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

Steller sea lions and was not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify designated 

Steller sea lion critical habitat. The 

conclusions in the 2014 BiOp were 

reached after considering the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, including Steller sea lion 

behavior and fisheries data. The 2014 

BiOp concludes that the proposed 

action would establish Steller sea lion 

protection measures for the Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea 

that spatially and temporally disperse 

fishing to mitigate potential competition 

for prey resources between Steller sea 

lions and these fisheries. Spatial and 

temporal fishery dispersion is 

accomplished through closure areas, 

harvest limits, seasonal apportionment 

of harvest limits, and limits on 

participation in a fishery. The proposed 

action would retain or modify existing 

closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal 

apportionment of harvest limits, and 

limits on participation in ways that are 

designed to limit competition for prey 

with Steller sea lions. 

The best available scientific 

information suggests that the effects of 

the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea 

lions may be greatest around rookeries 

and haulouts due to the overlap of 

foraging Steller sea lions and harvest of 

their prey species in the fisheries. This 

action limits fishing to the greatest 

extent from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries 

and haulouts, which corresponds with 

the highest observed at-sea use by adult 

female, young-of-the-year, and juvenile 

Steller sea lions, as shown in the Steller 

sea lion telemetry data described in the 

2014 BiOp (see Chapter 5 of the EIS and 

Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp). 

The 2014 BiOp identified the 

importance of maintaining global, or 

broad scale, limits on the harvest of 

Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock. 

Global limits are currently in place for 

these three species. Regulations prohibit 

directed fishing in the BSAI or GOA if 

the projected spawning biomass of the 

fish stock falls below 20 percent of the 

unfished spawning biomass (see 

regulations at § 679.20(d)(4)). Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries have not experienced this type 

of directed fishing closure since global 

limits became effective in 2003 (68 FR 

204, January 2, 2003). 

Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 

This final rule implements a 

comprehensive suite of Steller sea lion 

protection measures. Steller sea lion 

protection measures regulate fishing by 

applying a combination of closed areas, 

harvest limits, and seasons that reduce 

fishery competition for Steller sea lion 

prey when and where Steller sea lions 

forage. To improve monitoring, this 

final rule also requires vessels named on 

a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP), that 

use trawl gear to harvest groundfish that 

is deducted from the Federal total 

allowable catch (TAC), to set their 

vessel monitoring system (VMS) to 

transmit the vessel location at least 10 

times per hour. 

This section provides a summary of 

the Steller sea lion protection measures 

implemented in this final rule. For a 

more detailed explanation of the 

regulatory provisions and the purpose of 

each provision, please see the preamble 

to the proposed rule (79 FR 37486, July 

1, 2014). The preamble to the proposed 

rule also provides a detailed comparison 

of this final rule with the 2010 Interim 

Final Rule. 

Atka Mackerel, Pacific Cod, and Pollock 

Fisheries 

This final rule applies primarily to the 

Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries in the Aleutian Islands 

reporting area, defined at § 679.2 and 

shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR part 679. 

The Aleutian Islands reporting area 

consists of Statistical Areas 541, 542, 

and 543 in the EEZ and adjacent State 

of Alaska (State) waters. The EEZ 

includes Federal waters that generally 

occur from 3 nautical miles (nm) to 200 

nm from shore. State waters generally 

occur from shore to 3 nm from shore. 

Area 541 and adjacent State waters 

correspond to the eastern Aleutian 

Islands; Area 542 and adjacent State 

waters correspond to the central 

Aleutian Islands; and Area 543 and 

adjacent State waters correspond to the 

western Aleutian Islands. 

This final rule applies to vessels that 

catch groundfish that are required to be 

deducted from a TAC under § 679.20 

and that are required to be named on a 

FFP issued under § 679.4(b) in the BSAI 

reporting area. This rule also applies to 

vessels that harvest groundfish in State 

waters that are managed under the 

State’s parallel groundfish fisheries. 

Parallel groundfish fisheries are 

fisheries that occur in State waters and 

where the catch of groundfish is 

deducted from the Federal TAC. Parallel 

groundfish fisheries are opened and 

closed by the State concurrently with 

adjacent Federal fisheries. Parallel 

fisheries are managed by the State under 

regulations similar to those that apply in 

the Federal fisheries. The State parallel 

fisheries that would be affected by this 

action are the fisheries for groundfish 

that occur in State waters adjacent to the 

BSAI. Additional detail on State parallel 

fisheries is provided in Chapters 3 and 

8 of the EIS (see ADDRESSES). 

Area Closures 

NMFS has designated 100,286 square 

kilometers as critical habitat for Steller 

sea lions in the Aleutian Islands. This 

subsection summarizes the critical 

habitat closed to fishing under this final 

rule. A detailed discussion of the 

amount of critical habitat closed under 

this final rule is in Section 5.3 of the 

2014 BiOp (see ADDRESSES). The area 

closures are implemented by regulations 

at § 679.22 and Table 6 to 50 CFR part 

679 for Atka mackerel, Table 5 to 50 

CFR part 679 for Pacific cod, and Table 

4 to 50 CFR part 679 for pollock. 

With the final rule, NMFS is closing 

90 percent of critical habitat in the 

Aleutian Islands to Atka mackerel 

fishing, which results in 8 percent more 

area open for Atka mackerel fishing in 

the Aleutian Islands compared to the 

areas closed under the 2010 Interim 

Final Rule. This final rule prohibits 

directed fishing with trawl gear for Atka 

mackerel in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70289 

from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm 

from rookeries in Areas 543 and 542. 

This final rule also prohibits directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel in waters from 

0 nm to 20 nm from Steller sea lion 

haulouts and rookeries in Area 542 

located between 178° E longitude and 

180° E longitude and east of 178° W 

longitude. In Area 541, this final rule 

prohibits directed fishing with trawl 

gear inside critical habitat, except for a 

portion of critical habitat from 12 nm to 

20 nm around Seguam Island. 

With the final rule, NMFS is closing 

22 percent of critical habitat in the 

Aleutian Islands to Pacific cod fishing 

with non-trawl gear (hook-and-line, pot, 

and jig), which results in 23 percent 

more area open to Pacific cod fishing 

with non-trawl gear in the Aleutian 

Islands compared to the areas closed 

under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. In 

Area 543, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters 

from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries and 

from 0 nm to 10 nm from Buldir Island 

for hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. 

In Area 542, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters 

from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries for 

hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. In 

Area 541, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters 

from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries west 

of 172.59° W longitude and in critical 

habitat from 0 nm to 20 nm east of 

172.59° W longitude for hook-and-line 

and pot gear vessels. Directed fishing for 

Pacific cod with hook-and-line, pot gear, 

and jig gear vessels is prohibited in the 

Seguam Foraging Area. 

With the final rule, NMFS is closing 

52 percent of critical habitat in the 

Aleutian Islands to Pacific cod fishing 

with trawl gear, which results in 23 

percent more area open to Pacific cod 

fishing with trawl gear in the Aleutian 

Islands compared to the areas closed 

under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. In 

Area 543, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with 

trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm 

to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm 

to 10 nm from rookeries. In Area 542, 

this final rule prohibits directed fishing 

for Pacific cod with trawl gear vessels in 

waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts 

and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries. 

In Area 541, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with 

trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm 

to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm 

to 10 nm from rookeries, and from 0 nm 

to 20 nm around Agligadak Island. 

With this final rule, NMFS is closing 

65 percent of critical habitat in the 

Aleutian Islands to pollock fishing, 

which results in 35 percent more area 

open to pollock fishing in the Aleutian 

Islands compared to the previous 

closures. In Area 543, this final rule 

prohibits directed fishing for pollock in 

95 percent of critical habitat, including 

0 nm to 20 nm from rookeries and 

haulouts, except 3 nm to 20 nm from 

Shemya, Alaid and Chirikof haulouts 

that remain outside of 20 nm from 

rookeries. In Area 542, west of 178° W 

longitude, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for pollock in waters 

from 0 nm to 20 nm from haulouts and 

rookeries, except in the specified open 

area near the Rat Islands. East of 178° 

W longitude, this final rule prohibits 

directed fishing for pollock in waters 

from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and 

from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries, 

except at Kanaga Island/Ship Rock 

where directed fishing for pollock is 

prohibited in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm 

from haulouts and rookeries in a portion 

of Kanaga Sound east of 178° W 

longitude. In Area 541, this final rule 

prohibits directed fishing for pollock in 

critical habitat from 0 nm to 3 nm from 

haulouts and 0 nm to 10 nm from 

rookeries. 

Harvest Limits and Seasons 

This final rule, in conjunction with 

existing regulations, establishes harvest 

limits by sector, area, and season for the 

Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries in the Aleutian Islands. This 

subsection summarizes the harvest 

limits and seasons established under 

this final rule. The preamble to the 

proposed rule describes the harvest 

limits and seasons in greater detail (79 

FR 37486, July 1, 2014). 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide the 2015 

estimates of biomass, the overfishing 

levels (OFLs), the acceptable biological 

catches (ABCs) from the 2015 harvest 

specifications (79 FR 12108, March 4, 

2014), and the harvest limit amounts for 

Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries established under this final 

rule. Tables 1, 2, and 3 also describe the 

allocations that are made to the Western 

Alaska Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) Program as CDQ reserves, as well 

as allocations made to accommodate 

incidental catch amounts (ICAs), and 

allocations to other non-CDQ 

participants as applicable for the 

specific fishery from the 2015 harvest 

specifications. The 2015 biomasses, 

OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and harvest limit 

amounts are subject to change pending 

the completion of the final 2014 Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) Report and the Council’s 

recommendations for final 2015 and 

2016 harvest specifications during its 

December 2014 meeting. NMFS will 

publish the final harvest limits in the 

final 2015 and 2016 harvest 

specifications. 

Table 1 provides the Atka mackerel 

harvest limits for 2015, based on the 

2015 ABC (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014). 

In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C) 

sets two Atka mackerel harvest 

limitations for Areas 542 and 543. First, 

in Area 543, the annual TAC is limited 

to an amount no greater than 65 percent 

of the ABC apportioned for Area 543. 

The second limit would allow no more 

than 60 percent of the annual TAC, 

evenly apportioned between the A and 

B seasons, to be harvested in critical 

habitat west of 178° W longitude. This 

area includes all of Area 543 and the 

western portion of Area 542. Section 

679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) evenly divides the 

harvest of TAC between the A and B 

seasons and applies the seasonal 

apportionment of Atka mackerel 

harvests in Area 543, Area 542, and the 

combined Area 541/Bering Sea. Section 

679.23(e)(3)(ii) maintains the directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl 

gear A season dates from January 20 

through June 10, and extends the B 

season from June 10 through December 

31. Prior to this final rule, the Atka 

mackerel B season occurred from June 

10 through November 1. This additional 

season length provides greater 

opportunity for trawl gear harvesters to 

distribute catch throughout the year. 

Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) prohibits any 

unharvested Atka mackerel A season 

allowance that is added to the B season 

from being harvested within waters 0 

nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites 

located in Areas 543, 542, and 541. This 

provision ensures that harvest is not 

concentrated within critical habitat 

during the B season. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—2015 BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS ATKA MACKEREL BIOMASS, OFL, ABC, AND TAC; SECTOR, 

SEASON, AND AREA ALLOCATIONS; AND CRITICAL HABITAT LIMITS UNDER THIS FINAL RULE

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

2015 Atka Mackerel Biomass, OFL, ABC, and TAC 

Biomass ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 387,308 

OFL ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74,898 

ABC ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64,477 

TAC ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56,769 

Sector 1 Season Area 541/ 

Bering Sea Area 542 Area 543 

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

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

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

CDQ reserve ................................................... Total ............................................................... 2,329 2,213 1,532 

A season ........................................................ 1,165 1,107 766 

Critical habitat limit ......................................... n/a 664 460 

B season ........................................................ 1,165 1,107 766 

Critical habitat limit 3 ....................................... n/a 664 460 

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

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

BSAI trawl limited access ............................... Total ............................................................... 1,835 1,840 0 

A season ........................................................ 917 920 0 

Critical habitat limit ......................................... n/a 552 0 

B season ........................................................ 917 920 0 

Critical habitat limit 3 ....................................... n/a 552 0 

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

Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 2015 ....... Total ............................................................... 8,958 9,938 7,854 

A season ........................................................ 4,479 4,969 3,927 

Critical habitat limit ......................................... n/a 2,981 2,356 

B season ........................................................ 4,479 4,969 3,927 

Critical habitat limit 3 ....................................... n/a 2,981 2,356 

Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 2015 ............ Total ............................................................... 7,555 6,619 4,889 

A season ........................................................ 3,778 3,310 2,445 

Critical habitat limit ......................................... n/a 1,986 1,467 

B season ........................................................ 3,778 3,309 2,444 

Critical habitat limit 3 ....................................... n/a 1,985 1,466 

1Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii) allocates the Atka mackerel TACs, after subtracting the Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserves, jig gear allocation, and incidental catch allowances (ICAs) to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The allocation of the TAC for Atka 

mackerel to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is established in Table 33 to part 679 and § 679.91. The CDQ reserve is 

10.7 percent of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). 2Section 679.20(a)(8)(i) requires that up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea TAC be allocated to jig gear 

after subtracting the CDQ reserve and ICA. Under the final 2015 harvest specifications, this allocation is 0.5 percent. The jig gear allocation is 

not apportioned by season. 3Any unharvested Atka mackerel A season allowance that is added to the B season is prohibited from being harvested within waters 0 nm to 

20 nm of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 6 to this part and located in Areas 541, 542, and 543. 

Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. 

In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) 

sets a Pacific cod harvest limit based on 

abundance in Area 543 as determined 

by the annual stock assessment process. 

NMFS will first subtract the State 

Pacific cod Guideline Harvest Level 

(GHL) amount from the Aleutian Islands 

Pacific cod ABC, then NMFS will 

determine the harvest limit in Area 543 

by multiplying the percentage of Pacific 

cod estimated in Area 543 by the 

remaining ABC for Aleutian Islands 

Pacific cod. The State sets the Pacific 

cod GHL at 3 percent of the sum of the 

Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea 

Pacific cod ABCs. Table 2 provides the 

proposed 2015 Aleutian Islands Pacific 

cod biomass, OFL, ABC, TAC, GHL, the 

sector allocations under the 2015 

harvest specifications, and the Area 543 

harvest limit under this final rule. The 

Area 543 harvest limit is based on an 

estimate of Pacific cod abundance for 

Area 543 from the 2013 stock 

assessment for Aleutian Islands Pacific 

cod. 

In this final rule, 

§ 679.23(e)(5)(ii)(C)(2) extends the 

Pacific cod trawl gear C season from 

November 1 to December 31 for 

Amendment 80 and Community 

Development Quota CDQ trawl vessels. 

Prior to this final rule, the Pacific cod 

trawl gear C season occurred from June 

10 through November 1. This additional 

season length provides greater 

opportunity for trawl gear harvesters to 

distribute catch throughout the year. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70291 

TABLE 2—2015 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

PACIFIC COD BIOMASS, OFL, ABC, 

TAC, GHL, SECTOR ALLOCATIONS, 

AND THE AREA 543 HARVEST LIMIT

UNDER THIS FINAL RULE

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

2015 Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Biomass, 

OFL, ABC, TAC, and GHL 

Biomass ........................................ 58,911 

OFL ............................................... 20,100 

ABC .............................................. 15,100 

TAC ............................................... 6,487 

GHL .............................................. 8,613 

Sector Harvest 

limit 

2015 Sector and Area Allocations 

CDQ portion of the TAC ............... 694 

Sector Harvest 

limit 

Non-CDQ allocations .................... 5,793 

Area 543 harvest limit .................. 1,609 

In this final rule, 

§ 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6) sets harvest 

limits for pollock in the A season 

(January 20 to June 10) and the B season 

(June 10 to November 1) in Areas 543, 

542, and 541. In Area 543, the A season 

pollock harvest limit is no more than 5 

percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock 

ABC. In Area 542, the A season pollock 

harvest limit is no more than 15 percent 

of the Aleutian Islands ABC. In Area 

541, the A season pollock harvest limit 

is no more than 30 percent of the 

Aleutian Islands ABC. These limits 

apply to all harvests; this includes 

harvests by the Aleut Corporation, CDQ 

groups, and the incidental catch of 

pollock in all other groundfish fisheries. 

These harvest limits would ensure the 

harvest of pollock is constrained in the 

winter when pollock harvests are most 

likely to occur and when pollock 

appears to be an important part of the 

Steller sea lion diet (Section 5.3.3 in 

2014 BiOp). 

Table 3 provides estimates of the 2015 

Aleutian Islands pollock biomass, OFL, 

ABC, TAC under the 2015 harvest 

specifications, and area specific harvest 

limits under this final rule. NMFS notes 

that the maximum TAC in the Aleutian 

Islands pollock fishery is constrained by 

statutory and regulatory provisions that 

limit the maximum Aleutian Islands 

pollock TAC to 19,000 metric tons (see 

regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)). 

TABLE 3—2015 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS POLLOCK BIOMASS, OFL, ABC, AND TAC; SECTOR AND SEASON ALLOCATIONS; AND

THE A SEASON HARVEST LIMITS, BY AREA, UNDER THIS FINAL RULE

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

2015 Aleutian Islands Biomass, OFL, ABC, and TAC 

Biomass ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 289,307 

OFL ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47,713 

ABC ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39,412 

TAC ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 19,000 

2015 Aleutian Islands Sector, Season, and Area Allocations 

Sector 2 Seasons 4 Area 541 Area 542 Area 543 

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

CDQ Directed Fishing Allowance ..... Total ................................................. 1,900 

A season .......................................... 760 n/a 

B season .......................................... 1,140 

ICA .................................................... Total ................................................. 2,000 

A season .......................................... 1,000 n/a 

B season .......................................... 1,000 

Aleut Corporation .............................. Total ................................................. 15,100 

A season .......................................... 14,005 n/a 

B season .......................................... 1,095 

1Statutory and regulatory provisions limit the maximum Aleutian Islands pollock TAC to 19,000 mt (see regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)). 2Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) and (ii), the annual Aleutian Islands pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second the ICA (2,000 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a directed pollock fishery. 3 Note that although the area specific harvest limits total to more than 19,000 mt, the TAC constrains total harvests in the Aleutian Islands. 

NMFS will prohibit fishing if the TAC is reached in the Aleutian Islands even if some amount is unharvested within an area specific harvest limit. 4Section 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(3)(i) limits the harvest of Aleutian Islands pollock in the A season to no more than 40 percent of the ABC. This 

harvest includes the directed pollock fishery, CDQ directed fishing allowance, and the ICA. To establish the A season directed pollock fishery allocation within the seasonal limit, NMFS determines the amount of ICA that will be necessary to support other groundfish fisheries during the A 

season. 

Summary of Regulation Changes 

NMFS made three changes to the final 

rule. One change is in response to 

public comment, and one change is a 

technical correction. The third change 

revises 15 CFR 902.1(b) to reflect 

revisions to recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

First, NMFS added the term ‘‘C 

season’’ to § 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) to correct 

an inadvertent omission. This regulatory 

correction has no impact on the Steller 

sea lion protection measures but 

provides an accurate description of 

existing Pacific cod seasons. Additional 

discussion of this change is in Comment 

7 included under Response to Public 

Comments, below. 

Second, NMFS revised 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(vii) to more accurately 

describe the process for setting the 

Pacific cod harvest limit for Area 543. 

The proposed rule at § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) 

said that NMFS would adjust the ABC 

by deducting the State guideline harvest 

level (GHL). This is not the case, as 

NMFS does not adjust the ABC. NMFS 

modified this paragraph to explain that 

NMFS will first subtract the State GHL 

Pacific cod amount from the Aleutian 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Islands Pacific cod ABC. Then NMFS 

will determine the harvest limit in Area 

543 by multiplying the percentage of 

Pacific cod estimated in Area 543 by the 

remaining ABC for Aleutian Islands 

Pacific cod. This correction clarifies a 

procedure but does not change the 

intended process for setting the Pacific 

cod harvest limitation and has no 

impact on the Steller sea lion protection 

measures. 

Third, this final rule revises and adds 

data elements within a collection-ofinformation for recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements; therefore 15 

CFR 902.1(b) is revised to correctly 

reference the sections resulting from 

this final rule. 15 CFR 902.1(b) 

identifies the location of NOAA 

regulations for which Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval numbers have been issued. 

Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act requires that agencies 

inventory and display a current control 

number assigned by the Director of the 

OMB for each agency information 

collection. 

Response to Public Comments 

The comment period on the proposed 

rule ended on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 

37486). NMFS received 17 letters during 

the proposed rule comment period. 

NMFS released the final EIS on May 23, 

2014 (79 FR 29759). NMFS received two 

letters of public comment on the final 

EIS. The 19 letters received contained 

59 unique comments. All of the 

comment letters received are posted on 

http://www.regulations.gov, search term 

NOAA–NMFS–2012–0013. 

Although NMFS is not required to 

respond to comments received as a 

result of issuance of the final EIS, NMFS 

decided to provide responses as part of 

the decision-making process. Due to the 

overlap of issues, NMFS summarizes 

and responds to the comments received 

on the final EIS and the comments on 

the proposed rule in this final rule 

preamble. 

In many of the letters, members of the 

public also made comments on the 2014 

BiOp. NMFS responds to comments on 

the 2014 BiOp that are related to the 

proposed rule and EIS. However, 

comments on the 2014 BiOp that are not 

related to the proposed rule or EIS are 

not addressed further in this preamble. 

NMFS notes that this final rule does not 

implement the 2014 BiOp, and the 2014 

BiOp is not subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking requiring a 

response in this final rule. All letters 

were provided to NMFS PRD for their 

review. NMFS PRD and NMFS SFD did 

not identify any new information 

provided in public comments that 

would require NMFS SFD to reinitiate 

ESA section 7 consultation. The triggers 

for reinitiating consultation are 

provided at 50 CFR 402.16. 

Comments on Fishery Management 

Measures 

Comment 1: The proposed rule 

continues to reduce the Atka mackerel 

TAC, restrict catch in Steller sea lion 

critical habitat, and spread the catch out 

temporally and spatially. Further, the 

majority of Steller sea lion critical 

habitat remains closed for Atka 

mackerel in the Aleutian Islands: 76 

percent of critical habitat in Area 543; 

93 percent in Area 542; and almost all 

of Area 541 except a small area 

southeast of Seguam Pass. These 

measures will reduce the operational 

efficiency of harvesters fishing under 

the provisions of the Amendment 80 

Program. This is particularly true given 

current low permissible harvest levels, 

even if allowed catches are managed 

cooperatively among participants in the 

Amendment 80 Program. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. Amendment 80 to the FMP 

identified participants using trawl 

catcher/processors in the BSAI active in 

groundfish fisheries other than Bering 

Sea pollock (i.e., the head-and-gut fleet 

or Amendment 80 vessels) and 

established a framework, known as the 

Amendment 80 Program, to regulate 

fishing by this fleet (72 FR 52668, 

September 14, 2007). The Amendment 

80 Program created Amendment 80 

quota share based on the historic catch 

of quota share species by Amendment 

80 vessels, facilitated the development 

of cooperative arrangements 

(Amendment 80 cooperatives) among 

quota shareholders, and assigned an 

exclusive harvest privilege for a portion 

of the TAC of quota share species for 

participants in Amendment 80 

cooperatives. Chapter 8 of the EIS 

describes the factors affecting the 

operational efficiency of vessels in the 

Amendment 80 Program under this 

action. 

Comment 2: The development of the 

Atka mackerel management measures by 

the Council’s Steller Sea Lion Mitigation 

Committee was guided in large measure 

by the results of NMFS Fishery 

Interaction Team studies. The Atka 

mackerel management measures 

implemented by this action are intended 

to meet the goal of reducing the 

possibility of competition. These Atka 

mackerel management measures are 

responsive to the best available 

information and to the performance 

standards of the 2010 FMP BiOp (see 

ADDRESSES). The 2014 BiOp provides a 

relevant context for evaluating the 

exposure of Steller sea lions to potential 

constraining competition between the 

fishery and Steller sea lions. Roughly 90 

percent of the time during a year there 

will be only 1 or 2 vessels fishing Atka 

mackerel within a given management 

area (e.g., Area 542). With the removal 

of the ‘‘platoon system’’ under this 

action, the Atka mackerel fishery will be 

highly dispersed in time and space. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. Chapter 8 of the EIS describes 

the operations of vessels fishing for Atka 

mackerel under this action. Note that 

the ‘‘platoon system’’ is also called the 

Atka Mackerel Harvest Limit Area 

(HLA) fishery. The 2010 Interim Final 

Rule removed the HLA fishery and this 

final rule maintains that removal. See 

the proposed rule preamble for a more 

detailed discussion of the HLA fishery 

and the reason for its removal (79 FR 

37499). 

Comment 3: Strike the term ‘‘Area 

541’’ from the proposed rule at 

§ 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) where it reads, 

‘‘Any unharvested Atka mackerel A 

season allowance that is added to the B 

season is prohibited from being 

harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm 

of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 

6 to this part and located in Areas 541, 

542, and 543.’’ Any unused A season 

Atka mackerel should roll to B season 

and be available throughout the area 

open to fishing within Area 541. This 

will allow the fleet to disperse effort as 

was envisioned under this action. This 

change in regulation is also supported 

by NMFS research that showed little 

exchange of Atka mackerel inside and 

outside of areas 12 nm from shore 

within Area 541. 

Response: The regulations at 

§ 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) are correct and 

NMFS made no changes to regulations 

in response to this comment. NMFS 

intended to prohibit the harvest of Atka 

mackerel TAC rolled over from the A 

season inside critical habitat in the B 

season in Areas 541, 542, and 543. This 

prohibition preserves the intent of the 

existing seasonal apportionment of Atka 

mackerel TAC, which is to temporally 

disperse harvest. Currently, in each 

management area, 50 percent of the TAC 

is assigned to the A season and 50 

percent to the B season, see 

§ 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). Also, the 

ability to roll over unused TAC from the 

A season to the B season is limited 

under § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D). As explained 

in the preamble to the proposed rule, 

the purpose of this provision is to limit 

the amount of harvest that could occur 

in critical habitat to further protect Atka 

mackerel prey resources for Steller sea 

lions inside critical habitat (79 FR 

37500). Unharvested Atka mackerel 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70293 

TAC from the A season can be harvested 

in the B season outside of critical 

habitat. This provision also provides for 

greater spatial dispersion of harvest 

away from Steller sea lion critical 

habitat. 

Comment 4: The proposed rule would 

restore some productive fishing grounds 

in the Aleutian Islands and remove the 

no-retention regulations for the Pacific 

cod fishery in Area 543. These measures 

provide some reduction in the impacts 

of Steller sea lion protection measures 

to the Pacific cod fishery relative to the 

2010 Interim Final Rule. However, the 

amount of TAC available to the Pacific 

cod fishery in the Aleutian Islands will 

be only a small fraction of what was 

available and what was harvested prior 

to 2011 because of the decision to 

separate BSAI Pacific cod into separate 

stocks with separate OFLs, ABCs, and 

TACs. With the adoption of separate 

Pacific cod TACs for the Aleutian 

Islands and Bering Sea, the new 

measures provide much better 

protection of the Pacific cod resource at 

the global scale than did the 2010 FMP 

BiOp RPA implemented in the 2010 

Interim Final Rule. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. Chapter 8 of the EIS describes 

the management of the Pacific cod 

fishery under this action. 

Comment 5: NMFS could alleviate the 

concern over the concentration of 

Pacific cod harvest in Area 543 and 542 

by including re-consultation triggers in 

the final rule similar to the reconsultation triggers NMFS included in 

the 2010 Interim Final Rule that 

established non-trawl and trawl sector 

guideline harvest limits for Pacific cod 

by area. NMFS should consider reconsultation triggers as non-regulatory 

guideline harvest levels distinct for 

trawl and non-trawl sectors Pacific cod 

harvest in Areas 543 and 542 (and 

possibly 541). These re-consultation 

triggers could serve as an interim 

measure to address immediate concerns 

until superseded by Council action. Reconsultation triggers would ensure less 

concentration of harvest in these areas 

due to greater temporal dispersion of 

harvest by vessels using fixed gear, 

which is more temporally dispersed 

than harvest by vessels using trawl gear. 

Re-consultation triggers would also 

ensure harvest by non-trawl gear, which 

fishes at a slower rate than trawl gear 

and is less likely to contribute to 

localized depletion. 

Response: NMFS included triggers for 

reinitiation of the section 7 consultation 

for Pacific cod harvest in Areas 541 and 

542 as part of the RPA in the 2010 FMP 

BiOp. The Pacific cod ABC and TAC 

were specified as a combined BSAI ABC 

and TAC under the proposed action 

analyzed in the 2010 FMP BiOp. 

Because there were no limits on the 

amount of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC 

that could be caught in Areas 541 and 

542, the RPA contained triggers to cue 

NMFS and the public that reinitiation of 

section 7 consultation should occur if 

fishing exceeded historical catch 

amounts in these management areas. 

NMFS considered these triggers 

important because the RPA and its 

implementing 2010 Interim Final Rule 

also closed Area 543 to directed fishing 

and prohibited retention of Pacific cod. 

With the closure of Area 543 to directed 

fishing and retention of Pacific cod 

prohibited under the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule, NMFS was concerned that harvest 

displaced from Area 543 would cause 

an increase in harvest in Areas 542 and 

541. NMFS included a discussion of 

these triggers from the 2010 FMP BiOp 

in the preamble to the 2010 Interim 

Final Rule; however, as explained in 

that preamble, NMFS did not include 

these triggers in the implementing 

regulations (75 FR 77541). 

The 2014 BiOp did not recommend 

reinitiation triggers for the Pacific cod 

fishery because the nature of the Pacific 

cod fishery and harvest limits have 

changed since the 2010 FMP BiOp. As 

of 2014, Pacific cod OFLs, ABCs, and 

TACs are specified separately for the 

eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. 

The amount of Pacific cod catch in the 

Aleutian Islands is expected to be 

substantially reduced relative to prior 

years when the OFL, ABC, and TAC 

were combined for the BSAI. Therefore, 

the potential for a shift of a substantial 

amount of fishing effort from one area 

of the Aleutian Islands to another does 

not exist under this action. 

The reinitiation notice in Section 10.0 

of the 2014 BiOp stated that formal 

consultation may be required if the 

Aleutian Islands Pacific cod harvest is 

concentrated in Areas 542 or 543, as this 

would reflect a pattern not seen in the 

historical fishery data. The EIS and the 

2014 BiOp anticipated that a larger 

proportion of the Aleutian Islands 

Pacific cod TAC is likely to be harvested 

by trawl gear rather than by non-trawl 

gear and the Council did not 

recommend harvest limits. 

Comment 6: Make two changes to the 

regulations: (1) Apportion the Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod TAC between fixed 

gear and trawl gear for Areas 543, 542, 

and 541; and (2) apportion the Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod TAC between the A 

and B seasons for Areas 543, 542, and 

541. Without these changes, the 

proposed rule, in conjunction with 

separate management of Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod and increasing State 

of Alaska GHL Pacific cod fishery, could 

reduce fixed gear harvest opportunity in 

the Aleutian Islands and increase the 

proportion of trawl harvest of Pacific 

cod. The lack of an Aleutian Islands 

Pacific cod TAC apportionment between 

fixed gear and trawl gear for Areas 543, 

542, and 541 will result in a decreased 

proportion of fixed-gear Pacific cod 

harvest in the Aleutian Islands and an 

increased proportion of trawl Pacific 

cod harvest in the Aleutian Islands. This 

means more Pacific cod harvest in the 

Aleutian Islands will be harvested by 

trawl gear that is more temporally 

compressed (February and March), 

fishes at a higher rate (than fixed gear), 

and is more likely to cause localized 

depletion. This is inconsistent with the 

stated intent of the proposed rule. 

Response: This final rule implements 

measures necessary to protect Steller sea 

lion prey. The changes proposed by the 

commenter to apportion the Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod TAC between fixed 

gear and trawl gear and between the A 

and B seasons are not Steller sea lion 

protection measures. Apportioning the 

Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC 

between fixed gear and trawl gear and 

between the A and B season would 

require a separate regulatory 

amendment. NMFS cannot add this 

provision or an interim measure to the 

final rule because it not been 

considered, analyzed, or made available 

for public comment. The Council could 

consider and analyze this proposal and 

make a recommendation to NMFS for a 

future regulatory amendment. 

A separate Aleutian Islands Pacific 

cod TAC was established starting in 

2014 that resulted in a substantial 

reduction in the Pacific cod available for 

harvest in the Aleutian Islands. The 

Council and NMFS were aware of the 

impact of the Aleutian Islands Pacific 

cod TAC on the fixed gear fleet’s harvest 

opportunities when the Council took 

action to split the Pacific cod TAC. With 

the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC, it 

is likely that trawl vessels will be able 

to fully harvest this limited TAC before 

the Pacific cod are available for harvest 

by fixed gear vessels. 

The EIS analyzed the impacts of the 

proposed action and its alternatives 

with the understanding that a separate 

Pacific cod TAC would be implemented 

in 2014 (see Chapter 5 of the EIS). The 

2014 BiOp acknowledged the impacts of 

the Pacific cod TAC split, including the 

fact that the trawl fishery would harvest 

the TAC, when it analyzed the proposed 

suite of Steller sea lion protection 

measures and found that the 

implementation of this final rule was 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Steller sea lions and was 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

not likely to destroy or adversely modify 

designated Steller sea lion critical 

habitat. Therefore, the final rule is 

consistent with the stated intent for this 

action. 

Comment 7: The proposed regulatory 

text at § 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) states, 

‘‘Harvest of seasonal apportionments in 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. (1) Pacific cod ITAC assigned 

for harvest by the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery in the A season 

may be harvested in the B seasons.’’ 

This mistakenly omits a reference to the 

C season contained in paragraph 

(a)(7)(v)(A) that states, ‘‘Use of seasonal 

apportionments by Amendment 80 

cooperatives. (1) The amount of Pacific 

cod listed on a CQ permit that is 

assigned for use in the A season may be 

used in the B or C season.’’ We believe 

this was an inadvertent omission and 

the words ‘‘or C’’ belong in paragraph 

(a)(7)(v)(B)(1) so that it would read: 

‘‘Pacific cod ITAC assigned for the 

harvest by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the A season may be 

harvested in the B or C seasons.’’ 

Response: NMFS agrees that this was 

a typographical error and has made the 

change to the final rule 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) to correct this 

inadvertent omission. Section 

679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) now reads, ‘‘Harvest 

of seasonal apportionments in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

(1) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest 

by the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery in the A season may be 

harvested in the B or C seasons.’’ The 

changes NMFS made to § 679.20(a)(7)(v) 

are discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (79 FR 37502). This 

regulatory correction has no impact on 

the Steller sea lion protection measures. 

Comment 8: The management 

measures put forward in the proposed 

rule are, on the whole, a significant 

improvement over the measures that are 

currently in place from the 2010 Interim 

Final Rule, particularly in regards to the 

re-opening of Area 543 to Pacific cod 

fishing. The new measures are more 

consistent with the best available 

science on the impacts of groundfish 

fisheries on the Steller sea lions and 

reflect management measures developed 

and supported by the Council and its 

Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 9: The Pacific cod fishery 

has been the primary basis of seafood 

processing in Adak and a mainstay of 

the local economy. Re-opening portions 

of critical habitat to fishing will provide 

more spatial dispersion of the fishery. 

Setting a separate TAC for Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod is a precautionary 

measure that will protect the long term 

productivity of the Pacific cod stock. 

While these measures will result in less 

Pacific cod being available in the 

Aleutian Islands in the short run, the 

more conservative management of 

Aleutian Islands Pacific cod could 

provide the community of Adak with a 

more stable resource base in the long 

run. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment and notes that this final rule 

is intended to spatially disperse the 

Pacific cod fishery. 

Comment 10: Prior to the 2014 BiOp, 

no analysis of a commercial pollock 

fishery in the Aleutian Islands had been 

undertaken since Congress allocated 

pollock to the Aleut Corporation in 

2004. The 2014 BiOp takes the first hard 

look at the spatial distribution of the 

historic Aleutian Island pollock fishery 

in comparison to the telemetry data on 

Steller sea lion foraging locations. It also 

compares Steller sea lion dive profiles 

with pollock fishing depths. In both 

cases the 2014 BiOp finds the least 

overlap of any of the three prey species. 

Additionally, scat data presented in the 

2010 FMP BiOp showed Aleutian 

Islands pollock had the lowest 

frequency of occurrence in Steller sea 

lion scat of the three prey species of 

concern. 

The statutory and regulatory 

provisions that limit the maximum 

amount of pollock TAC that may be 

harvested in the Aleutian Islands means 

that the pollock TAC in 2015 would be 

less than 50 percent of the Aleutian 

Islands pollock ABC. The commenter 

notes that Aleutian Islands pollock 

harvest is likely to be significantly less 

than the TAC because allocations 

provided to CDQ groups (i.e., 10 percent 

of the Aleutian Islands TAC) may be 

harvested in the Bering Sea, and 

regulations allocate 50 percent of the 

TAC remaining after allocation to CDQ 

groups to vessels less than 60 feet in 

length overall. These smaller vessels 

will have difficulty harvesting their 

pollock allocations due to the greater 

depths at which pollock is found in the 

Aleutian Islands and the more limited 

fishing capabilities of smaller vessels to 

harvest pollock at depth given the 

necessary horsepower and gear 

requirements. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

Aleutian Islands pollock TAC is likely 

to be substantially below the Aleutian 

Islands pollock ABC in the foreseeable 

future because existing statutory and 

regulatory provisions limit the 

maximum Aleutian Islands pollock TAC 

to 19,000 mt (see regulations at 

§ 679.20(a)(5)(iii) and Table 3 in this 

preamble). NMFS notes that although 

catch of Aleutian Islands pollock may 

be less than the TAC for the reasons 

stated by the commenter, NMFS does 

not have specific information indicating 

that catch will be consistently below the 

Aleutian Islands TAC in future years. 

The EIS and the 2014 BiOp assumed 

that pollock catch in the Aleutian 

Islands would equal the TAC for 

purposes of analyzing the effects of this 

action. 

Comment 11: The proposed rule to 

allow pollock fishing in some portions 

of critical habitat will finally realize 

Congress’ intent of providing for 

economic development for Adak in the 

2004 legislation allocating Aleutian 

Islands pollock to the Aleut 

Corporation. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 12: Reduce the TAC for the 

Bering Sea Aleutian Islands pollock 

fishery by 50 percent because it may be 

a cause in the Steller sea lion 

population decline. One of the Steller 

sea lion’s primary food sources is 

pollock. Not having a stable food supply 

forces the Steller sea lions to travel 

farther and compete with other marine 

animals for different food resources. 

Local residents are wondering why 

there are more frequent Steller sea lion 

sightings in areas of the Bering Sea that 

were previously uninhabited by sea 

lions. 

Response: NMFS manages pollock in 

the Aleutian Islands separately from the 

Bering Sea. This action changes 

management of the Aleutian Islands 

pollock fishery, as detailed in this 

preamble. The Aleutian Islands pollock 

TAC is greatly reduced from the ABC 

due to a number of factors described in 

Comment 10 and shown in Table 3 in 

this preamble. The Bering Sea pollock 

fishery is outside the scope of this 

action. 

The 2010 FMP BiOp analyzed the 

impacts of the Bering Sea pollock 

fishery on Steller sea lions and 

concluded that the management 

measures currently in place, including 

the management measures for the Bering 

Sea pollock fishery, are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat. 

The 2014 BiOp concluded management 

measures in this action for the Aleutian 

Islands pollock fishery are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat. 

A wide range of factors can affect the 

distribution of Steller sea lions (see 

Chapter 5 of the EIS for additional 

details on Steller sea lion distribution). 

The occurrence of Steller sea lions at a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70295 

location not previously observed may be 

due to reasons other than the lack of 

adequate prey resources in other 

locations. 

Comments on Steller Sea Lion Issues 

Comment 13: The proposed rule 

preamble fails to include any 

information regarding the current total 

population status of Steller sea lions. 

The status of the Steller sea lion 

population should be included in the 

preamble to the rule to give context to 

the proposed management measures. 

The proposed rule is for management 

measures to protect Steller sea lions, but 

the rule provides no information on the 

total population status. 

Response: A complete description of 

the status of the Steller sea lion 

population is provided in Section 5.1.1 

of the EIS and Section 3.3 of the 2014 

BiOp. The WDPS of Steller sea lions is 

distributed from Prince William Sound 

through the Aleutian Islands in Alaska 

and in Russia on the Kamchatka 

peninsula, Kuril Islands, and the Sea of 

Okhotsk. The 2008 Recovery Plan (see 

ADDRESSES) uses the population trend in 

non-pups to gauge the species’ status. 

In 2012, the estimated abundance of 

the entire WDPS of Steller sea lions 

(pups and non-pups, United States and 

Russia/Asia) was 79,300 sea lions (see 

Section 3.3.1 of the 2014 BiOp). 

Abundance of the United States portion 

of the population is estimated at 52,200 

animals based on data from 2012. Steller 

sea lion abundance in the Russian 

portion of the population is estimated at 

27,100 animals based on data collected 

through 2012. 

There is evidence that Steller sea lion 

non-pup counts in Alaska increased at 

an average rate of 1.67 percent per year 

between 2000 and 2012. Because the 

United States portion of the range 

occurs exclusively within Alaska, 

reference to the United States portion of 

the Steller sea lion population is 

synonymous with the Alaska portion of 

the Steller sea lion population. 

However, there are strong differences in 

trends across the range of Steller sea 

lions in Alaska. There is strong evidence 

of a positive trend (2.89 percent per 

year) east of Samalga Pass and strong 

evidence of a continued decline (¥1.53 

percent per year) west of Samalga Pass. 

NMFS uses six sub-regions within 

Alaska for trend and status monitoring 

of Steller sea lions. These sub-regions 

include the eastern GOA, central GOA, 

and western GOA, the eastern Aleutian 

Islands/Bering Sea, central Aleutian 

Islands, and the western Aleutian 

Islands. A seventh sub-region (i.e., 

Russia/Asia) is located outside the 

United States and is commonly referred 

to as the Russian sub-region because 

most of the Steller sea lion population 

in that sub-region is concentrated in 

Russia. NMFS receives information on 

the trend and status of Steller sea lions 

in this sub-region from its counterparts 

in Russia and Japan. 

Non-pup counts increased at a 

significant rate from 2000 through 2012 

in the eastern GOA, the western GOA, 

and the eastern Aleutian Islands. Nonpup counts increased at a nonsignificant rate from 2000 through 2012 

in the central GOA. Counts of non-pups 

decreased at a significant rate in the 

western Aleutian Islands and at a nonsignificant rate in the central Aleutian 

Islands from 2000 through 2012. 

The Russian sub-region of Steller sea 

lions is estimated to have increased 

from 13,000 sea lions in the 1990s to 

16,000 by 2005. Data collected through 

2012 indicate that overall Steller sea 

lion abundance in the Russian subregion continues to increase and is now 

similar to the 1960s (27,100). Between 

1995 and 2012, pup production 

increased overall in the Russian subregion by 3.1 percent per year. However, 

just as in the United States portion of 

the range, there are significant regional 

differences in Steller sea lion 

population trends in the Russian subregion (see the EIS Chapter 5 and 2014 

BiOp for full details). 

Comment 14: Given the robust 

increase in the total United States 

population of Steller sea lions, the 

removal of some of the Steller sea lions 

protection measures in the 2010 Interim 

Final Rule is warranted. Additionally, 

this population increase, combined with 

the fact there is no evidence supporting 

the nutritional stress hypothesis (i.e., 

that fisheries are removing key Steller 

sea lion prey species in a way that 

diminishes resources for Steller sea 

lions), is grounds for the removal of 

additional undue restrictions on the 

BSAI groundfish fisheries. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment; however, the changes made to 

Steller sea lion protection measures are 

based on the best available scientific 

information and not those stated in the 

comment. 

Comment 15: The 2014 BiOp fails to 

provide a sound, scientific basis for 

concluding no jeopardy or adverse 

modification and, therefore, it does not 

provide an objective foundation for the 

proposed rule. The 2014 BiOp analysis 

on which the proposed rule is based is 

flawed to such an extent that it should 

be set aside, the proposed rule 

withdrawn, and the consultation reinitiated. 

Response: NMFS based this rule on 

the preferred alternative recommended 

by the Council. See response to 

Comment 16. 

The 2014 BiOp considered the effects 

of two proposed actions: The modified 

Steller sea lion protection measures in 

the Aleutian Islands Federal groundfish 

fisheries and State of Alaska parallel 

groundfish fisheries for Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, and pollock (the action 

implemented through this final rule); 

and research to better understand the 

potential effects of these fisheries on 

Steller sea lions. As required by the 

regulations codified at 50 CFR 402.14, 

the 2014 BiOp includes a summary of 

the information on which the opinion is 

based, a detailed discussion of the 

effects of the action on the listed Steller 

sea lions and designated critical habitat, 

and NMFS’ opinion that the action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the WDPS of Steller sea 

lions or destroy or adversely modify 

their designated critical habitat. NMFS 

based its opinion in the 2014 BiOp on 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available as required by 50 CFR 402.14. 

Please see the 2014 BiOp for additional 

detail (see ADDRESSES). 

Comment 16: The proposed rule is 

premised on the unprecedented finding 

from the 2014 BiOp that the 

preponderance of available data does 

not support a conclusion that the 

groundfish fisheries and groundfish 

abundance are limiting Steller sea lion 

population growth rates. 

Response: These implementing 

regulations are premised on the 

information available to the Council, its 

Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, 

and NMFS throughout the development 

of this action. When it recommended 

the suite of Steller sea lion protection 

measures implemented in this final rule, 

the Council reviewed all of the 

information available, including the 

2010 FMP BiOp, the Center for 

Independent Experts’ review of the 2010 

BiOp, as well as the external review 

commissioned by the States of Alaska 

and Washington, the EIS analysis, and 

public comments. 

NMFS then conducted an ESA section 

7 consultation on the Council’s 

recommended proposed action and 

issued the 2014 BiOp. The 2014 BiOp 

concluded that the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the WDPS of Steller sea 

lions or destroy or adversely modify 

their critical habitat. The 2014 BiOp 

also explains that NMFS maintains that 

a cautionary approach to fishing for 

prey species in Steller sea lion critical 

habitat is warranted, especially in 

winter when NMFS has the least 

information about prey biomass, and 

that catch should be dispersed in time 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and space to prevent localized 

depletion—at least until such time as 

NMFS has better local biomass and 

exploitation rate estimates (see the 2014 

BiOp, page 227). Consistent with that 

recommendation, the Steller sea lion 

protection measures implemented in 

this final rule dispersed fishing in time 

and space to prevent localized depletion 

of prey species. 

Comment 17: While measures other 

than those currently in place 

conceivably might satisfy NMFS’ 

obligations under the ESA, the available 

scientific information about the fisheries 

and Steller sea lions does not justify 

new measures that simply allow more 

fishing without a coincident increase in 

other protections. Alternative 5 is 

arbitrary because it is based on the 2014 

BiOp. 

Response: Alternative 5 (the preferred 

alternative implemented in the final 

rule) was not based on the 2014 BiOp. 

NMFS worked with the Council and its 

Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee 

to identify the reasonable range of 

alternatives for analysis in the EIS. In 

developing the alternatives, the Steller 

Sea Lion Mitigation Committee and 

Council considered the 2010 FMP BiOp, 

external reviews of 2010 FMP BiOp, the 

draft EIS, public comments, and NMFS’ 

response to public comments received 

on the draft EIS. Based on this 

information, the Council determined 

that the available scientific information 

about the fisheries and Steller sea lions 

supports alternative Steller sea lion 

protection measures to those in the 2010 

Interim Final Rule. The Council then 

recommended Alternative 5 as the 

preferred alternative based on the 

analysis in the draft EIS, public 

comments, and the best available 

scientific information. 

In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS analyzed the 

effects of Alternative 5 after it was 

recommended by the Council. NMFS 

conducted the ESA section 7 

consultation on Alternative 5 prior to 

releasing the final EIS and commencing 

rulemaking. The 2014 BiOp found that 

the implementation of Alternative 5 was 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the WDPS of Steller sea 

lions and was not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify designated Steller sea 

lion critical habitat. The conclusions in 

the 2014 BiOp were reached after 

considering the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

including Steller sea lion behavior and 

fisheries data. 

Comment 18: The 2010 FMP BiOp 

remains valid and, for precisely this 

reason, both the proposed rule and 2014 

BiOp must be abandoned. The proposed 

rule simply cannot be reconciled with 

the 2010 FMP BiOp—as the proposed 

rule would repeal the very Steller sea 

lion protection measures instituted as 

the 2010 RPA. Because the 2010 FMP 

BiOp reflects a credible and consistent 

analysis of the best available science, 

the status quo protection measures for 

Steller sea lions adopted as a 

consequence of that analysis and 

reflected in the 2010 Interim Final Rule 

must be at least maintained—if not 

strengthened. 

Response: The connection between 

the 2010 FMP BiOp and the 2014 BiOp 

on the Alaska groundfish fisheries is 

explained in Section 1.0 of the 2014 

BiOp. The 2014 BiOp did not entirely 

replace the previous 2010 FMP BiOp. 

The analysis contained in the 2010 FMP 

BiOp remains valid and meets NMFS’ 

requirement to consult at the FMP level. 

NMFS did a project-level, focused 

consultation on the proposed action to 

modify Steller sea lion protection 

measures in the Aleutian Islands. The 

2014 BiOp is the result of that 

consultation. The 2014 BiOp considered 

a different proposed action than the 

2010 FMP BiOp, namely the proposed 

changes to the Aleutian Islands Pacific 

cod, Atka mackerel, and pollock 

fisheries; scientific research on these 

fisheries and other changes to the 

fishery management structure since 

2010; and new information available 

subsequent to completion of the 2010 

FMP BiOp. The proposed action to 

modify Steller sea lion protection 

measures replaces the RPA in the 2010 

FMP BiOp, which was implemented as 

the 2010 Interim Final Rule. Based on 

an analysis of the proposed action and 

the new information, the 2014 BiOp 

concludes that the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Steller sea lions or destroy 

or adversely modify their designated 

critical habitat. 

Comment 19: The proposed rule 

violates NMFS’ ESA obligation to avoid 

jeopardizing the prospects of Steller sea 

lions for recovery and is inconsistent 

with the 2008 Recovery Plan (see 

ADDRESSES). The best available science, 

reflected in the 2008 Recovery Plan, 

indicates that a large sub-regional 

population decline constitutes a threat 

to the prospect of recovery for Steller 

sea lions as a whole. NMFS is proposing 

to allow additional fishing within the 

designated critical habitat for the 

western and central Aleutian subregions, even though Steller sea lion 

populations continue to decline in those 

areas and NMFS acknowledges that 

existing fishing levels cannot be ruled 

out as a contributing cause of the 

ongoing decline. Significantly, the 

western Aleutian sub-regional 

population declined substantially—60 

percent from 2000 to 2012—and a 2013 

study found that the probability of 

extinction in the western Aleutian 

Islands is substantial within 50 years. 

Response: The recovery criteria in the 

2008 Recovery Plan are discussed in 

Section 3.5 of the 2014 BiOp and 

Section 1.9.4 of the EIS. The recovery 

criteria compose the core standards 

upon which to base a decision to 

remove Steller sea lions from the 

Endangered Species List. The biological 

(demographic) recovery criteria are 

intended to maintain Steller sea lion 

populations throughout their range. 

Currently, there are no geographic gaps 

in the range of Steller sea lions and the 

Recovery Team determined, and NMFS 

concurred, that it is important to the 

species’ viability to maintain 

populations in all six sub-regions of the 

WDPS. Significant declines over large 

areas (two sub-regions or more) could 

indicate that the extinction risk may 

still be high and that further research 

would be needed to understand the 

threats before delisting. NMFS notes 

that although the recovery criteria are 

still applicable, there have been 

substantial improvements in the best 

available scientific information on 

Steller sea lions since the publication of 

the 2008 Recovery Plan. The 2014 BiOp 

considered the best available scientific 

information. 

The abundance of Steller sea lions in 

Alaska is increasing at a statistically 

significant rate; however, the increase is 

due to significant increases in 

population growth in three of the six 

sub-regions (the eastern Aleutian 

Islands, the western GOA, and the 

eastern GOA). Steller sea lions continue 

to decline in the central Aleutian 

Islands and western Aleutian Islands. 

The rate of decline is not statistically 

significant in the central Aleutian 

Islands, but is statistically significant in 

the western Aleutian Islands. The rate of 

increase is uncertain in the central 

GOA. See response to Comment 13 for 

additional information on the 

population status of Steller sea lions. 

Section 3.6 of the 2014 BiOp and 

Section 5.1.1.2 of the EIS discuss the 

extinction risk of Steller sea lions in 

Alaska. The studies presented in those 

sections show no risk of extinction for 

Steller sea lion in the WDPS within 100 

years. These studies also considered the 

probability of extinction in each of the 

six specific sub-regions within 100 

years. The studies concluded that 

Steller sea lion populations in all six of 

the sub-regions, with one exception, 

have no risk of extinction within 100 

years. The population in the western 

Aleutian Islands sub-region is predicted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70297 

to have a high probability of extinction 

within 100 years. 

As explained in Section 7.1 of the 

2014 BiOp, NMFS considered the effects 

of the proposed action on the survival 

and recovery of sea lion populations in 

the individual sub-regions per the 

criteria in the 2008 Recovery Plan. 

NMFS’ opinion in the 2014 BiOp is that 

the preponderance of available data 

does not support a conclusion that the 

groundfish fisheries as proposed and the 

current groundfish abundance are 

limiting Steller sea lion population 

growth rates. NMFS acknowledges that, 

due to significant data gaps, NMFS 

cannot rule out the effects of fishing as 

contributing to the continued decline in 

the western Aleutian Islands and the 

lack of recovery in the central Aleutian 

Islands (see Section 5.4.5 of the 2014 

BiOp). 

Given these data gaps, NMFS 

maintains that a precautionary approach 

to fishing for sea lion prey species in 

Steller sea lion critical habitat is 

warranted, especially in winter, and that 

catch of prey species should be 

dispersed in time and space to prevent 

localized depletion of prey at least until 

NMFS has better information about 

local biomass and exploitation rates (see 

Section 5.4.5 of the 2014 BiOp). The 

Steller sea lion protection measures 

implemented in this final rule maintain 

substantial groundfish fishery closures 

and catch limits in Steller sea lion 

critical habitat (see Section 5.3 in the 

2014 BiOp and Sections 2.1.5 and 

5.2.2.6 of the EIS) to reduce the 

potential for competition for prey 

between the fisheries and sea lions and 

to ensure that the fisheries are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy 

of adversely modify their designated 

critical habitat. 

For example, directed fishing for Atka 

mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod with 

trawl gear will be prohibited in 76 

percent, 95 percent, and 76 percent, 

respectively, of the area designated as 

critical habitat in the western Aleutian 

Islands (Area 543). Limits will be 

imposed on the amount of the TAC of 

these Steller sea lion prey species that 

may be taken from Area 543, which 

corresponds with the western Aleutian 

Islands sub-region (see Section 2.1.5 of 

the EIS). Seasonal catch limits will also 

be imposed and the amount of Atka 

mackerel that can be caught in Steller 

sea lion critical habitat in the central 

and western Aleutian Islands (Areas 543 

and 542) will be limited to 60 percent 

of the TAC. Refer to the preamble to the 

proposed rule for the full suite of Steller 

sea lion protection measures 

implemented by this final rule. 

NMFS’ opinion about the effects of 

the proposed fisheries on the Steller sea 

lion population in the western Aleutian 

Islands sub-region and their designated 

critical habitat is summarized in Section 

7.3 of the 2014 BiOp. The measures 

implemented by this final rule to reduce 

potential competition between the 

groundfish fisheries and Steller sea 

lions overall, and in sea lion critical 

habitat in the western Aleutian Islands, 

are not likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival or recovery of the 

western Aleutian Islands Steller sea lion 

sub-population. However, based on an 

assessment of the available data, NMFS 

concluded that a decline in numbers of 

the western Aleutian Islands Steller sea 

lion population is likely to continue for 

unknown reasons, even apart from any 

changes in the fisheries, and that the 

measures implemented by this rule are 

not likely to yield population level 

effects that would appreciably change 

the likelihood of survival or recovery of 

the Steller sea lion population within 

the western Aleutian Islands sub-region. 

NMFS also concluded that the effects of 

the proposed fisheries in the central 

Aleutian Islands (corresponding with 

NMFS management areas 542 and 541) 

are not likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival or recovery in the 

central Aleutian Islands sub-region. 

Because the proposed fisheries are not 

likely to reduce the survival or recovery 

of Steller sea lion populations in the 

western and central Aleutian Islands 

sub-regions, NMFS concluded that the 

proposed fisheries are not likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival or recovery of the WDPS of 

Steller sea lions (Section 7.3 of the 2014 

BiOp). 

Comment 20: All protections should 

remain in place to protect Steller sea 

lions until NMFS can confirm that the 

threats that have resulted in the 

unforeseen and unexplained declines of 

Steller sea lion populations in the 

central and western Aleutian Islands 

have abated. The 2010 Interim Final 

Rule management measures to protect 

the population in these sub-regions 

represent the maximum spatial extent 

and amount of fishing that can be 

permitted by the commercial groundfish 

fisheries. In fact, with ongoing declines 

persisting in these areas despite the 

protection measures instituted by the 

2010 Interim Final Rule, additional 

protection measures may be necessary. 

There are no conditions under which 

these endangered Steller sea lions 

would not be jeopardized if restrictions 

were relaxed. The environmental impact 

of fishing is never conducive to the 

preservation of wildlife or natural 

habitats. 

Response: NMFS is concerned about 

the continued decline of Steller sea 

lions in the western and central 

Aleutian Islands sub-regions. However, 

NMFS concluded that the changes to the 

Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries 

management in this final rule are not 

likely to reduce the survival or recovery 

of sea lion populations in the western or 

central Aleutian Island sub-regions, let 

alone the WDPS of Steller sea lions as 

a whole. See response to Comment 19. 

The EIS analyzed the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and its 

alternatives on wildlife and habitat. 

Comment 21: NMFS’ refusal to 

address the correlation between subregional population trends and Steller 

sea lion protection measures is arbitrary 

and harmful because it defies a key 

performance standard set forth in the 

2010 FMP BiOp. The proposed rule 

purports to maintain the goal of 

providing more protection to Steller sea 

lions where more decline in their 

population is evident. As the proposed 

rule would eliminate Steller sea lion 

protection measures in the central and 

western Aleutian Islands, the portion of 

the species’ range where the population 

continues to decline, it obviously fails 

to meet this performance standard. The 

proposed rule would open more critical 

habitat to more fisheries in Area 543 

relative to Areas 541 and 542, despite 

the fact that the negative population 

trend is most pronounced in Area 543. 

Response: Contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, this final rule 

does not eliminate Steller sea lion 

protection measures in the central and 

western Aleutian Islands, but rather 

maintains or modifies Steller sea lion 

protection measures in a manner that is 

consistent with the mandates of the ESA 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Section 1.10.3 of the EIS describes the 

objective and performance standards to 

mitigate potential adverse impacts of the 

fisheries on Steller sea lions. The 

Council and NMFS considered these 

performance standards when selecting 

the preferred alternative in the EIS. The 

performance standards reflect concepts 

NMFS has applied for over a decade to 

mitigate potential impacts of the 

groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions 

and their critical habitat. The specific 

set of performance standards for this 

action originated in the 2010 FMP BiOp 

and was subsequently modified in the 

EIS to reflect new information available 

since the since 2010 FMP BiOp was 

prepared. The action implemented in 

this final rule adheres to the 

performance standards by closing 

important Steller sea lion habitat and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

foraging areas to directed fishing for 

Steller sea lion prey species, dispersing 

catch between seasons, limiting the 

amount of sea lion prey species that 

may be caught inside critical habitat, 

maintaining and establishing 3-nm 

groundfish fishing closures around 

designated and emerging rookeries in 

the Aleutian Islands, and including 

additional harvest controls for Steller 

sea lion prey species in Area 543—the 

western Aleutian Islands. This final rule 

also conserves prey availability for 

Steller sea lions by closing areas to 

directed fishing for Atka mackerel 

where tagging studies indicate high 

movement of fish from inside to outside 

closure areas. 

A greater percentage of the critical 

habitat area will be open to directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific 

cod in Area 543 relative to Areas 542 or 

541 under this final rule. However, this 

final rule imposes stricter harvest limits 

for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in 

Area 543 compared to the harvest limits 

that will apply in Areas 542 and 541 

(see Section 2.1.5 of the EIS) in 

accordance with the performance 

standards in the 2010 FMP BiOp. Taken 

as a whole, these measures meet the 

performance standards by limiting catch 

overall in the areas where the rate of 

decline is most evident. The 

specification of a separate Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod ABC and TAC 

beginning in 2014 (see Section 3.3.3 of 

the EIS) substantially reduced Pacific 

cod harvests in the Aleutian Islands 

relative to baseline harvests. The 

historical data indicate that higher 

Pacific cod catches are expected in Area 

541 compared to Areas 542 and 543 (see 

EIS Sections 8.11 and 8.18.3). As 

explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (79 FR 37486), the 

measures to mitigate the potential 

effects of the pollock fishery on Steller 

sea lions and critical habitat conform to 

the performance standard and are more 

protective where the Steller sea lion 

decline is most evident. To meet the 

objective of the mitigation measures (see 

EIS Section 1.10.3), the Council and 

NMFS considered the performance 

standards, changes to the fisheries 

relative to the action analyzed in the 

2010 FMP BiOp, and the effects of the 

alternatives when selecting the 

preferred alternative being implemented 

in this final rule. 

Comment 22: The Council’s 

recommended preferred alternative is 

supported by the EIS and the 2014 

BiOp. Together, these two documents 

fulfill the U.S. District Court’s directive 

to NMFS to take a hard look at the data. 

In doing so, NMFS has been responsive 

to the Center for Independent Experts’ 

review of the 2010 BiOp, as well as to 

public comment on the 2010 BiOp and 

to the external review commissioned by 

the states of Alaska and Washington. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 23: The EIS’s focus on raw 

numbers concerning area closures and 

catch volumes do not meaningfully 

capture the severity of the impacts or 

the degree to which the action may 

adversely affect Steller sea lions or their 

habitat. The EIS analysis assumes that 

fishery removals of prey may adversely 

affect Steller sea lions, and that 

incremental increases in prey removals 

and opening more areas of critical 

habitat, relative to status quo, could 

have incremental, adverse effects on 

prey availability for Steller sea lions. 

While these assumptions are 

appropriate, the EIS applies them in an 

exclusively relativistic manner, never 

offering an ultimate, objective judgment 

of the environmental effects of the 

alternatives on Steller sea lions. 

Response: Chapter 5 of the EIS 

provides a clear explanation of the 

methods used for the analysis of the 

potential effects of the fisheries on 

Steller sea lions. The analysis examines 

the effects of the alternatives on 

incidental takes (Section 5.2.1), harvest 

of prey species (Section 5.2.2), and 

disturbance (Section 5.2.3). Section 

5.2.2 describes the method and 

assumptions used to analyze the effects 

of the alternatives with the best 

scientific information available. The 

best available scientific information 

includes quantitative fisheries catch 

information in time and space and 

critical habitat locations in relation to 

fishing activity. This information is 

used to compare and contrast the effects 

of the alternatives. The EIS provides 

conclusions for each effect based on the 

results of the analysis. The assumptions 

that are used in the analysis are clearly 

stated for the public’s understanding of 

the nature of the available information 

and how this information is used in the 

analysis. The commenter’s request that 

this information be presented and that 

an objective judgment on the effects of 

the alternatives be provided can be 

found in the EIS in the sections 

referenced above and in its conclusions. 

Comment 24: The 2014 BiOp is 

premised on an examination of the 

overlap in depth between the fisheries 

and Steller sea lion diving, by season, 

based on our best understanding of the 

two variables. The EIS undercuts the 

reliability of this work to reach a 

conclusion of no jeopardy, stating that 

the extent to which competition 

between fisheries and Steller sea lions 

may be avoided through partitioning of 

resources by depth can be difficult to 

judge using the available information. 

Scientific studies of Steller sea lion 

foraging patterns are just beginning to 

characterize the diving depths and 

patterns of Steller sea lions, and they are 

likely capable of foraging patterns not 

yet described or anticipated. Describing 

the overlap in depth between fisheries 

and Steller sea lions is further 

complicated by diet or seasonal vertical 

migrations of the fish resources for 

reproduction, refuge, or foraging. 

Response: Overlap in fishery and 

Steller sea lion foraging depth is one 

necessary condition for competition 

between fisheries and Steller sea lions 

for prey species. Information on sea lion 

foraging and fishing depths is discussed 

in Section 5.3.5 of the 2014 BiOp and 

Section 5.2.2.1 of the EIS. The 2014 

BiOp contains a detailed analysis of 

fishery and Steller sea lion foraging 

depths as one aspect of the exposure 

analysis. The objective of an exposure 

analysis in a biological opinion is to 

establish the extent of spatial and 

temporal overlap of the proposed action 

with the listed species and designated 

critical habitat. NMFS conducted a new 

exposure analysis in the 2014 BiOp in 

response to comments from two external 

scientific reviewers who cited 

shortcomings with the exposure 

analysis in the 2010 FMP BiOp. 

While the depth analysis in the 2014 

BiOp is more detailed than in the EIS, 

the conclusions of the respective 

analyses are in accord with each other. 

For example, the EIS concludes that 

competition may be less likely between 

Steller sea lions and fisheries that 

harvest species found deeper in the 

water column. In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS 

also inferred greater potential depth 

overlap with sea lions between the 

Pacific cod and Atka mackerel fisheries 

than for pollock fisheries, based on the 

available data. The pollock fishery 

occurs at deeper depths than the Pacific 

cod and Atka mackerel fisheries (see 

Section 5.3.5 in the 2014 BiOp). NMFS 

also noted in the 2014 BiOp that there 

were limitations in the available data for 

drawing inferences about the cause of 

apparent depth partitioning in some 

portion of sea lion dives and pollock 

trawl hauls. These conclusions are 

consistent with the conclusions in 

Section 5.2.2.1 of the EIS, which notes 

that diel or seasonal vertical migrations 

of fish complicates the description of 

depth overlap between the fisheries and 

Steller sea lions. 

Comment 25: The assessment of the 

frequency and intensity of fishery 

removals in the 2014 BiOp does not 

support the BiOp’s ‘‘no jeopardy’’ 

conclusion. This assessment is also 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70299 

contrary to the EIS because the EIS 

acknowledges that the critical link 

between fisheries removals (e.g., time, 

rate, location) and the effects on Steller 

sea lions is poorly understood and that 

the relationship between these catch 

rates and the impacts on prey cannot be 

determined except that higher catch 

rates in relation to low prey abundance 

would be more likely to result in 

localized depletions. 

Response: Section 5.3.7 in the 2014 

BiOp analyzes the probable extent of 

removal of important Steller sea lion 

prey under the proposed action. Section 

5.3.8 of the 2104 BiOp presents NMFS’ 

conceptual model of how Steller sea 

lions are exposed to the effects of prey 

removal by the groundfish fisheries. 

Section 5.3.8 of the 2014 BiOp and 

Section 5.2.2 of the EIS consistently 

describe the conditions expected to lead 

to localized depletion of prey. 

Consistent with the limitations to 

assessing effects described in Section 

5.2.2.1.4 of the EIS, Section 5.3.8 of the 

2014 BiOp acknowledges that NMFS 

lacks data to determine conclusively 

whether the fisheries fragment the prey 

patches, modify the proportion of prey 

at depth, and ultimately result in 

reduced prey abundance. 

Comment 26: Assessing the potential 

overlap in the size of prey consumed by 

Steller sea lions and those taken in the 

commercial fishery is another key 

analytical prong of the 2014 BiOp. The 

2014 BiOp’s conclusion of limited 

overlap and no jeopardy is not 

consistent with the EIS, which found 

that the ranges of size of prey selected 

by Steller sea lions, as referenced above, 

do overlap with the ranges of size of 

prey taken in the groundfish fisheries in 

the Aleutian Islands as calculated in 

this analysis. 

Response: As discussed in Section 

5.2.2.1.2 of the EIS, overlap in size 

between fish consumed by Steller sea 

lions and those taken in the commercial 

fishery is one of several necessary 

conditions for competition for prey. 

Overlap in size of prey eaten by Steller 

sea lions and size of fish caught by the 

groundfish fisheries is analyzed in 

Section 5.2.2.1.2 of the EIS and Section 

5.3.6 of the 2014 BiOp. The two 

analyses consistently conclude that the 

best available scientific information 

indicates that the size ranges of prey 

eaten by Steller sea lions and the size 

range of fish taken in the groundfish 

fisheries in the Aleutian Islands overlap. 

The 2014 BiOp discusses that the best 

available scientific information 

indicates greater overlap in the size of 

Atka mackerel and pollock taken by the 

fisheries and Steller sea lions compared 

to the overlap in the size of Pacific cod 

taken by the fisheries and Steller sea 

lions and notes the limitations of the 

available data and the uncertainty about 

the extent of potential overlap. 

Comment 27: The EIS’ approach 

obscures the potential severity of the 

proposed action for both Steller sea 

lions in the central and western 

Aleutian Islands and Steller sea lions as 

a whole. Unfortunately, the population 

trends for non-pups in the central and 

western Aleutian Islands sub-regions 

continue to decline, with a particularly 

severe decline in abundance (a 60 

percent decrease) observed in the 

western Aleutian Islands between 2000 

and 2012. A 2013 study found that the 

probability of extinction in the western 

Aleutian Islands is substantial even 

within 50 years. The EIS fails to 

acknowledge that even a modest 

increase in pressure on prey resources 

in the western Aleutian Islands could 

precipitate a severe result, given that the 

sub-population already faces a high risk 

of extirpation. The EIS also fails to note 

that such an outcome could have 

equally severe ramifications outside of 

the western Aleutian Islands, as the best 

available science indicates that the 

extirpation of Steller sea lions in the 

western Aleutians would be significant 

to the WDPS, and would be expected to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

both their survival and recovery in the 

wild. 

Response: Sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.2 

of the EIS describe the population 

abundance and trends for the entire 

WDPS of Steller sea lion pups and nonpups based on the best scientific 

information available. The purpose and 

need of the action focuses the 

alternatives and the analysis of the 

effects on the action area, the Aleutian 

Islands, which is a portion of the range 

of WDPS of Steller sea lions. Section 

5.1.1.2 describes the population trend 

for the entire WDPS of Steller sea lions 

(i.e., Alaska and Russia/Asia), the entire 

Alaska portion of the range of Steller sea 

lions, and the population trends in each 

sub-region in Alaska. This puts the 

population trend in the action area in 

context for the entire population. NMFS 

notes that the abundance of WDPS 

Steller sea lions in Alaska is increasing 

at a statistically significant rate, though 

the Steller sea lion population in the 

western Aleutian Islands sub-region is 

declining at a statistically significant 

rate (see response to Comment 13). 

The EIS analysis focuses on the effects 

on Steller sea lions that occur in the 

Aleutian Islands. EIS Section 5.1.1.2 

discusses the process Johnson (2013) 

developed for forecasting the population 

of Steller sea lions and summarized the 

probability of the population falling 

below a quasi-extinction threshold 

within 50 and 100 years. A quasiextinction threshold is the population 

size, greater than zero, at which a 

population is ultimately doomed to 

extinction due to genetic or physical 

constraints of the small, remaining 

population. NMFS examined three 

methods: The Morris and Doak (MD) 

method (Morris and Doak 2002), and 

restricted and unrestricted agTrend 

methods (Johnson 2013). The results for 

each method were qualitatively the 

same: There is approximately a zero 

percent probability of quasi-extinction 

of the Steller sea lion population in 

Alaska as a whole within the next 100 

years. Similarly, there is approximately 

a zero percent probability of quasiextinction of the Steller sea lion 

population from each of the sub-regions 

within Alaska within the next 100 years, 

with one exception for the western 

Aleutian Islands sub-region. The 

probability of extirpation of the Steller 

sea lion population in the western 

Aleutian Islands sub-region is 

substantial even within 50 years. 

The EIS states that competition with 

fisheries may affect prey availability to 

Steller sea lions. In the EIS, prey effects 

are considered adverse effects because, 

based on information available on prey 

interaction, it is assumed there are no 

beneficial effects from removal of prey. 

Removal of prey can have direct and 

indirect adverse effects on Steller sea 

lions. The EIS discusses the potential 

adverse effects to Steller sea lions from 

the harvest of prey resources in the 

Aleutian Islands under all of the 

alternatives. After conducting this 

analysis, and analysis of other factors 

detailed in the EIS, NMFS concluded in 

the 2014 BiOp that although there is a 

substantial risk of extinction of the 

Steller sea lion population in the 

western Aleutian Islands based on 

projected population trends, additional 

management measures beyond those 

implemented in this final rule were not 

required to insure that groundfish 

fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the WDPS of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat. 

Comment 28: The EIS does not 

comply with NEPA because it fails to 

analyze the significance of the effects of 

the action on endangered Steller sea 

lions. The EIS did not determine the 

population-level effects to Steller sea 

lions from the indirect effects of fishing 

on prey availability for the alternatives. 

Rather than assess potential populationlevel consequences of each alternative 

using objective metrics, prey effects 

were analyzed purely in comparative 

form by evaluating the percentage of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat closed to each fishery 

and the harvest of prey species in 

critical habitat by each fishery 

exclusively within the western and 

central Aleutian Islands. The details on 

local closures and catch within critical 

habitat in Areas 541, 542, and 543, 

while appropriate, are no substitute for 

further analysis in a broader context, 

including at the population level of the 

WDPS of Steller sea lions. A populationlevel analysis for each alternative in the 

EIS is essential to making a reasoned 

choice among the proposed 

management regimes for the western 

and central Aleutian Islands because the 

best available science as reflected in the 

2008 Recovery Plan (see ADDRESSES), 

provides a clear basis for the conclusion 

that sub-regional declines have a 

profound effect on the future of the 

entire species. 

Response: The EIS analysis provides 

the decision makers with the ability to 

compare and contrast the effects of the 

alternatives on the human environment 

consistent with the requirements of 

NEPA by disclosing information on 

fishery removals of prey and critical 

habitat closures under the alternatives 

within the action area. EIS Chapter 5 

includes the evaluation of the effects of 

the alternatives on Steller sea lion 

incidental takes, disturbance, and 

potential effects on prey using the best 

available information. NMFS reviewed 

the information available to inform the 

analysis and determined that a 

population-level analysis was not 

necessary to determine the potential 

effects of the alternatives on Steller sea 

lions and their critical habitat because 

the effects of fishing occur at the local 

scale and the decision was which suite 

of protections measures is appropriate 

to meet the purpose and need for the 

action. EIS Section 5.2.2 describes the 

method used to analyze the effects of 

the alternatives with the best available 

scientific information and the 

assumption applied to the analysis. Best 

scientific information available includes 

quantitative fisheries catch information 

in time and space and critical habitat 

locations in relation to fishing activity. 

This information is used to compare and 

contrast the effects of the alternatives. 

Comment 29: We strongly disagree 

with the core of NMFS’ rationale for this 

proposal which is: (1) There are enough 

fish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands for fishermen and Steller sea 

lions to share; the small Steller sea lions 

population only consumes a small 

portion of fish we think are there; and 

(2) we have designed a system with 

enough spatial and temporal dispersal 

of the fishing effort such that fishing 

does not overlap with Steller sea lions 

critical habitat to a great degree. Yes, on 

a mass balance basis, there are enough 

fish for fishermen and Steller sea lions 

to share. But Steller sea lions are not the 

only inhabitants of this ecosystem; other 

predators like seabirds, killer whales, 

and seals depend on fish being 

abundant in this area and some of those 

species are showing worrisome declines 

that may be related to too few fish in the 

ocean. 

Response: NMFS’ rationale for this 

final rule is supported by the 2014 BiOp 

(see ADDRESSES). The 2014 BiOp 

concludes that the proposed action 

would establish Steller sea lion 

protection measures for the Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea 

that spatially and temporally disperse 

fishing to mitigate potential competition 

for prey resources between Steller sea 

lions and these fisheries. Spatial and 

temporal fishery dispersion is 

accomplished through closure areas, 

harvest limits, seasonal apportionment 

of harvest limits, and limits on 

participation in a fishery. The proposed 

action would retain or modify existing 

closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal 

apportionment of harvest limits, and 

limits on participation in ways that are 

designed to limit competition for prey 

with Steller sea lions. 

NMFS agrees that a wide range of 

species occurring in the action area prey 

on groundfish. NMFS conservatively 

manages the groundfish fisheries and 

limits catch for ecosystem 

considerations, including a conservative 

optimum yield cap and a global control 

rule. In the 2010 FMP BiOp, NMFS 

analyzed the effects of the authorization 

of groundfish fisheries, including the 

prosecution of parallel groundfish 

fisheries in Alaska state waters (see 

ADDRESSES). The 2010 FMP BiOp is 

comprehensive in scope and considers 

the fisheries and the overall 

management framework established by 

the FMP to determine whether that 

framework contains necessary measures 

to ensure the protection of listed species 

and critical habitat. The 2010 FMP BiOp 

analyzed the pattern and level of fishery 

removals occurring in different 

groundfish fisheries and the policy 

choices, decisions about exploitation 

strategies, and stock and stock complex 

assessments that set the harvest levels. 

The 2014 BiOp identified the 

importance of maintaining global, or 

broad scale, limits on the harvest of 

Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock. 

Global limits are currently in place for 

these three species. Regulations prohibit 

directed fishing in the BSAI or GOA if 

the projected spawning biomass of the 

fish stock falls below 20 percent of the 

unfished spawning biomass (see 

regulations at § 679.20(d)(4)). Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries have not experienced this type 

of directed fishing closure since global 

limits became effective in 2003 (68 FR 

204, January 2, 2003). 

Additionally, NMFS conducts 

ecosystem modeling and incorporates 

ecosystem considerations, including 

predation, into the stock assessment 

models. See response to comment 54. 

Further, the EIS analyzes the impacts 

of the proposed action and its 

alternatives on a wide range of 

ecosystem elements, including local fish 

populations in Chapter 3, killer whales 

and seals in Chapter 5, seabirds in 

Chapter 6, and on the ecosystem as a 

whole in Chapter 7. 

Comment 30: NMFS improperly fails 

to disclose in the final EIS the strong 

dissenting views held by NMFS 

scientists regarding the analysis and 

conclusions contained in the draft 2014 

BiOp. For example, Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center scientists prepared a 

memorandum stating that the spatial 

overlap analysis in the draft 2014 BiOp 

is fundamentally flawed and cannot be 

used as a basis to evaluate spatial 

overlap between fisheries and Steller 

sea lions, nor support any conclusions 

about whether jeopardy or adverse 

modification to critical habitat may or 

may not be expected to occur as a result 

of the fishery action. The Steller Sea 

Lion Coordinator for the Alaska Region 

prepared a memo stating that the 

exposure analysis in the draft 2014 

BiOp was fundamentally flawed and 

needed to be redone and the draft 2014 

BiOp was not consistent with the NOAA 

Scientific Integrity Policy because it 

does not provide accurate or adequate 

acknowledgement or discussion of 

uncertainties or the probabilities 

associated with both optimistic and 

pessimistic projections for sea lions. 

These memos indicate there was 

internal dissent within NMFS regarding 

the draft 2014 BiOp analysis that the EIS 

relies upon for its discussion regarding 

the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action on Steller sea lions. 

NMFS was obligated to disclose and 

discuss these adverse opinions within 

the body of the EIS and failed to meet 

that obligation. 

Response: NMFS is not obligated to 

discuss pre-decisional internal agency 

discussions in an EIS. However, NMFS 

does discuss areas of controversy and 

uncertainty in the Executive Summary 

and in Chapter 5 of the EIS. NMFS relies 

on EIS Chapter 5 for the analysis of the 

impacts of the proposed action and its 

alternatives on Steller sea lions. All 

internal agency discussions were 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70301 

considered by NMFS in making the final 

determination. 

Comment 31: In our July 12, 2013, 

comments on the draft EIS, we 

recognized the effort of NMFS to 

produce a thorough analysis that 

articulates the anticipated impacts of a 

complex proposal and applauded your 

partnerships with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 

developing the EIS. We identified 

Alternative 5 as a practical combination 

of some of the more beneficial aspects 

of other alternatives for the Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries, based in large part in response 

to stakeholder concerns identified 

during scoping. We also recognized that 

an intensive monitoring program will be 

implemented with this alternative, and 

adjustments made as results are 

assessed. We did not have concerns 

regarding the preferred alternative and 

offered no additional suggestions for 

further minimizing impacts. The EIS 

continues to identify modified 

Alternative 5 as the NMFS preferred 

alternative. We support this decision 

and recommend that this alternative be 

selected in the Record of Decision. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comments on Economic Issues 

Comment 32: Reject the proposed 

rollback of needed protections for 

Steller sea lions. The proposed rule 

reflects an abdication of NMFS’ 

stewardship obligations, does not 

comply with NMFS’ legal or moral 

obligations, is not consistent with the 

best available science, and appears to 

prioritize short-term economic gain 

ahead of long-term sustainable 

management. A decision to authorize 

significant additional fishing pressure 

even as Steller sea lions continue to 

decline in the central and western 

Aleutian Islands and fail to meet 

recovery criteria overall would run 

directly counter to those moral, ethical, 

and legal obligations. 

Response: This action implements a 

suite of Steller sea lion protection 

measures in the Aleutian Islands 

groundfish fisheries that adheres to the 

requirements of the ESA and MagnusonStevens Act, and are consistent with our 

legal and stewardship obligations. 

NMFS used the best available 

commercial and scientific data to inform 

development of the alternatives and 

analyze their impacts on Steller sea 

lions and the human environment. This 

final rule maintains protections 

consistent with the ESA for Steller sea 

lions through numerous spatial and 

temporal harvest limits and critical 

habitat area closures applicable to the 

harvest of key Steller sea lion prey 

species of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, 

and pollock and sustainable 

management of the Aleutian Islands 

groundfish fisheries. 

Comment 33: In light of the protective 

purpose of the ESA, NMFS must respect 

Congress’ intent to give the benefit of 

the doubt to the species. NMFS’ action 

should be consistent with the ESA’s 

conservation goals and the ESA’s policy 

of institutionalized caution. 

The proposed rule asserts that the 

Council and NMFS understood that a 

preferred alternative and any resulting 

rule must meet the requirements of the 

ESA before factors that minimize, to the 

extent practicable, the economic 

impacts on fishery participants could be 

considered. This assertion 

notwithstanding, the proposed rule 

repeatedly states that certain lesser 

protection measures have been selected 

because they ‘‘balance’’ conservation of 

Steller sea lions with economic 

opportunities for the commercial 

fisheries. The balancing approach 

undertaken by the Council and NMFS is 

unlawful because the ESA disallows 

balancing the benefit to the species 

against the economic and technical 

burden on the industry. NMFS proposes 

an unprecedented reversal of the ESA’s 

mandated precaution and appears to 

premise its analysis and conclusions on 

an illegal shifting of the burden of proof 

and an impermissible elevation of 

economic considerations. 

Under the ESA, economic 

considerations may not be considered in 

an agency’s determination of whether an 

action is likely to cause jeopardy—a 

determination that must be based 

exclusively on the best available 

science. Because the legislation reveals 

a conscious decision by Congress to give 

endangered species priority over the 

primary missions of Federal agencies, 

NMFS may not give equal priority to 

economic concerns and its obligations 

under the ESA. 

Response: The purpose and need for 

this action is explained in Section 1.3 of 

the EIS. The purposes of this action are 

to first, comply with the requirements of 

the ESA by implementing Steller sea 

lion protection measures in the Alaska 

groundfish fisheries and, secondly, and 

only after the first purpose is met, to 

minimize, to the extent practicable, 

economic impacts to the groundfish 

fisheries from the measures. 

In compliance with the ESA, NMFS 

conducted a section 7 consultation on 

the action implemented in this final 

rule. During that consultation, NMFS 

used the best scientific and commercial 

data available. The results of the ESA 

section 7 consultation are documented 

in the 2014 BiOp. In the 2014 BiOp, 

NMFS concluded that the 

implementation of the proposed action 

was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the WDPS of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify designated Steller sea lion 

critical habitat. Economic impacts were 

not a factor in making that conclusion. 

NMFS agrees that ESA section 7 

analyses should err on the side of the 

survival and recovery of the listed 

species when the effects of an action are 

uncertain. The analysis in the 2014 

BiOp is a cautionary examination of the 

effects of the groundfish fisheries on 

Steller sea lions and their designated 

critical habitat. NMFS assumes that 

groundfish fisheries may compete with 

Steller sea lions for prey. NMFS makes 

this assumption even though there is 

substantial scientific debate as to 

whether such competition exists, or if it 

does, whether the levels of removals in 

the fishery would be sufficient to cause 

competition in a way that would 

impede the survival and recovery of 

Steller sea lions. In Section 5.3.8 of the 

2014 BiOp, NMFS presents a conceptual 

model illustrating the pathways through 

which Steller sea lions are exposed to 

the stressor of reduced prey resources 

due to the groundfish fisheries. NMFS’ 

conceptual model for Steller sea lion 

behavioral and physiological responses 

to reduced prey resources is shown in 

Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp. 

NMFS discusses where the available 

data allow inference of the effects and 

where the available data are equivocal 

as to the effects on prey availability and 

subsequent effects on Steller sea lion 

fitness. In cases where the data are 

equivocal, to avoid underestimating the 

potential risk to the survival and 

recovery of Steller sea lions, NMFS 

assumes the groundfish fisheries may 

compete with sea lions for prey and 

assumes that the most extreme 

physiological consequences would 

result. In those cases, NMFS concluded 

that local Steller sea lion populations 

may be affected by the proposed action 

but that the magnitude of the effect 

would not be sufficient to appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival or 

recovery in either the central or western 

Aleutian Islands sub-regions. Because 

the action is not likely to appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival or 

recovery in the individual sub-regions, 

the proposed action is not likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival or recovery of the WDPS of 

Steller sea lions. In other cases, the best 

scientific data available support a 

conclusion that the proposed groundfish 

fisheries are not likely to cause localized 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

depletion of prey and are not likely to 

reduce the fitness of individual sea lions 

or adversely modify their designated 

critical habitat. 

In developing the proposed action 

and its alternatives, the Council and 

NMFS did consider impacts on fishery 

participants. NMFS is required to 

consider the impacts of its fishery 

management actions on fishery 

participants under the MagnusonStevens Act, Executive Order 12866, 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 

the preamble to the proposed rule, 

NMFS describes each regulatory 

provision and provides an explanation 

as to why the Council recommended 

and NMFS approved and implemented 

these regulatory provisions. These 

explanations address why a particular 

regulatory provision was included or 

why a particular provision from the 

2010 Interim Final Rule was revised or 

removed. However, it is NMFS’ 

conclusions in its 2014 BiOp that the 

regulatory provisions, individually and 

collectively, are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of Steller sea 

lions or destroy or adversely modify 

designated Steller sea lion critical 

habitat. 

Comment 34: The EIS does not 

comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

because its statement of purpose and 

need impermissibly elevates economic 

considerations and impermissibly 

qualifies NMFS’ conservation 

obligations pursuant to the ESA and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act with a duty to 

minimize costs, where practicable. 

NMFS insists that in meeting ESA 

requirements, it also needs to make sure 

that the measures that it implements 

minimize, to the extent practicable, 

adverse economic impacts to the 

groundfish fisheries. NMFS’ emphasis 

on a balance of meeting the ESA 

obligations while minimizing economic 

impacts to the extent practicable is both 

misplaced and unlawful. 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

the EIS complies with NEPA. The 

purpose and need in the EIS is clear that 

NMFS needs to implement Steller sea 

lion protection measures to meet its 

obligations under the ESA. The ESA is 

clear that economic factors are not 

considered by the consulting agency 

(NMFS PRD) when making a 

determination about the impact of this 

action under a section 7 consultation. 

NMFS SFD consulted on this action and 

NMFS PRD determined that the 

implementation of this action was not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Steller sea lions and was 

not likely to destroy or adversely modify 

designated Steller sea lion critical 

habitat. This determination was made 

without the consideration of economic 

impacts, as discussed in response to 

Comment 33. 

At the same time, NMFS is managing 

fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires NMFS to implement protection 

measures in a manner that minimizes 

adverse economic impacts, to the extent 

practicable, on those affected by the 

restrictions under the Steller sea lion 

protection measures. Under the purpose 

and need for this action, NMFS must 

meet the requirements of the ESA and 

do so in a manner that also meets the 

requirements to manage fisheries to 

minimize adverse economic impacts to 

fishery participants and fishery 

dependent communities, where 

practicable, under the requirements of 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Comment 35: According to the EIS, 

NMFS’ assertion that it must balance 

ESA obligations against the potential 

cost of protection measures to the 

fishery industry is grounded in National 

Standard 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. While National Standard 7 does 

encourage NMFS to minimize costs and 

to avoid unnecessary duplication where 

possible, NMFS may not give equal 

priority to economic concerns under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 

obligations under the ESA because the 

ESA reflects a conscious decision by 

Congress to give endangered species 

priority over the primary missions of 

Federal agencies. 

Despite the proposed rule’s frequent 

and prominent invocation of the need to 

minimize economic impacts, nowhere 

does the proposed rule explain the legal 

or policy genesis of this objective. While 

National Standard 7 does encourage 

NMFS to minimize costs and to avoid 

unnecessary duplication where 

possible, NMFS may not select and 

elevate one Magnuson-Stevens Act 

obligation from among the several 

management obligations imposed by the 

statute. In addition to National Standard 

7, the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes 

substantive obligations to conserve and 

manage fishery resources and to protect 

the marine ecosystem. NMFS cannot 

simply ignore these additional 

Magnuson-Stevens Act obligations or 

prioritize financial benefit for the 

fishing industry. 

Response: Federal fishery 

management in the Aleutian Islands as 

a whole is designed to conserve and 

manage fishery resources, protect the 

marine ecosystem, and promote the 

long-term healthy and stability of the 

fisheries, in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council 

and NMFS have fully considered the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 10 

National Standards in developing these 

regulations (see EIS Section 13.2.4). 

The statement of purpose and need 

specifies the underlying purpose and 

need to which NMFS is responding in 

proposing the alternatives, including the 

proposed action. As explained in the 

EIS, the need to comply with section 7 

of the ESA is the primary driver for 

implementing Steller sea lion protection 

measures. As NMFS has stated 

previously in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and in this preamble, 

NMFS did not consider economic 

factors when determining if the 

proposed action would jeopardize the 

continued existence of Steller sea lions 

or destroy or adversely modify their 

designated critical habitat. See response 

to Comment 33 and the 2014 BiOp for 

additional detail. 

However, after NMFS meets its 

requirements under the ESA, NMFS also 

needs to make sure that the measures 

that it implements minimize, to the 

extent practicable, adverse economic 

impacts to groundfish fishery 

participants under the MagnusonStevens Act. This is not the same as 

giving equal priority to economic 

concerns and ESA obligations. 

This final rule implements an 

extensive suite of Steller sea lion 

protection measures that impose 

economic costs on the fishing industry 

compared to no protection measures. 

This final rule also relaxes some Steller 

sea lion protection measures 

implemented under the 2010 Interim 

Final Rule. These changes to Steller sea 

lion protection measures were 

recommended by the Council based on 

the best scientific information available. 

NMFS conducted a section 7 

consultation on the Council’s 

recommendation under the 

requirements of the ESA (see 2014 

BiOp) and determined that the Council’s 

recommendation was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat. 

Removing or modifying specific 

protection measures and allowing some 

increases in fishing is not the same as 

prioritizing financial benefit for the 

fishing industry. See the preamble to the 

proposed rule for a complete discussion 

of the specific Steller sea lion protection 

measures that are modified or removed 

with this final rule. 

Comment 36: The approach of the 

Council and NMFS was to ensure that 

a preferred alternative met the 

requirements of the ESA before 

considering factors that minimize, to the 

extent practicable, the economic 

impacts on fishery participants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70303 

Response: NMFS agrees and 

acknowledges the comment. 

Comment 37: In formulating and 

selecting NEPA alternatives, NMFS may 

not select and elevate one MagnusonStevens Act obligation from among the 

several management obligations 

imposed by the statute. The MagnusonStevens Act includes substantive 

obligations to conserve and manage 

fishery resources and to protect the 

marine ecosystem. NMFS cannot simply 

ignore these additional MagnusonStevens Act obligations or prioritize 

financial benefit for the fishing industry. 

Response: Federal fishery 

management in the Aleutian Islands as 

a whole is designed to conserve and 

manage fishery resources, protect the 

marine ecosystem, and promote the 

long-term health and stability of the 

fisheries. The Council and NMFS have 

fully considered the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and the National Standards in 

developing this action, its alternatives, 

and the implementing regulations. 

Specifically, EIS Chapter 3 details how 

NMFS considered the effects of the 

alternatives on target species; EIS 

Chapter 4 details how NMFS considered 

the effects of the alternatives on nontarget species; Chapter 5 details how 

NMFS considered the effects of the 

alternatives on marine mammals; 

Chapter 6 details how NMFS considered 

the effects of the alternatives on 

seabirds; and Chapter 7 details how 

NMFS considered the effects of the 

alternatives on the ecosystem. NMFS 

responds to public comments on each of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s 10 National 

Standards in EIS Section 13.2.4. 

This final rule implements an 

extensive suite of Steller sea lion 

protection measures that impose 

economic costs on the fishing industry 

compared to no protection measures. 

This final rule also relaxes some 

restrictions on fishing implemented by 

the 2010 Interim Final Rule, thereby 

relieving some of the costs imposed by 

that action. NMFS has determined that 

these specific restrictions were not 

necessary to insure that groundfish 

fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat 

and therefore could be removed. 

Comment 38: The proposed rule 

reflects a positive first step towards 

establishing an appropriate management 

regime that adequately protects the 

Steller sea lion without imposing 

unnecessary impacts on the Alaskan 

economy, as did the 2010 Interim Final 

Rule. The Steller sea lion population in 

Alaska has increased substantially since 

2000. While populations in some subregions have been slower to respond 

than others, minimal, if any, evidence 

indicates that human activity such as 

fishing and the resulting variations in 

prey availability negatively affect the 

Steller sea lion population. In light of 

this tenuous connection, the harsh 

fishing restrictions imposed by the 2010 

Interim Final Rule were unsupported. In 

contrast, the proposed rule presents a 

more appropriate management decision, 

which would ease many of those 

restrictions and enable increased 

fishing. The proposed rule is both 

consistent with the balanced 

recommendation of the Council and 

supported by adequate analysis of the 

best available science presented in the 

2014 BiOp. 

Response: The Steller sea lion 

protection measures implemented by 

the 2010 Interim Final Rule were based 

on the 2010 FMP BiOp (see ADDRESSES) 

and supported by the best available 

information at that time. 

Comment 39: The proposed rule will 

benefit Alaskans, their communities, the 

commercial fishing fleet, and the 

seafood processing industry by easing 

the severe fishing restrictions set forth 

under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. That 

rule, which resulted in harsh economic 

impacts, resulted from the hypothesis 

that groundfish fisheries are causing 

nutritional stress to the Steller sea lions. 

Subsequent independent, expert peer 

reviewers have questioned the scientific 

basis for and the legitimacy of that 

hypothesis. The State’s interests will be 

best served through implementation of a 

management structure that balances the 

interests of fishing opportunities with 

scientifically defensible protections for 

Steller sea lions. The proposed rule 

would accomplish those objectives. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 40: The proposed rule will 

eliminate several of the most severe 

limitations implemented under the 2010 

Interim Final Rule, including complete 

retention restrictions for Atka mackerel 

and Pacific cod in Area 543, and 

closures for pollock fishing in 

designated critical habitat in Areas 543, 

542, and 541. NMFS would replace 

these complete closures with more 

targeted temporal and spatial 

restrictions and catch limits based on 

available data showing the potential 

overlap between Steller sea lion 

occurrence and the fisheries. The 

proposed rule would retain significant 

restrictions on fishing that are intended 

to prevent any potential effects of 

fisheries on Steller sea lions, regardless 

of whether or not the effects are actually 

occurring. The proposed rule takes a 

very precautionary approach to 

mitigation, aiming for a very high degree 

of protection for Steller sea lions while 

reducing, but not eliminating, impacts 

on fishery-dependent industry and 

communities. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 41: We are encouraged that 

the economic impacts of the 2010 

Interim Final Rule will be significantly 

reduced if the measures in the proposed 

rule are approved. The new Steller sea 

lion protection measures under this 

proposed rule retain a significant 

amount of economic impact to the 

Amendment 80 sector relative to what 

was in place prior to 2011. After 

reviewing the proposed rule and the 

specifics of proposed fishery measures 

and groundfish quotas, we estimate that 

the proposed Steller sea lion measures 

would restore a little less than half of 

the loss to the Amendment 80 sector 

from the 2010 Interim Final Rule. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 42: The proposed rule will 

help to alleviate some of the economic 

impact that the 2010 Interim Final Rule 

has had on the Alaskan economy. The 

proposed rule allows for increased 

flexibility for Alaskan vessels to harvest 

Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock, 

which will in turn support the seafood 

processing industry and the local 

economies of several remote coastal 

communities. The combination of 

reduced closures and increased catch 

limits creates a more effective and 

targeted management system in light of 

the minimal evidence of competition for 

prey between the fisheries and the 

Steller sea lion. Our family business is 

encouraged by opportunities granted 

under the proposed rule that allow 

harvest in Areas 541, 542, and 543 

otherwise not available under the 2010 

Interim Final Rule. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comments on Community Issues 

Comment 43: The measures put in 

place with the 2010 Interim Final Rule 

hit Adak harder than any other 

community. Not only was the 

immediate local impact severe, the 

resulting loss of activity impacted long 

term revenue to Adak attributable to 

those fiscal years. We support the 

proposed regulations because NMFS 

provided a well-written and wellreasoned justification in the 2014 BiOp 

for the determination that the proposed 

action will not result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

The proposed rule reduces the 

negative social and economic impacts to 

the City of Adak and introduces the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

economic certainty to allow for the 

processing plant operators to develop 

plans that will keep the operation, and 

all of its beneficiaries, employed or 

otherwise engaged. Re-opening Atka 

mackerel fishing in limited areas west of 

Adak will provide more opportunity for 

fuel sales and logistical support needs of 

the Atka mackerel catcher/processor 

fleet. This should provide a partial relief 

to the Adak community from the 

impacts of lower fuel sales resulting 

from the 2010 Interim Final Rule. The 

proposed rule would allow pollock 

fishing in portions of the critical habitat. 

This change will allow the pollock 

allocation, granted to the Aleut 

Corporation for the purpose of economic 

development, to be harvested in the 

Aleutian Islands. This will provide the 

opportunity to generate the necessary 

revenues to address the economic 

development needs the community has 

required for more than a decade. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 44: The proposed rule 

better utilizes the available information 

and properly takes into account relevant 

factors to ensure the Steller sea lion 

population avoids jeopardy while 

maintaining viable economic 

opportunities for Aleut Corporation 

shareholders. Aleut Corporation 

shareholders directly rely on Steller sea 

lions for subsistence needs. No single 

group would be harmed greater by the 

lower population trends of the Steller 

sea lions. However, Steller sea lion 

conservation must be balanced with the 

ability for Aleuts to ‘‘call home’’ their 

traditional lands that are economically 

based on commercial fisheries. The 

proposed rule maintains a high level of 

continued protection around critical 

habitat (especially in Areas 543 and 

542) with more restrictive measures the 

farther west one goes. The proposed rule 

also allows for increased fishing 

opportunities, the economic lifeblood of 

the Aleutian region. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 45: Continue to consider 

the economic impacts of decisions on 

local, small-scale, commercial 

fishermen that deliver their catches to 

on-shore processing facilities. The 

catcher/processors play an important 

economic role to the Aleutian Islands 

region, but so do local, family 

businesses who purchase fuel and 

supplies from the community of Adak 

and who deliver catch to in-state 

processing facilities who greatly 

contribute to the lifeblood of economic 

development to rural Alaskan 

communities like Adak. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. NMFS notes that it analyzed 

the impacts to commercial fishermen in 

EIS Chapters 8 and 9, the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

proposed rule, and in the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

final rule. 

Comments on the EIS Alternatives 

Comment 46: The 2014 BiOp is much 

improved and addresses the current 

conduct of the fishery in a 

straightforward manner. The 2014 BiOp 

also suggests that the areas we now 

know are important feeding areas for 

Steller sea lions (inside 10 nm) were 

already mostly closed to Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, and pollock fishing even 

before the 2010 Interim Final Rule was 

implemented. This indicates that (1) 

more of the 2010 Interim Final Rule’s 

restrictions could have been relaxed; (2) 

the alternatives considered by NMFS 

should have been expanded to include 

even more fishing; and (3) the preferred 

alternative is excessively protective. 

More could have been done using the 

new information in the 2014 BiOp to 

reduce restrictions in the regulations 

without impacting Steller sea lions, 

particularly in the absence of direct 

information supporting the theory that 

the groundfish fisheries adversely 

impact Steller sea lions. 

Response: The alternative selected by 

the Council and implemented by this 

rule was selected after considering other 

alternatives that would have allowed 

more fishing opportunities in the 

Aleutian Islands. Although an 

alternative suite of management 

measures could have been selected and 

reviewed under section 7 of the ESA, 

the management measures implemented 

here represent a precautionary approach 

to management in recognition of the 

requirements of the ESA. Additional 

detail on the precautionary nature of 

this action relative to other actions 

considered is provided in the EIS and 

the 2014 BiOp. 

Comment 47: NMFS must select 

Alternative 1 (status quo). Among the 

alternatives evaluated in the EIS, 

Alternative 1 is the only viable one 

consistent with the conservation 

obligations imposed by the ESA and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The current 

protection measures for Steller sea lions 

in the central and western Aleutian 

Islands reflect the minimum steps 

NMFS must take to address ongoing 

declines and to protect Steller sea lions. 

The outcome of the recent litigation 

over the 2010 FMP BiOp and the status 

quo Steller sea protection measures 

compels selection of Alternative 1 to 

maintain current protections. The 2010 

FMP BiOp itself counsels in favor of 

Alternative 1, as any lesser protection 

measures than those established by 2010 

Interim Final Rule likely are unlawful 

under the ESA. The 2010 FMP BiOp’s 

conclusion reflects NMFS’ longstanding and well-documented rationale 

that commercial fisheries adversely 

affect Steller sea lions by competing 

with them for prey. Unless and until 

NMFS can determine that the threats 

that have resulted in ongoing declines 

have abated, the management measures 

described in Alternative 1 represent the 

maximum spatial extent and amount of 

fishing that can be permitted by the 

commercial groundfish fisheries. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. 

Alternative 5 best meets the purpose 

and need for this action. As NMFS has 

noted earlier in response to other 

comments, this action is distinct from 

the action considered in the 2010 BiOp 

and includes new information not 

considered in the 2010 BiOp. NMFS has 

determined that the regulations 

implementing Alternative 5 are in 

compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, as detailed in the EIS and Record 

of Decision. NMFS has determined that 

Alternative 5 is in compliance with the 

ESA, as detailed in the 2014 BiOp. The 

2014 BiOp concludes that the proposed 

action would establish Steller sea lion 

protection measures for the Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea 

that spatially, temporally, and globally 

disperse fishing to mitigate potential 

competition for prey resources between 

Steller sea lions and these fisheries. 

Spatial and temporal fishery dispersion 

is accomplished through closure areas, 

harvest limits, seasonal apportionment 

of harvest limits, and limits on 

participation in a fishery. The proposed 

action would retain or modify existing 

closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal 

apportionment of harvest limits, and 

limits on participation in ways that are 

designed to limit competition for prey 

between fisheries and Steller sea lions. 

Comment 48: If NMFS wants to take 

the precautionary approach that this 

situation really requires, it could simply 

prohibit fishing and monitor to see what 

happens to the Steller sea lion 

population over the next 5 to 10 years. 

Prohibition or severe reduction of 

fishing activity in the Aleutian Islands 

is the one and only tool to slow and 

reverse the Steller sea lion decline. The 

economic impact of prohibiting 

commercial fishing or severely restrict it 

in Areas 543 and 542 would not be 

large, particularly not compared to the 

commercial fisheries prosecuted in the 

Bering Sea. NMFS would rather allow a 

very small fishery with $12 million 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70305 

dollars per year of ex vessel revenue in 

2012 (and perhaps 10 percent of that in 

net profit) to go forward and expand, 

than to take a precautionary approach 

using more current science and reduce 

or eliminate fishing in the area to save 

the last 1,000 western Aleutian Islands 

Steller sea lions. 

Response: NMFS analyzed an 

alternative in the EIS, Alternative 6, that 

would prohibit retention of Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock in 

the Aleutian Islands (Areas 543, 542, 

and 541, and adjacent State of Alaska 

waters). The economic impacts of 

Alternative 6 are detailed in EIS Chapter 

8. The impacts of Alternative 6 on 

Steller sea lions are detailed in EIS 

Chapter 5. NMFS did not choose 

Alternative 6 as the preferred alternative 

because while Alternative 6 would 

provide the most protection to Steller 

sea lion prey species, it is not 

practicable because it would restrict 

fisheries beyond what is necessary to 

meet the ESA requirement to insure the 

fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Steller sea lions 

or destroy or adversely modify 

designated Steller sea lion critical 

habitat. Therefore, Alternative 6 would 

not best meet the purpose and need for 

this action (see Section 1.3 of the EIS). 

Comment 49: NMFS has failed to 

consider reasonable alternatives that 

would provide additional protections 

for Steller sea lions. Instead of 

constructing and evaluating an 

alternative that would provide 

improved protections for Steller sea 

lions, NMFS evaluated closing the 

entire action area to all fishing. 

Alternative 6 is not responsive to the 

concerns raised in comments or 

sufficient to satisfy NMFS’ legal 

obligations. Public comments did not 

propose closing the entire Aleutian 

Islands to all fishing for Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, and pollock. A large closure 

might be a reasonable alternative, but it 

is not a mechanism through which 

NMFS can improve fisheries 

management choices in such a way as 

to better ensure that ecosystem 

considerations, like the needs of 

predators, are taken into consideration 

in setting catch levels. It appears that, 

upon recognizing the glaring deficiency 

in its draft, NMFS decided to select the 

most extreme version of a protective 

alternative rather than giving careful 

thought to a useful evaluation of 

potential changes in management. 

NMFS’ choice is both disappointing and 

insufficient. 

Response: Alternative 6 was designed 

to be responsive to the request in public 

comment on the draft EIS for a more 

protective alternative than Alternative 1. 

Some commenters suggested that NMFS 

consider specific measures that were 

intended to be more protective than the 

management measures implemented 

under Alternative 1, other commenters 

did not provide specific measures. As 

discussed in EIS Section 2.3, after 

careful analysis, NMFS found that many 

of the specific measures suggested in 

public comments were not more 

conservative than Alternative 1. Some of 

the specific measures suggested in 

public comments were already 

incorporated in the alternatives or in 

other ongoing NMFS actions. The 

remaining specific measures proposed 

in public comment were not a 

reasonable alternative to the proposed 

action. The proposed action is a suite of 

Steller sea lion protection measures. 

Steller sea lion protection measures 

control the location, gear type, and 

timing of fishing for Atka mackerel, 

pollock, and Pacific cod in the Aleutian 

Islands. A number of the specific 

measures proposed in public comments 

would not control the location, gear 

type, and timing of fishing for Atka 

mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod in 

the Aleutian Islands (see EIS Section 2.3 

for more detail). And, as explained in 

the response to Comment 59, NMFS is 

already working to ensure that 

ecosystem considerations, like the needs 

of predators, are taken into 

consideration in setting catch levels. 

NMFS carefully designed Alternative 

6 to be a Steller sea lion protection 

measure that is more conservative than 

Alternative 1 and provides for effects 

that can be analyzed and compared to 

the other alternatives. Further, 

Alternative 6 does not close the action 

area to all fishing. As explained in EIS 

Section 2.1.6, Alternative 6 would 

prohibit retention of Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian 

Islands, species identified as important 

prey species for Steller sea lions. 

Vessels would be prohibited from 

directed fishing for these species and 

prohibited from retaining any incidental 

catch of these species while directed 

fishing for other groundfish targets (e.g., 

Pacific ocean perch). 

Comment 50: NMFS’ addition of 

Alternative 6 to the final EIS required a 

supplemental draft EIS because 

Alternative 6 is outside of the range of 

alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS. 

The most environmentally protective 

alternative included in the draft EIS was 

Alternative 1, while Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 

and 5 all allow more fishing. The draft 

EIS specifically stated that alternatives 

more protective than the status quo 

were not analyzed. Alternative 6 was 

specifically added to the final EIS to 

have an alternative that is more 

restrictive of fishing relative to 

Alternative 1 for analysis and 

comparison with the less restrictive 

protection measures under the other 

alternatives. Because Alternative 6 

represents an outlier alternative that 

may not be offered for the first time in 

the EIS, NMFS must refrain from issuing 

a record of decision and issue a 

supplemental draft EIS—subject to 

public notice and comment—instead. In 

addition to Alternative 6, the 

supplemental draft EIS should analyze 

the other feasible conservation 

alternatives identified in public 

comments. 

Response: A supplement to an 

environmental impact statement is 

required ‘‘if: (i) The agency makes 

substantial changes in the proposed 

action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or (ii) There 

are significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts’’ (40 CFR 

1502.9(c)). The addition of Alternative 6 

in the final EIS did not make substantial 

changes in the proposed action that 

were relevant to environmental 

concerns and did not provide significant 

new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns and 

bearing on the proposed action or its 

impacts. Therefore NMFS was not 

required to supplement the draft EIS 

before releasing the final EIS and record 

of decision. Additionally, EIS Section 

2.3 analyzes the conservation 

alternatives identified in public 

comments and explains why they were 

not reasonable. 

Comment 51: NMFS should rescind 

the EIS and prepare a new draft EIS 

that—consistent with NMFS’ 

acknowledged obligations pursuant to 

NEPA, ESA, and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act—includes a lawful statement of 

purpose and need, evaluates a full range 

of alternatives, objectively accounts for 

the full context and severity of the 

potential indirect effects of fishing on 

Steller sea lions, and transparently 

addresses dissenting scientific views 

within NMFS. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS has 

determined that the EIS is consistent 

with NEPA, the ESA, and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The EIS 

includes a lawful statement of purpose 

and need (Section 1.3), evaluates a full 

range of alternatives (Chapter 2), 

objectively accounts for the full context 

and severity of the potential indirect 

effects of fishing on Steller sea lions 

(Chapter 5), and transparently addresses 

dissenting scientific views (Executive 

Summary, Chapter 1, and Chapter 5). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 52: NMFS made a passing 

attempt in the EIS at exploring the 

effects of an alternative harvest strategy 

for Atka mackerel on the Atka mackerel 

population. In concert with explicitly 

considering current predation mortality 

and the projected predation mortality 

from an increasing Steller sea lion 

population, such a model could begin to 

formally address ecosystem concerns. 

NMFS, however, failed to analyze such 

an alternative model structure. 

Response: As explained in EIS 

Section 2.3, evaluations of alternative 

stock assessment model structures and 

alternative harvest strategies do not 

meet the purpose and need for this 

action to implement Steller sea lion 

protection measures. The commenter’s 

recommendation addresses the stock 

assessment process used by the Council 

and NMFS on an annual basis. NMFS 

conducts this work through the annual 

harvest specification process. That 

process is explained in the final rule 

that implements the annual final 2014 

and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR 

12108, March 4, 2014). 

NMFS notes that the process for 

modifying fishery stock assessment 

models for Atka mackerel or any other 

groundfish species does not require 

rulemaking to develop, analyze, or 

implement alternative model structures. 

NMFS continues to develop techniques 

to evaluate the effects of the groundfish 

fisheries and management system on the 

ecosystem. NMFS continues to develop 

state-of-the-art ecosystem models with a 

goal to better evaluate risks to ecosystem 

given current and alternative harvest 

strategies. This scientific work is 

ongoing and, while important to 

groundfish fishery management, it is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking 

process. This action implements 

regulations to restrict vessels from 

fishing in specific areas and at specific 

times to limit competition of prey 

resources with Steller sea lions. 

Comment 53: NMFS should not 

consider only changes to the restrictions 

on fishing times and areas under the 

Steller sea lion protection measures. 

Any of the guidelines that affect 

fisheries that compete with Steller sea 

lions should be subject to review in this 

process. Public comments on the draft 

EIS suggested measures intended to 

provide a starting place from which 

NMFS could construct such an 

alternative. NMFS incorrectly rejected 

any ideas designed to alter or affect the 

harvest strategy in the Aleutian Islands. 

Response: NMFS has considered more 

than changes to the time and area 

measures. NMFS also considered a 

range of harvest limits. This final rule 

implements harvest limits for the Atka 

mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock 

fisheries in addition to the season and 

area closures. 

In EIS Section 2.3, NMFS analyzed 

the ideas suggested in public comments 

to change the harvest strategy in the 

Aleutian Islands. NMFS explains that 

changes to the harvest strategy are 

outside the scope of this action and do 

not meet the purpose and need. The 

revisions to the harvest strategy 

proposed in public comment would not 

provide the necessary protections for 

Steller sea lions. Revisions to the 

harvest strategy recommended by the 

commenter do not meet the purpose and 

need for the action because they do not 

provide additional protections for 

Steller sea lions by reducing potential 

competition between Steller sea lions 

and fishery harvests when and where 

Steller sea lions forage. As explained 

throughout the EIS, the Steller sea lion 

protection measures are a suite of 

measures that regulates fishing activity 

by applying seasons, area closures, and 

harvest limits all with the goal of 

reducing potential fishery competition 

for Steller sea lion prey when and where 

Steller sea lions forage. 

NMFS is continually striving to 

understand the prey requirements of 

Steller sea lions and minimize potential 

competition at the finest scale possible 

with the best available information. 

Further, NMFS does not change stock 

assessment methods or harvest strategy 

through regulations. The Council and 

NMFS are continually assessing the 

scientific methods used for stock 

assessment. NMFS uses the best 

available scientific information to 

improve stock assessment methods and 

evaluate ecosystem considerations. An 

example of this is the decision to 

establish separate ABCs and TACs for 

Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands. Starting in January 

2014, as recommended by the Council 

and based on genetic and other 

morphological evidence, NMFS 

separated Aleutian Islands Pacific cod 

from the Bering Sea Pacific cod stock. 

This results in lower maximum 

potential catches in the Aleutian Islands 

due to the establishment of separate 

OFLs, ABCs, and TACs in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands. With this 

split, the TAC in the Aleutian Islands 

results in a maximum harvest of roughly 

half the previous average harvest rate in 

the Aleutian Islands prior to the split, 

and lower fishing mortality rates, than 

those proposed by the commenter. The 

impacts of the implementation of an 

Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC are 

discussed in EIS Section 3.3, however, 

that action was separate from the action 

implemented in this final rule. 

Comment 54: In Section 2.3.2 of the 

EIS, NMFS incorrectly concludes that 

predator needs are fully incorporated 

into the existing process for setting 

catch levels. This statement is belied by 

jeopardy and adverse modification 

conclusions reached in NMFS’ previous 

biological opinions for Steller sea 

lions—if the needs of Steller sea lions 

were properly accounted for in setting 

catch levels, then that catch would not 

result in jeopardy to the population or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

NMFS’ insistence that the needs of 

predator are incorporated in the harvest 

specifications process is contrary to 

NMFS’ own identified gaps in applying 

ecosystem-based fisheries management. 

There is currently no explicit 

accounting of predation mortality in the 

stock assessments for Atka mackerel, 

Aleutian Islands pollock, or Aleutian 

Islands Pacific cod. The natural 

mortality parameters used in these 

models are constant, or change little 

from year to year. The parameters used 

have little relation to trends in predator 

populations or the actual level of 

predation. In contrast, when predation 

mortality is explicitly considered in 

prey population models, the biological 

reference points generated are generally 

more conservative (i.e., recommend 

higher standing biomass). Moreover, 

development of a process through 

which to account explicitly for predator 

needs was considered in the draft 2010 

FMP BiOp. This draft also called for a 

process to address the dietary needs of 

sea lions and other predators as fishing 

levels are set. Accounting fully for 

predator needs in setting catch levels 

would be an important step toward 

ecosystem-based management, and this 

NEPA process is an appropriate venue 

through which to do so explicitly. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

comment’s characterization of the EIS. 

In Section 2.3.2, NMFS explains that the 

needs of predators are incorporated in 

the harvest specifications process by 

applying natural mortality (including 

predation) for a target species stock 

assessment. Additionally, NMFS 

scientists are evaluating the current 

groundfish management system relative 

to the impact on the ecosystem. NMFS 

scientists have developed multispecies 

models that explicitly incorporate 

predator/prey relationships. Results 

from these models have generally 

concluded that the assumptions used for 

harvest limit recommendations under 

our existing stock assessment process 

are generally conservative. 

NMFS scientists have compared using 

a constant, time-invariant natural 

mortality in stock assessment models to 

using models in which natural mortality 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70307 

includes time- (and age-) varying 

estimates of predation mortality 

(Hollowed, A. B., J. N. Ianelli, and P. A. 

Livingston. 2000. Including predation 

mortality in stock assessments: A case 

study involving Gulf of Alaska walleye 

pollock. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

57, pp. 279–293). These and other 

studies indicate that estimates are 

uncertain and in such cases, using a 

natural mortality that is more 

conservative is more risk averse (Clark, 

W.G. 1999. Effects of an erroneous 

natural mortality rate on a simple agestructured model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 56:1721–1731). 

NMFS’ ongoing scientific work to 

evaluate predator/prey relationships 

and develop multispecies models is 

separate from the rulemaking process 

NMFS conducted for this final rule to 

restrict vessels from fishing in specific 

areas and at specific times to limit 

potential competition with Steller sea 

lions. 

NMFS disagrees with the comment’s 

characterization of the previous 

biological opinions. As explained in the 

EIS and all previous BiOps, NMFS’ 

concern has been the potential 

competition of fisheries with Steller sea 

lions for prey when and where Steller 

sea lions forage. NMFS has imposed 

Steller sea lion protection measures that 

include seasonal restrictions, area 

closures, and catch limits with the goal 

of reducing the potential of fisheries to 

affect Steller sea lion foraging 

opportunities. These are coupled with 

fine-scale fishery evaluations following 

the surgical approach outlined in the 

2008 Recovery Plan, the 2010 FMP 

BiOp, the 2014 BiOp, and the latest 

information regarding sea lion behavior 

and prey resources as described in EIS 

Chapters 3 and 5. Implementing the 

Steller sea lion protection measures that 

regulate fishing activity, as is being 

done by this final rule, is a separate 

action from NMFS’ ongoing scientific 

work to understand and model 

predator/prey relationships and 

evaluate the impacts of fish harvest on 

the ecosystem using the latest scientific 

techniques. 

Comments on Additional Issues 

Comment 55: The Council and NMFS 

have taken significant steps to move 

toward holistic, ecosystem-based 

management. Continue that momentum 

by seeking a durable, consensus-based 

resolution to controversies about the 

interaction between industrial fisheries 

and sea lions. Instead, the Council has 

suggested and NMFS has adopted new 

measures certain to continue the 

controversy and poor management. 

Those choices are disappointing and 

potentially illegal. 

Response: The Council and NMFS 

seek consensus-based resolutions where 

possible, and when such resolutions are 

consistent with legal requirements. 

However, the Council and NMFS 

recognize that controversial issues such 

as the potential interaction between 

commercial fisheries and Steller sea 

lions—a subject of substantial scientific 

debate (see EIS Executive Summary)— 

are rarely resolved by consensus. 

Furthermore, Section 302(e) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that all 

Council decisions be made by majority 

vote, recognizing the fact that not all 

controversies or policy choices can be 

resolved by consensus. 

The fact that NMFS is implementing 

regulations that the commenter 

disagrees with is not a basis to conclude 

that they represent poor management or 

are illegal. 

Comment 56: Please do not allow any 

more fishing that would in any way 

impact Steller sea lions. We humans 

take too much as it is. And we have 

alternatives like a vegan diet, as well as 

eco-tourism to make money off these sea 

lions over and over again by charging 

people to observe them. Keep the 

current fishing restrictions in place, and 

keep in mind that the population of 

these sea lions has not recovered. Show 

some backbone for your convictions and 

do not cave in to fishing interests’ 

pressure. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 57: Closing areas to 

commercial fishing and enforcing these 

closures is the only way to protect 

Steller sea lions from the firearms of 

commercial fishermen. 

Response: NMFS has worked closely 

with the Council and the State of Alaska 

to eliminate illegal shooting of Steller 

sea lions. EIS Section 5.3.4 provides 

additional information on the 

occurrence of illegal shooting. Closing 

commercial fishing is not required to 

eliminate illegal shooting. 

Comment 58: As fishermen in these 

waters, we are appalled that some 

public comments indicate fishermen 

evoke actions intended to harm Steller 

sea lions. At no time do we ever harass 

marine mammals. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 59: Are you telling the 

public to go to an inaccurate site in your 

Federal Register notice to stifle public 

comment? 

Response: NMFS encourages public 

comment. NMFS checked all of the Web 

sites in the Federal Register notice for 

the proposed rule (79 FR 37486) and 

they are all correct, including the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Additionally, the Federal Register 

notice provides instructions for the 

public to mail written comments to the 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS 

Alaska Region. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 305(d) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this final rule is consistent with the 

FMP, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 

Formal consultation under section 7 

of the ESA was completed for this 

action. On April 2, 2014, NMFS issued 

a biological opinion (2014 BiOp) on the 

action. The 2014 BiOp found that the 

implementation of the action and 

supporting research described in 

Chapter 11 of the EIS were not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

endangered Steller sea lions or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of their critical habitat. 

NMFS prepared a final EIS for this 

action. The final EIS was filed with the 

Environmental Protection Agency on 

May 16, 2014. A notice of availability 

was published on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 

29759). In approving this action, NMFS 

issued a Record of Decision identifying 

the selected alternative. A copy of the 

Record of Decision is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, 

NMFS mailed letters to approximately 

660 Alaska tribal governments, Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 

corporations, and related organizations 

providing information about the EIS and 

soliciting consultation and coordination 

with interested tribal governments and 

ANCSA corporations. NMFS received 

no comments on the EIS from tribal 

governments or ANCSA corporation 

representatives. Section 1.7 of the EIS 

provides more detail on NMFS’ 

outreach with Alaska tribal governments 

and ANCSA corporations (see 

ADDRESSES). NMFS received one 

comment on the proposed rule from 

Kawerak, Inc., a regional non-profit 

tribal consortium of the Bering Strait 

Region. NMFS summarized and 

responded to this comment under 

Response to Public Comments, above 

(see Comment 12). NMFS received one 

comment from Aleut Enterprise, LLC, a 

wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleut 

Corporation. NMFS summarized and 

responded to this comment under 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Response to Public Comments, above 

(see Comments 10, 11, 43, and 44). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (FRFA) incorporates the IRFA, 

a summary of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, and NMFS 

responses to those comments, and a 

summary of the analyses completed to 

support the action. 

Section 604 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires that, when an 

agency promulgates a final rule under 

section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 

after being required by that section or 

any other law to publish a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the 

agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 

604 describes the required contents of a 

FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for, 

and objectives of, the rule; (2) a 

statement of the significant issues raised 

by the public comments in response to 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 

a statement of the assessment of the 

agency of such issues, and a statement 

of any changes made in the proposed 

rule as a result of such comments; (3) 

the response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; (4) a description of and an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the rule will apply or an 

explanation of why no such estimate is 

available; (5) a description of the 

projected reporting, recordkeeping and 

other compliance requirements of the 

rule, including an estimate of the classes 

of small entities which will be subject 

to the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(6) a description of the steps the agency 

has taken to minimize the significant 

economic impact on small entities 

consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes, including a 

statement of the factual, policy, and 

legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the final rule and why each 

one of the other significant alternatives 

to the rule considered by the agency 

which affect the impact on small 

entities was rejected. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule 

A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule is contained on 

pages 4 through 10 of the preamble to 

this final rule and is not repeated here. 

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

NMFS published a proposed rule on 

July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37486). An initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

was prepared and summarized in the 

‘‘Classification’’ section of the preamble 

to the proposed rule. The comment 

period closed on August 15, 2014. 

NMFS received 17 letters of public 

comment on the proposed rule. No 

comments were received on the IRFA, 

or on the small entity impacts of this 

rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the SBA did not file any comments on 

the proposed rule. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by the Action 

The small entity estimates reported in 

the IRFA for this action have been 

reviewed for compliance with 

subsequent inflation adjustments to 

SBA thresholds for identifying small 

entities (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). 

The change in thresholds did not lead 

to changes in the small entity estimates. 

NMFS identified three groups of 

entities that would be directly regulated 

by this action: (1) Federally-permitted 

vessels that harvest Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian 

Islands; (2) CDQ groups that receive an 

allocation of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, 

and pollock in the Aleutian Islands; and 

(3) the Aleut Corporation, which 

receives an allocation of pollock in the 

Aleutian Islands. The following 

paragraphs provide estimates of the 

numbers of small entities in these three 

categories that are directly regulated by 

this action. NMFS estimates that 26 

vessels, and the six CDQ groups, are 

directly regulated small entities. 

NMFS identified 51 vessels active in 

directed fisheries for Atka mackerel or 

Pacific cod in 2010 that would have 

been directly regulated by this action. 

Twelve vessels—one catcher/processor 

and 11 catcher vessels—were believed 

to be small entities. One of these vessels 

was a pot catcher/processor, and the 

remaining vessels were trawl catcher 

vessels. The estimated average gross 

revenue from the identified small 

entities, in 2012 (the most recent year 

with complete revenue information), 

was about $1.4 million. Note that firm 

revenues may have been larger, if these 

firms had revenues from sources other 

than the identified vessels. If this was 

the case, average gross revenues for 

small entities may be underestimated or 

the number of small entities might be 

overestimated, and the direction of the 

impact on average revenue for the 

remaining vessels would be unknown. 

The remaining 39 vessels that directly 

targeted Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or 

pollock in the Aleutian Islands in 2010 

were classified as large entities since 

their gross revenues, or their gross 

revenues and those of their affiliated 

entities, exceeded the SBA threshold of 

$20.5 million. The IRFA details the 

process used to determine if a vessel 

was affiliated with other businesses and 

is not repeated here. 

In addition to vessels in directed 

fisheries, NMFS identified 20 vessels 

with incidental catches of Atka 

mackerel or Pacific cod in Area 543 that 

are directly regulated by this action. 

Alternative 1, the status quo, prohibits 

retention of Atka mackerel or Pacific 

cod in Area 543. This comprehensive 

prohibition on retention is relaxed 

under this action, the preferred 

alternative. This prohibition directly 

regulates vessels that would otherwise 

have retained these species in Area 543. 

Thus, the preferred alternative directly 

regulates these vessels in this area. Only 

small numbers of vessels took incidental 

catches of these species in Area 543 

during the baseline years. Over the 

entire baseline period, from 2004 

through 2010, only six separate fixed 

gear catcher/processors or trawl catcher 

vessels were identified with incidental 

catches of Atka mackerel and/or Pacific 

cod from 2004 through 2010. None of 

these is believed to be a small entity 

based on a knowledge of vessel 

affiliations. Fourteen fixed gear catcher 

vessels had incidental catches during 

the same years. All of these are 

considered to be small entities based on 

a review of their gross revenues from all 

sources, and their affiliations. None of 

these vessels fished all years; the 

median number of years fishing in Area 

543 for a vessel in this group during the 

baseline period was two years. The 

aggregate fixed gear catcher vessel 

revenues from Area 543 for these vessels 

are estimated to average about $11,300 

a year in real 2012 dollars, during the 

baseline years (2004 through 2010). 

Average revenues per vessel-year from 

this source are estimated to be about 

$2,200. 

Through the CDQ program, the 

Council and NMFS allocate a portion of 

the BSAI groundfish TACs, and 

apportion prohibited species catch 

limits for Pacific halibut, Pacific 

salmon, and several crab species, to 65 

eligible Western Alaska communities. 

These communities work through six 

non-profit CDQ groups, and are required 

to use the net proceeds from the CDQ 

allocations to start or support activities 

that will result in ongoing, regionally 

based, commercial fishery or related 

businesses. The six CDQ groups receive 

allocations through the specifications 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70309 

process, and are directly regulated by 

this action, but the 65 communities are 

not directly regulated. Because they are 

explicitly defined as small nonprofit 

entities within the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the six CDQ groups are 

considered small entities for purposes of 

this analysis. 

The Aleut Corporation receives all of 

the pollock directed fishing allocation 

in Areas 541, 542, and 543. The Aleut 

Corporation is an ANCSA corporation, 

and is a holding company evaluated 

according to the SBA criteria at 13 CFR 

121.201, using a $7 million gross annual 

receipts threshold for ‘‘Offices of Other 

Holding Companies’’ (NAICS code 

551112). As noted, in Table 8–39 of 

Chapter 8 of the EIS, Aleut Corporation 

revenues exceed this threshold (gross 

revenues were about $159 million in 

2010), and the Aleut Corporation is 

considered to be a large entity for 

purposes of this analysis. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

This action would implement new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements by requiring an increase in 

VMS polling rates for all trawl vessels 

named on a Federal Fishing Permit 

under § 679.4(b) and fishing for 

groundfish that is deducted or required 

to be deducted from a Federal 

groundfish TAC in the Aleutian Islands 

subarea. Some operations may have to 

upgrade existing VMS equipment, and 

all will have to increase transmission 

rates. The owner of the trawl vessel 

must ensure NMFS receives the 

transmission from the VMS unit at least 

10 times per hour. This measure does 

not apply to fixed gear vessels, thus, 

from the discussion above, it may affect 

as many as 11 small trawl catcher vessel 

entities. The costs of this requirement 

are discussed in the Collection-ofInformation section of this final rule, 

and are incorporated by reference here. 

In summary, all trawl catcher vessels 

will incur additional transmission costs 

estimated to be about $400 a year, and 

some may be required to upgrade their 

VMS equipment at a cost estimated to 

be about $3,500. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Final Action That Minimize 

Adverse Impacts on Small Entities 

A FRFA must describe the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency that affect the 

impact on small entities was rejected. 

At its October 2013 meeting, the 

Council adopted Alternative 5. This 

alternative is described in detail in 

Chapter 2 of the EIS. Section 8.13.1 of 

the EIS and Section 1.13.1 of the 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) provide 

an analysis of Alternative 5, while 

Section 8.20 of the EIS, and Section 1.14 

of the RIR compare Alternative 5 to the 

other alternatives for affected fleets. 

This FRFA describes the impacts of 

Alternative 5 relative to other 

alternatives for Atka mackerel, Pacific 

cod, and pollock fisheries. 

The elements of Alternative 5 that 

regulate the Atka mackerel fishery are 

slightly more restrictive than those in 

Alternatives 3 and 4, and are less 

restrictive than those in Alternatives 1, 

2, and 6. 

For the Atka mackerel fishery, 

Alternative 5 is most comparable to 

Alternative 3. Alternatives 3 and 5 are 

the same in Areas 541 and 542. They 

differ in Area 543 in that Alternative 3 

closes certain waters around Buldir 

Island explicitly, while Alternative 5 

does not. However, Alternative 5 sets an 

Area 543 TAC limit equal to 65 percent 

of ABC and that limit is not included in 

Alternative 3. On balance, from 

information during the baseline years, 

Alternative 5 may be somewhat more 

restrictive in Area 543 than Alternative 

3. However, the Alternative 5 TAC limit 

in Area 543 is included to prevent 

excessive harvest of Atka mackerel prey 

resources near Steller sea lion haulouts 

and rookeries. 

For the Atka mackerel fishery, 

Alternative 4 is also less restrictive than 

Alternative 5. However, the Council did 

not recommend and NMFS did not 

select Alternative 4 as its preferred 

alternative. Alternative 4 measures were 

found to result in jeopardy and adverse 

modification of critical habitat for the 

Steller sea lions in the 2010 FMP BiOp. 

Alternative 5 provides more protection 

for Steller sea lions in Area 543, where 

population declines have been larger 

than in Areas 541 and 542. Alternative 

5 was selected over other less restrictive 

alternatives to insure that Atka mackerel 

fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

endangered Steller sea lions or destroy 

or adversely modify their designated 

critical habitat. 

The elements of Alternative 5 that 

regulate the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod 

fishery are slightly more restrictive than 

those in Alternative 4, and are less 

restrictive than those in Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, and 6. For Pacific cod, Alternative 

5 is most closely comparable to 

Alternative 4. However, Alternative 4 

may be less restrictive to small entities, 

since Alternative 5 adds a catch limit for 

Pacific cod in Area 543 that limits area 

catch in proportion to the annual stock 

assessment. Alternative 5 was selected 

over the less restrictive Alternative 4 to 

insure that Pacific cod fisheries in the 

BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of endangered 

Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat. 

NMFS notes that Alternative 5 was 

selected with the clear understanding 

that the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod 

will be managed as a separate stock 

from the Bering Sea Pacific cod, which 

limits the amount of catch from the 

Aleutian Islands relative to the baseline 

harvests analyzed. 

The elements of Alternative 5 that 

regulate the Aleutian Islands pollock 

fishery are slightly more restrictive than 

those in Alternatives 3 and 4 

(Alternatives 3 and 4 are identical in 

their management of the pollock 

fishery). Alternative 5 differs from 

Alternatives 3 and 4 only in that it 

includes management area specific A 

season catch limits, and increases 

critical habitat closures in Area 542. The 

A season catch limits are 5 percent of 

the ABC in Area 543, 15 percent of the 

ABC in Area 542, and 30 percent of the 

ABC in Area 543. Alternative 5 is less 

restrictive than Alternatives 1, 2, and 6. 

The area constraints on pollock 

fishing contained in Alternative 5 are 

not present in Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Thus, those alternatives may be 

somewhat less restrictive than 

Alternative 5. Management area limits 

were introduced to provide control over 

potential harvests in a new pollock 

fishery of unknown potential and, thus, 

to provide more protection for Steller 

sea lions. These restrictions are more 

stringent in the western areas, where 

Steller sea lions are not doing as well as 

in the east (this is consistent with the 

performance standards in the 2010 FMP 

BiOp). The extension of the 542 closure 

areas, west of 178° W longitude, to 20 

nm under Alternative 5, may also 

contribute to making this alternative 

more restrictive than Alternatives 3 and 

4. The extension was also included in 

Alternative 5 to provide more protection 

to Steller sea lion prey species occurring 

near rookeries and haul-outs that have 

experienced relatively greater declines 

in populations. Alternative 5 was 

selected over other less restrictive 

alternatives to insure that pollock 

fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

endangered Steller sea lions or destroy 

or adversely modify their designated 

critical habitat. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

NMFS has posted a small entity 

compliance guide on the NMFS Alaska 

Region Web site (http://alaskafisheries.

noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/sslpm/) to 

satisfy the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

which requires a plain language guide to 

assist small entities in complying with 

this rule. Contact NMFS to request a 

hard copy of the guide (see ADDRESSES). 

Collection-of-Information Requirements 

This rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which have been approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). The 

collections of information are listed 

below by OMB control number. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0206 

The Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) is 

mentioned in the regulatory text of this 

rule, but no changes are made to the 

application form. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0445 

Public reporting burden is estimated 

to average 4 hours per response for the 

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 

operation (includes installation, 

transmission, and maintenance). 

Estimates of burden include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments on these 

or any other aspects of the collection of 

information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES

above, and email to OIRA Submission@

omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202–395–5806. 

This rule increases the number of 

transmissions or VMS polling rate, from 

2 per hour to 10 per hour when a vessel 

is using trawl gear to fish in the 

Aleutian Islands; however, VMS 

transmissions are not counted as 

burden, because they are automatic. 

Some vessels may incur additional 

operating costs due to the increase in 

the VMS polling rate, or they may have 

to replace existing VMS units to meet 

the polling rate and reliability 

requirements. NMFS estimates that the 

increase in the polling rate will increase 

VMS costs by about $400 per year for 

trawl catcher vessels and catcher/

processors operating in the Aleutian 

Islands, except for trawl catcher/

processors targeting Atka mackerel. 

Trawl catcher/processors targeting Atka 

mackerel are expected to incur costs of 

about $1,200 per year; however, these 

are all large entities. Although all 

vessels are required to have an FFP, and 

all vessels fishing in the Aleutian 

Islands are required to have and operate 

VMS, some of the impacted vessels may 

have to replace existing VMS units to 

meet the polling rate and reliability 

requirements. While NMFS is unable to 

estimate the number of entities that may 

be required to replace VMS units to 

provide the required unit reliability, the 

estimated cost for an additional unit is 

about $3,500 (including installation). 

Estimates of burden include the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments on these 

or any other aspects of the collection of 

information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES

above, and email to OIRA Submission@

omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202–395–5806. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

All currently approved NOAA 

collections of information may be 

viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/

services_programs/prasubs.html. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 18, 2014. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 

902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows: 

Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph 

(b), under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’: 

■ a. Add an entry in alphanumeric order 

for ‘‘679.22(a)’’; and 

■ b. Revise the entry for 679.28(f). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section 

where the information 

collection requirement 

is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648–) 

* * * * * 

50 CFR: 

* * * * * 

679.22(a) ................... –0206 

* * * * * 

679.28(f) .................... –0206, –0445 

* * * * * 

Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et 

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447. 

■ 4. In § 679.7: 

■ a. Remove paragraphs (a)(19), (a)(23), 

and (a)(25); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(24) as 

paragraph (a)(19); and 

■ c. Revise the newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(19). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

(a) * * * 

(19) Atka mackerel directed fishing in 

the Bering Sea reporting areas. Conduct 

directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the 

Bering Sea subarea and adjacent State 

waters with a vessel required to be 

Federally permitted. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 679.20: 

■ a. Add paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(B)(6), and 

(a)(7)(v); 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(C); and 

■ c. Add paragraphs (a)(8)(ii)(D) and 

(e)(3)(v). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.20 General limitations. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(6) Pollock harvest limitations. 

Pollock harvests during the A season as 

defined at § 679.23(e)(2) are limited to: 

(i) No more than 5 percent of the 

Aleutian Islands pollock ABC in Area 

543. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70311 

(ii) No more than 15 percent of the 

Aleutian Islands pollock ABC in Area 

542. 

(iii) No more than 30 percent of the 

Aleutian Islands pollock ABC in Area 

541. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(v) ITAC allocation to the Amendment 

80 sector. A percentage of the Pacific 

cod TAC, after subtraction of the CDQ 

reserve, will be allocated as ITAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector as described in 

Table 33 to this part. Separate 

allocations for each Amendment 80 

cooperative and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery are described 

under § 679.91. The allocation of Pacific 

cod to the Amendment 80 sector will be 

further divided into seasonal 

apportionments as described under 

paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(A) Use of seasonal apportionments 

by Amendment 80 cooperatives. (1) The 

amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ 

permit that is assigned for use in the A 

season may be used in the B or C 

season. 

(2) The amount of Pacific cod that is 

listed on a CQ permit that is assigned 

for use in the B season may not be used 

in the A season. 

(3) The amount of Pacific cod listed 

on a CQ permit that is assigned for use 

in the C season may not be used in the 

A or B seasons. 

(B) Harvest of seasonal 

apportionments in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. (1) Pacific cod 

ITAC assigned for harvest by the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 

the A season may be harvested in the B 

or C seasons. 

(2) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for 

harvest by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the B season may not 

be harvested in the A season. 

(3) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for 

harvest by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the C season may not 

be harvested in the A or B seasons. 

(vi) ITAC rollover to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. If during a fishing year, 

the Regional Administrator determines 

that a portion of the Pacific cod TAC is 

unlikely to be harvested and is made 

available for reallocation to the 

Amendment 80 sector according to the 

provisions under paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of 

this section, the Regional Administrator 

may issue inseason notification in the 

Federal Register that reallocates that 

remaining amount of Pacific cod to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, according 

to the procedures established under 

§ 679.91(f). 

(vii) Pacific cod harvest limitations. 

During the annual harvest specifications 

process, the Regional Administrator will 

establish an Area 543 Pacific cod 

harvest limit based on Pacific cod 

abundance in Area 543 as determined 

by the annual stock assessment process. 

NMFS will first subtract the State GHL 

Pacific cod amount from the AI Pacific 

cod ABC. Then NMFS will determine 

the harvest limit in Area 543 by 

multiplying the percentage of Pacific 

cod estimated in Area 543 by the 

remaining ABC for AI Pacific cod. 

(8) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Atka mackerel harvest limitations. 

(1) Atka mackerel catch within waters 0 

nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites 

listed in Table 6 to this part and located 

west of 178° W longitude is: 

(i) Limited to no more than 60 percent 

of the annual TACs in Areas 542 and 

543; and 

(ii) Equally divided between the A 

and B seasons as defined at 

§ 679.23(e)(3). 

(2) The annual TAC in Area 543 will 

be no more than 65 percent of the ABC 

in Area 543. 

(D) Any unharvested Atka mackerel A 

season allowance that is added to the B 

season is prohibited from being 

harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm 

of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 

6 to this part and located in Areas 541, 

542, and 543. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) For all vessels not listed in subpart 

F of this section, the maximum 

retainable amount for Atka mackerel 

harvested in the Bering Sea subarea is 

calculated at the end of each offload and 

is based on the basis species harvested 

since the previous offload. For purposes 

of this paragraph, offload means the 

removal of any fish or fish product from 

the vessel that harvested the fish or fish 

product to any other vessel or to shore. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 679.22, revise paragraphs (a)(7) 

heading, (a)(7)(vi), (a)(8) heading, and 

(a)(8)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 679.22 Closures. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Steller sea lion protection areas, 

Bering Sea reporting areas. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Atka mackerel closures. Directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel by vessels 

named on a Federal Fisheries Permit 

under § 679.4(b) and using trawl gear is 

prohibited within the Bering Sea 

reporting areas. 

* * * * * 

(8) Steller sea lion protection areas, 

Aleutian Islands reporting areas. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Pacific cod closures. Directed 

fishing for Pacific cod required to be 

deducted from the Federal TAC 

specified at § 679.20 by vessels named 

on a Federal Fisheries Permit under 

§ 679.4(b) using trawl, hook-and-line, or 

pot gear is prohibited within Pacific cod 

no-fishing zones around selected sites. 

These sites and gear types are described 

in Table 5 of this part and its footnotes 

and are identified by ‘‘AI’’ in column 2. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 679.23, revise paragraphs 

(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(5)(ii)(C) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.23 Seasons. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) B season. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., 

June 10 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., 

December 31. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) C season— (1) Catcher vessels and 

AFA catcher/processors. From 1200 

hours, A.l.t., June 10 through 1200 

hours, A.l.t., November 1. 

(2) Amendment 80 and CDQ. From 

1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10 through 1200 

hours, A.l.t., December 31. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 679.28, revise paragraph 

(f)(3)(i) and add paragraph (f)(7) to read 

as follows: 

§ 679.28 Equipment and operational 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Obtain a NMFS-approved VMS 

transmitter with transmission 

capabilities required for the areas of 

vessel operation and have it installed 

onboard your vessel in accordance with 

the instructions provided by NMFS. 

You may get a copy of the VMS 

installation and operation instructions 

from the Regional Administrator upon 

request. 

* * * * * 

(7) What additional requirements 

does an operator have if trawling in the 

Aleutian Islands reporting areas? 

Operators of vessels named on a Federal 

Fisheries Permit under § 679.4(b), and 

that are using trawl gear in the Aleutian 

Islands reporting areas to harvest 

groundfish that is required to be 

deducted from a Federal TAC specified 

at § 679.20, must set their VMS to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
70312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

transmit the vessel location at least 10 

times per hour. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Revise Table 4 to Part 679 to read 

as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ER25NO14.000</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Table 4 to Part 679-Steller Sea Lion Protection Areas Pollock Fisheries Restrictions 

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

St. Lawrence LIS Punuk I. Bering Sea 63° 04.00 N 168° 51.00 w 

St. Lawrence I./SW Cape Bering Sea 63° 18.00 N 171° 26.00W 

Hall I. Bering Sea 60° 37.00 N 173° oo.oow 

St. Paul I./Sea Lion Rock Bering Sea 57o 06.00 N 170° 17.50 w 

St. Paul 1./NE Pt. Bering Sea 57° 15.00 N 170° 06.50 w 

Walrus I. (Pribilofs) Bering Sea 57° 11.00 N 169° 56.00W 

St. George 1./Dalnoi Pt. Bering Sea 56° 36.00 N 169° 46.00W 

St. George LIS Rookery Bering Sea 56° 33.50 N 169° 40.00W 

Cape Newenham Bering Sea 58° 39.00 N 162° 10.50 w 

Round (Walrus Islands) Bering Sea 58° 36.00 N 159° 58.00 w 

Attu I./Cape Wrangell Aleutian I. 52° 54.60 N 172° 27.90 E 52° 55.40 N 172° 

Agattu I./Gillon Pt. Aleutian I. 52° 24.13 N 173° 21.31 E 

Attu I./Chirikof Pt. 13 Aleutian I. 52° 49.75 N 173° 26.00 E 

Agattu I./Cape Sabak Aleutian I. 52° 22.50N 173° 43.30 E 52° 21.80 N 173° 

Alaid 1. 13 Aleutian I. 52° 46.50 N 173° 51.50 E 52° 45.00 N 173° 

Shemya 1. 13 Aleutian I. 52° 44.00N 174° 08.70 E 

Buldir I. Aleutian I. 52° 20.25 N 175° 54.03 E 52° 20.38 N 175° 

ER25NO14.001</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Kiska I./Cape St. Stephen Aleutian I. 51° 52.50N 177° 12.70 E 51° 53.50 N 177° 

Kiska 1./Sobaka & Vega Aleutian I. 51° 49.50 N 177° 19.00 E 51° 48.50 N 177° 

Kiska I./Lief Cove Aleutian I. 51°57.16N 177° 20.41 E 51° 57.24 N 177° 

Kiska I./Sirius Pt. Aleutian I. 52° 08.50N 177° 36.50 E 

Tanadak I. (Kiska)14 Aleutian I. 51° 56.80 N 177° 46.80 E 

Segula 1. 14 Aleutian I. 51° 59.90 N 178° 05.80 E 52° 03.06 N 178° 

Ayugadak Point14 Aleutian I. 51° 45.36 N 178° 24.30 E 

Hawadax I.!Krysi Pt. 14 Aleutian I. 51° 49.98 N 178° 12.35 E Little Sitkin 1. 14 Aleutian I. 51° 59.30 N 178° 29.80 E 

Amchitka I./Column Rocks Aleutian I. 51° 32.32 N 178° 49.28 E Amchitka I./East Cape Aleutian I. 51 o 22.26 N 179° 27.93 E 51° 22.00 N 179° 

Amchitka I./Cape Ivakin Aleutian I. 51° 24.46 N 179° 24.21 E 

Semisopochnoi/Petrel Pt. Aleutian I. 52° 01.40 N 179° 36.90 E 52° 01.50 N 179° Semisopochnoi 1./Pochnoi Pt. Aleutian I. 51° 57.30 N 179° 46.00 E 

Amatignak I. Nitrof Pt. Aleutian I. 51 o 13.00 N 179° 07.80 w 

Unalga & Dinkum Rocks Aleutian I. 51° 33.67 N 179° 04.25 w 51° 35.09 N 179° 

Ulak 1./Hasgox Pt. Aleutian I. 51°18.90N 178° 58.90 w 51° 18.70 N 178° 

Kavalga I. Aleutian I. 51° 34.50 N 178° 51.73 w 51° 34.50 N 178° 

ER25NO14.002</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Tag I. Aleutian I. 51° 33.50 N 178° 34.50 w 

Ugidak I. Aleutian I. 51° 34.95 N 178° 30.45 w 

GrampRock Aleutian I. 51° 28.87 N 178° 20.58 w 

Tanaga I./Bumpy Pt. Aleutian I. 51° 55.00 N 177° 58.50 w 51° 55.00 N 177° 

Bobrofl. Aleutian I. 51° 54.00 N 177° 27.00W Kanaga I./Ship Rock15 Aleutian I. 51 o 46.70 N 177° 20.72 w 

Kanaga I./North Cape Aleutian I. 51° 56.50N 177° 09.00W 

Adak I. Aleutian I. 51° 35.50N 176° 57.10 w 51 o 37.40 N 176° 

Little Tanaga Strait Aleutian I. 51 o 49.09 N 176° 13.90 w 

Great Sitkin I. Aleutian I. 52° 06.00N 176° 10.50 w 52° 06.60 N 176° 

Anagaksik I. Aleutian I. 51° 50.86 N 175° 53.00 w 

Kasatochi I. Aleutian I. 52° 11.11 N 175° 31.00 w 

Atka I./North Cape Aleutian I. 52° 24.20 N 174° 17.80W 

Amlia I./Sviech. Harbor11 Aleutian I. 52° 01.80N 173° 23.90 w 

Sagigik I. 11 Aleutian I. 52° 00.50 N 173° 09.30 w 

Amlia I./East 11 Aleutian I. 52° 05.70N 172° 59.00W 52° 05.75 N 172° 

Tanadak I. (Amlia11) Aleutian I. 52° 04.20N 172° 57.60 w 

Agligadak 1.11 Aleutian I. 52° 06.09N 172° 54.23 w 

-- ---

ER25NO14.003</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Seguam I./Saddleridge Pt. 11 Aleutian I. 52° 21.05 N 172° 34.40W 52° 21.02 N 172° Seguam I./Finch Pt. Aleutian I. 52° 23.40N 172° 27.70W 52° 23.25 N 172° 

Seguam I./South Side Aleutian I. 52° 21.60 N 172° 19.30W 52° 15.55 N 172° 

Amukta I. & Rocks Aleutian I. 52° 27.25 N 171° 17.90W 

Chagu1akl. Aleutian I. 52° 34.00 N 171° 10.50W 

Yunaskal. Aleutian I. 52° 41.40 N 170° 36.35 w 

Uliaga3 Bering Sea 53o 04.00 N 169° 47.00W 53° 05.00 N 169° 

Chuginadak Gulf of Alaska 52° 46.70N 169° 41.90 w 

Kagamil3 Bering Sea 53° 02.10 N 169° 41.00 w 

Samalga Gulf of Alaska 52° 46.00 N 169° 15.00 w 

Adugakl. 3 Bering Sea 52° 54.70 N 169° 10.50 w 

Umnak I./Cape Aslik3 Bering Sea 53o 25.00 N 168° 24.50 w 

Ogchul I. Gulf of Alaska 52° 59.71 N 168° 24.24 w 

Bogoslof I./Fire I. 3 Bering Sea 53o 55.69 N 168° 02.05 w 

Polivnoi Rock Gulf of Alaska 53° 15.96 N 167° 57.99 w 

Emerald I. Gulf of Alaska 53° 17.50 N 167° 51.50 w 

Unalaska/Cape Izigan Gulf of Alaska 53o 13.64 N 167° 39.37 w 

Unalaska/Bishop Pt.9 Bering Sea 53o 58.40 N 166° 57.50 w 

ER25NO14.004</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Akutan I./Reef-lava9 Bering Sea 54o 08.10 N 166° 06.19 w 54o 09.10 N 166° 

Unalaska I./Cape Sedanka6 Gulf of Alaska 53° 50.50 N 166° 05.00W 

Old Man Rocks6 Gulf of Alaska 53° 52.20 N 166° 04.90W 

Akutan I./Cape Morgan6 Gulf of Alaska 54° 03.39 N 165° 59.65 w 54° 03.70 N 166° 

Akun I./Billings Head9 Bering Sea 54° 17.62 N 165° 32.06 w 54o 17.57N 165° 

Rootok6 Gulf of Alaska 54o 03.90 N 165° 31.90 w 54o 02.90N 165° 

Tanginak I.6 Gulf of Alaska 54o 12.00 N 165° 19.40 w 

Tigalda!Rocks NE6 Gulf of Alaska 54° 09.60 N 164° 59.00W 54° 09.12 N 164° 

Unimak/Cape Sarichefl Bering Sea 54° 34.30 N 164° 56.80 w 

Aiktak6 Gulf of Alaska 54° 10.99 N 164° 51.15 w 

Ugamak I.6 Gulf of Alaska 54° 13.50 N 164° 47.50W 54o 12.80 N 164° 

Round (GOA)6 Gulf of Alaska 54o 12.05 N 164° 46.60W 

Sea Lion Rock (Amak)9 Bering Sea 55° 27.82 N 163° 12.10 w 

Amak I. And rocks9 Bering Sea 55o 24.20N 163° 09.60 w 55° 26.15 N 163° 

Bird I. Gulf of Alaska 54° 40.00N 163° 17.2 w 

Caton I. Gulf of Alaska 54° 22.70N 162° 21.30 w 

South Rocks Gulf of Alaska 54o 18.14 N 162° 41.3 w 

Clubbing Rocks (S) Gulf of Alaska 54° 41.98 N 162° 26.7 w 

ER25NO14.005</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Clubbing Rocks (N) Gulf of Alaska 54o 42.75 N 162° 26.7 w 

Pinnacle Rock Gulf of Alaska 54° 46.06N 161° 45.85 w 

Sushilnoi Rocks Gulf of Alaska 54° 49.30 N 161° 42.73 w 

Olga Rocks Gulf of Alaska 55° 00.45 N 161° 29.81 w 54° 59.09 N 161° 

Jude I. Gulf of Alaska 55o 15.75 N 161° 06.27 w 

Sea Lion Rocks (Shumagins) Gulf of Alaska 55o 04.70 N 160° 31.04 w 

Nagai I./Mountain Pt. Gulf of Alaska 54o 54.20N 160° 15.40 w 54° 56.00 N 160° 

The Whaleback Gulf of Alaska 55° 16.82 N 160° 05.04 w 

Chemabura I. Gulf of Alaska 54° 45.18 N 159° 32.99 w 54° 45.87 N 159° 

Castle Rock Gulf of Alaska 55° 16.47 N 159° 29.77 w 

Atkins I. Gulf of Alaska 55° 03.20 N 159°17.40W 

Spitz I. Gulf of Alaska 55o 46.60 N 158° 53.90 w 

Mitrofania Gulf of Alaska 55° 50.20 N 158° 41.90 w 

K.ak Gulf of Alaska 56° 17.30 N 157° 50.10 w 

Lighthouse Rocks Gulf of Alaska 55° 46.79 N 157° 24.89 w 

Sutwik I. Gulf of Alaska 56° 31.05 N 157° 20.47 w 56° 32.00 N 157° 

Chowiet I. Gulf of Alaska 56° 00.54 N 156° 41.42 w 55o 00.30 N 156° 

Nagai Rocks Gulf of Alaska 55° 49.80 N 155° 47.50 w 

ER25NO14.006</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Chirikofl. Gulf of Alaska 55o 46.50 N 155° 39.50 w 55o 46.44 N 155° 

PualeBay Gulf of Alaska 57° 40.60 N 155° 23.10 w 

Kodiak/Cape Ikolik Gulf of Alaska 57° 17.20N 154°47.50W 

Takli I. Gulf of Alaska 58° 01.75 N 154° 31.25 w 

Cape Kuliak Gulf of Alaska 58° 08.00 N 154° 12.50 w Cape Gull Gulf of Alaska 58° 11.50 N 154° 09.60W 58° 12.50 N 154° 

Kodiak/Cape Ugat Gulf of Alaska 57o 52.41 N 153° 50.97 w 

Sitkinak/Cape Sitkinak Gulf of Alaska 56° 34.30 N 153° 50.96 w ShakunRock Gulf of Alaska 58° 32.80 N 153° 41.50 w 

Twoheaded I. Gulf of Alaska 56° 54.50 N 153° 32.75 w 56° 53.90 N 153° 

Cape Douglas (Shaw 1.) 12 Gulf of Alaska 59° 00.00 N 153° 22.50 w 

Kodiak/Cape Barnabas Gulf of Alaska 57o 10.20 N 152° 53.05 w 

Kodiak/Gull Point4 Gulf of Alaska 57° 21.45 N 152° 36.30 w 

Latax Rocks Gulf of Alaska 58° 40.10 N 152° 31.30 w 

Ushagat 1./SW Gulf of Alaska 58° 54.75 N 152° 22.20 w Ugakl.4 Gulf of Alaska 57° 23.60 N 152° 17.50 w 57° 21.90 N 152° 

Sea Otter I. Gulf of Alaska 58° 31.15 N 152° 13.30 w 

Long I. Gulf of Alaska 57° 46.82 N 152° 12.90 w 

ER25NO14.007</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Sud I. Gulf of Alaska 58° 54.00 N 152° 12.50 w 

Kodiak/Cape Chiniak Gulf of Alaska 57° 37.90 N 152° 08.25 w 

Sugarloaf I. Gulf of Alaska 58° 53.25 N 152° 02.40 w 

Sea Lion Rocks (Marmot) Gulf of Alaska 58° 20.53 N 151° 48.83 w 

Marmot 1.5 Gulf of Alaska 58° 13.65 N 151° 47.75 w 58° 09.90 N 151° 

Nagahut Rocks Gulf of Alaska 59o 06.00 N 151° 46.30 w 

Perl Gulf of Alaska 59o 05.75 N 151° 39.75 w 

Gore Point Gulf of Alaska 59° 12.00 N 150° 58.00 w Outer (Pye) I. Gulf of Alaska 59° 20.50 N 150° 23.00 w 59° 21.00 N 150° 

Steep Point Gulf of Alaska 59° 29.05 N 150° 15.40 w 

Seal Rocks (Kenai) Gulf of Alaska 59° 31.20 N 149° 37.50 w 

Chiswell Islands Gulf of Alaska 59o 36.00 N 149° 34.00W 

Rugged Island Gulf of Alaska 59o 50.00 N 149° 23.10 w 59o 51.00 N 149° Point Elrington7• 10 Gulf of Alaska 59o 56.00 N 148° 15.20 w PerryC Gulf of Alaska 60° 44.00N 147° 54.60W 

The Needle7 Gulf of Alaska 60° 06.64 N 147°36.17W 

Point Eleanor7 Gulf of Alaska 60° 35.00 N 147° 34.00W 

Wooded I. (Fish I.) Gulf of Alaska 59° 52.90 N 147° 20.65 w 

ER25NO14.008</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area16 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Lon

Glacier Island7 Gulf of Alaska 60° 51.30 N 147° 14.50 w 

Seal Rocks (Cordova)10 Gulf of Alaska 60° 09.78 N 146° 50.30 w 

Cape Hinchinbrook10 Gulf of Alaska 60° 14.00 N 146° 38.50 w 

Middleton I. Gulf of Alaska 59o 28.30 N 146° 18.80 w 

Hook Point10 Gulf of Alaska 60° 20.00N 146° 15.60 w 

Cape St. Elias Gulf of Alaska 59° 47.50 N 144° 36.20 w 

1 Where two sets of coordinates are given, the baseline extends in a clockwise direction from the first set of geographic c

shoreline at mean lower-low water to the second set of coordinates. Where only one set of coordinates is listed, that loca

2 Closures as stated in 50 CFR 679.22(a)(7)(iv), (a)(8)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii). 

3 This site lies within the Bogoslof area (BA). The BA consists of all waters of Area 518 as described in Figure 1 of this 

line connecting 55° 00' N/170° 00' W, and 55° 00' N/168° 11 '4. 75" W. 

4 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for pollock with trawl gear between 0 nm a

20 through May 31. Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for pollock with trawl g

nm from August 25 through November 1. 

5 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for pollock with trawl gear between 0 nm a

20 through May 31. Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for pollock with trawl g

nm from August 25 to November 1. 

6 Restriction area includes only waters of the Gulf of Alaska Area. 

7 Contact the Alaska Department ofFish and Game for fishery restrictions at these sites. 

8 No-fishing zones for vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are the waters between 0 nm and the nm specified in colum

each site and within the BA. 

9 This site is located in the Bering Sea Pollock Restriction Area, where directed fishing for pollock is prohibited during th

consists of all waters of the Bering Sea south of a line connecting the points 

55° 46'30" N lat. /163° 00'00" W long., 54° 42'9" N lat./165° 08'00" W long., 
■ 10. Revise Table 5 to Part 679 to read 

as follows: 


ER25NO14.009</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

54° 26'30" N lat./165° 40'00" long., 

54° 18'40" N lat./166° 12'00" W long., and 

54° 8'50" N lat./167° 0'00" W long. 

10 The 20 run closure around this site is effective in Federal waters outside of State of Alaska waters of Prince William S

11 Some or all of the restricted area is located in the Seguam Foraging area (SFA), which is closed to all gear types. The 

waters within the area between 52° N lat. and 53° N lat. and between 173° 30' W long. and 172° 30' W long. 

12 The 3 nm trawl closure around Puale Bay and the 20 run trawl closure around Cape Douglas/Shaw I. are effective Jan

The 10 run trawl closure around Puale Bay and the 10 run trawl closure around Cape Douglas/Shaw I. are effective Aug

1. 

13 Critical habitat at this site contains the Shemya Open Area, which is open to directed fishing for pollock outside of 3 r

open area consists of all waters located within an area bounded by straight lines drawn by connecting the following poin

52° 45.0' N lat./174° 42.0' E long. 

52° 36.0' N lat./174° 42.0' E long. 52° 52.0' N lat./173° 30.0' E long. 53° 0.0' N lat./173° 30.0' E long. 52° 45.0' N lat. /174° 42.0' E long. 

14 Critical habitat at this site contains the Rat Islands Open Area, which is open to directed fishing for pollock outside o

Segula 1., and Hawadax I./Krysi Pt. and outside of 10 run from Little Sitkin I. and Ayugadak Pt. This open area consists 

within an area bounded by straight lines drawn by connecting the following points: 

51° 56.0' N lat. I 178° 17 .0' E long. 

51 o 52.0' N lat. I 178° 12.0' E long. 51 o 56.0' N lat. I 177° 51.5' E long. 

52° 3 .0' N lat. I 177° 51.0' E long. 

51° 56.0' N lat. I 178° 17.0' E long. 

15 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for pollock within 10 run ofKanaga I./Sh

north of 51 o 47.5' N, 177° 37.0' W to 51 o 47.5' N, 177° 12.0' W where those vessels are prohibited from directed fishing 

to 3 run from this site. 

16 Unless otherwise noted, closures apply to reporting areas of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska, inc

waters. 

ER25NO14.010</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Table 5 to Part 679-Steller Sea Lion Protection Areas Pacific Cod Fisheries Restrictions 

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gea?·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

St. Lawrence I./S Punuk I. BS 63° 04.00N 168° 51.00 w 20 St. Lawrence I./SW Cape BS 63° 18.00 N 171° 26.00W 20 

Hall I. BS 60° 37.00N 173° 00.00 w 20 

St. Paul I./Sea Lion Rock BS 57o 06.00 N 170° 17.50W 3 St. Paul 1./NE Pt. BS 57° 15.00 N 170° 06.50 w 3 

W alms I. (Pribilofs) BS 57° 11.00 N 169° 56.00 w 10 

St. George I./Dalnoi Pt. BS 56° 36.00 N 169° 46.00W 3 St. George LIS. Rookery BS 56° 33.50 N 169° 40.00W 3 

Cape Newenham BS 58° 39.00 N 162° 10.50 w 20 

Round (Walrus Islands) BS 58° 36.00N 159° 58.00 w 20 

Attu I./Cape Wrangell11 AI 52° 54.60 N 172° 27.90 E 52° 55.40 N 172° 27.20 E 10 

Agattu I./Gillon Pt. 11 AI 52° 24.13 N 173° 21.31 E 10 Attu I./ChirikofPt. 11 AI 52° 49.75 N 173° 26.00 E 3 

ER25NO14.011</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Agattu L/Cape Sabak11 AI 52° 22,50 N 173° 4330 E 52° 2L80N 173° 4L40 E 10 

AlaidL11 AI 52° 46.50 N 173°5L50E 52° 45.00N 173° 56.50 E 3 

ShemyaL11 AI 52° 44.00N 174°08.70E 3 

Buldir IY AI 52° 20.25 N 175° 54.03 E 52 2038 N 175° 53.85 E 10 

Kiska L/Cape St. Stephen AI 51° 52.50N 177° 12.70 E 51° 53.50N 177° 12.00 E 10 

Kiska L Sobaka & Vega AI 51 o 49.50 N 177° 19.00E 51 o 48.50 N 177° 20.50 E 3 

Kiska L/Lief Cove AI 5l 0 57.16N 177° 20.41 E 5l 0 57.24N 177° 20.53 E 10 

Kiska L/Sirius Pt. AI 52° 08,50 N 177° 36.50 E 3 

Tanadak L (Kiska) AI 51 o 56.80 N 177° 46.80 E 3 

Segu1aL AI 51°59.90N 178° 05.80 E 52° 03.06 N 178° 08.80 E 3 

Ayugadak Point AI 51 o 45.36 N 178° 24,30 E 10 

Hawadax I.IK.rysi Pt. AI 51°49.98N 178° 1235 E 3 

Little Sitkin I. AI 51° 59.30N 178° 29.80 E 3 

Amchitka L/Column AI 51 o 32.32 N 178° 49.28 E 10 

Amchitka L/East Cape AI 51 o 22.26 N 179° 27.93 E 51 o 22.00 N 179° 27.00 E 10 

ER25NO14.012</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Amchitka IJCape Ivakin AI 51° 24A6N 179° 2421 E 3 

Semisopochnoi/Petrel Pt. AI 52° OL40N 179° 36.90 E 52° Ol.50N 179° 39.00 E 10 

Semisopochnoi 1./Pochnoi Pt. AI 51° 57.30 N 179° 46.00 E 10 

Amatignak I./NitrofPt. AI 51 o 13.00 N 179° 07.80 w 3 

Unalga & Dinkum Rocks AI 51° 33.67N 179° 04.25 w 51° 35.09 N 179° 03.66 w 3 

Ulak 1./Hasgox Pt. AI 51°18.90N 178° 58.90 w 51° 18.70N 178° 59.60 w 10 

Kavalga I. AI 51° 34.50N 178° 5L73 W 51° 34.50N 178° 49.50 w 3 

Tag I. AI 51 o 33.50 N 178° 34.50 w 10 

Ugidaki. AI 51° 34.95 N 178° 30,45 w 3 

GrampRock AI 51° 28.87 N 178° 20.58 w 10 

Tanaga I./Bumpy Pt. AI 51° 55.00 N 177° 58.50 w 51° 55.00 N l77°57.10W 3 

Bobrofl. AI 51 o 54.00 N 177° 27.00 w 3 

Kanaga IJShip Rock AI 51° 46.70 N 177° 20.72 w 10 

Kanaga LIN orth Cape AI 51 o 56.50 N 177° 09.00 w 3 

Adak I. AI 51° 35.50 N 176° 57.10 w 51° 37.40N 176° 59.60 w 10 

ER25NO14.013</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Little Tanaga Strait AI 51°49.09N 176°1HOW 3 

Great Sitkin L AI 52° 06.00 N 176° 10.50 w 52° 06.60N 176° 07.00 w 3 

Anagaksik I. AI 51°50.86N 175° 53.00 w 3 

Kasatochi L AI 52° 11.11 N 175° 31.00 w 10 

Atka LIN. Cape AI 52° 24.20N 174° 17.80W 3 Amlia I./Sviech. Harbor4• AI 52° 01.80 N 173° 23.90 w 3 

Sagigik 

L4' AI 52° 00.50 N 173° 09.30 w 3 

Amlia I./East4• 13 AI 52° 05.70 N 172° 59.00 w 52° 05.75 N 172° 57.50 w 3 

Tanadak L (Amlia)4' 13 AI 52° 04.20N 172° 57.60 w 3 

Agligadak 

L4• 13 AI 52° 06.09 N 172° 54.23 w 20 

Seguam 1./Saddleridge Pt.4' 13 AI 52° 21.05 N 172° 34.40 w 52° 21.02 N 172° 33.60 w 10 

Seguam L/Finch Pt.13 AI 52° 23.40N 172° 27.70 w 52° 23.25 N 172° 24.30 w 3 

Seguam I./South Side13 AI 52° 21.60N 172° 19.30W 52° 15.55 N 172° 31.22 w 3 

Amukta L & Rocks 13 AI 52° 27.25 N 171° 17.90W 3 

Chagulak I. 13 AI 52° 34.00 N 171° l0.50W 3 

ER25NO14.014</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Yunaska 

L13 AI 52° 4L40N 170° 36,35 w 10 

Uliaga5• 14 BS 53° 04.00 N 169° 47.00W 53° 05.00N 169° 46.00 w 10 

Chuginadak14• 15 GOA 52° 46.70 N 169° 4L90W 20 

Kagamils, 14 BS 53° 02.10 N 169° 4LOO W 10 

Samalga GOA 52° 46.00 N 169° 15.00 w 20 

AdugakL5 BS 52° 54.70N 169° 10.50 w 10 Umnak I./Cape Aslik5 BS 53° 25.00 N 168° 24.50 w BA 

OgchulL GOA 52° 59.71 N 168° 24.24 w 20 

Bogoslofi./Fire 

L5 BS 53° 55.69 N 168° 02.05 w BA 

Polivnoi Rock9 GOA 53° 15.96 N 167° 57.99 w 20 

Emerald I. 12' 9 GOA 53o 17.50N 167° 51.50 w 20 

Unalaska/Cape Izigan9 GOA 53° 13.64 N 167° 39.37 w 20 

Unalaska/Bishop Pt.6• 12 BS 53° 58.40 N 166° 57.50 w 10 

Akutan I./Reef-lava6 BS 54° 08.10 N 166° 06.19 w 54° 09.10 N 166° 05.50 w 10 

Unalaska I./Cape Sedanka9 GOA 53° 50.50N 166° 05.00 w 20 

ER25NO14.015</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Old Man Rocks9 GOA 53° 52,20 N 166° 04.90 w 20 

Akutan L/Cape Morgan9 GOA 54° 03,39 N 165° 59.65 w 54°03.70N 166° 03.68 w 20 Akun I./Billings Head BS 54° 17.62 N 165° 32.06 w 54°17.57N 165° 31.71 w 10 

Rootok9 GOA 54° 03.90 N 165° 31.90 w 54° 02.90N 165° 29.50 w 20 

Tanginak 1.9 GOA 54o 12.00 N 165° 19.40 w 20 Tigalda/Rocks NE9 GOA 54° 09.60N 164° 59.00 w 54o 09.12 N 164° 57.18 w 20 

Unimak/Cape Sarichef BS 54° 34.30 N 164° 56.80 w 10 

Aiktak9 GOA 54° 10.99 N 164° 51.15 w 20 

UgamakC GOA 54° 13.50 N 164° 47.50 w 54° 12.80 N 164° 47.50 w 20 

Round (GOA)9 GOA 54° 12.05 N 164° 46.60 w 20 

Sea Lion Rock (Amak) BS 55o 27.82 N 163° 12.10 w 10 

Amak I. And rocks BS 55° 24.20N 163° 09.60 w 55° 26.15 N 163° 08.50 w 10 

Bird I. GOA 54° 40.00 N 163° 17.15 w 10 

Caton I. GOA 54° 22.70 N 162° 21.30 w 3 

South Rocks GOA 54° 18.14 N 162° 41.25 w 10 

ER25NO14.016</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Clubbing Rocks (S) GOA 54o 4L98 N 162° 26.74 w 10 

Clubbing Rocks (N) GOA 54° 42.75 N 162° 26.72 w 10 

Pinnacle Rock GOA 54° 46.06 N 161° 45.85 w 3 

Sushilnoi Rocks GOA 54° 49.30 N 161° 42.73 w 10 

Olga Rocks GOA 55o 00.45 N 161° 29.81 w 54o 59.09 N 161°30.89 w 10 

Jude I. GOA 55° 15.75 N 161° 06.27 w 20 

Sea Lion Rocks (Shumagins) GOA 55° 04.70 N 160° 3L04 W 3 

Nagai I./Mountain Pt. GOA 54° 54.20 N 160° 15.40 w 54° 56.00N 160° 15.00 w 3 

The Whaleback GOA 55° 16.82 N 160° 05.04 w 3 

Chernabura I. GOA 54° 45.18 N 159° 32.99 w 54° 45.87N 159° 35.74 w 20 

Castle Rock GOA 55o 16.47N 159° 29.77 w 3 

Atkins I. GOA 55° 03.20 N 159° 17.40 w 20 

Spitz I. GOA 55° 46.60N 158° 53.90 w 3 

Mitrofania GOA 55° 50.20 N 158° 4L90 W 3 

Kak GOA 56° 17.30 N 157° 50.10 w 20 

ER25NO14.017</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gea?·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Lighthouse Rocks GOA 55° 46.79 N 157° 24.89 w 20 

Sutwik I. GOA 56° 31.05 N 157° 20.47 w 56° 32.00 N 157° 21.00 w 20 

Chowiet I. GOA 56° 00.54N 156° 41.42 w 56° 00.30N 156° 41.60 w 20 

Nagai Rocks GOA 55° 49.80 N 155° 47.50 w 20 

Chirikofl. GOA 55° 46.50 N 155° 39.50 w 55o 46.44 N 155° 43.46 w 20 

Puale Bay GOA 57o 40.60 N 155° 23.10 w 10 

Kodiak/Cape Ikolik GOA 57o 17.20 N 154° 47.50 w 3 

Takli I. GOA 58° 01.75 N 154° 31.25 w 10 

Cape Kuliak GOA 58° 08.00 N 154° 12.50W 10 Cape Gull GOA 58° 11.50 N 154° 09.60W 58° 12.50N 154° 10.50 w 10 

Kodiak/Cape U gat GOA 57° 52.41 N 153° 50.97 w 10 

Sitkinak/Cape Sitkinak GOA 56° 34.30N 153° 50.96 w 10 ShakunRock GOA 58° 32.80 N 153° 41.50W 10 

Twoheaded I. GOA 56° 54.50N 153° 32.75 w 56° 53.90N 153° 33.74 w 10 

Cape Douglas (Shaw 1.) GOA 59° 00.00 N 153° 22.50 w 10 

ER25NO14.018</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Kodiak/Cape Barnabas GOA 57o 10,20 N 152° 53.05 w 3 

Kodiak/Gull Poine GOA 57° 2L45 N 152° 36.30 w 10, 3 

Latax Rocks GOA 58° 40.10N 152° 31.30 w 10 

Ushagat 1./SW GOA 58° 54.75 N 152° 22.20 w 10 

UgakC GOA 57o 23.60N 152° 17.50 w 57o 2L90N 152° 17.40 w 10,3 

Sea Otter I. GOA 58° 31.15 N 152° 13.30 w 10 

Long I. GOA 57o 46.82 N 152° 12.90 w 10 

Sud I. GOA 58° 54.00 N 152° 12.50 w 10 

Kodiak/Cape Chiniak GOA 57° 37.90 N 152° 08.25 w 10 

Sugarloaf I. GOA 58° 53.25 N 152° 02.40 w 20 

Sea Lion Rocks (Marmot) GOA 58° 20.53 N 151° 48.83 w 10 

Marmot 1.8 GOA 58° 13.65 N 151° 47.75 w 58° 09.90 N 151° 52.06 w 15,20 

Nagahut Rocks GOA 59o 06.00N 151° 46.30 w 10 

Perl GOA 59° 05.75 N 151° 39.75 w 10 

Gore Point GOA 59° 12.00 N 150° 58.00 w 10 

ER25NO14.019</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to 1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Trawl Gear·3 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Outer (Pye) L GOA 59° 2050 N 150° 23.00 w 59o 2LOON 150° 24,50 w 20 

Steep Point GOA 59° 29.05 N 150° 15.40 w 10 

Seal Rocks (Kenai) GOA 59° 3L20N 149° 37.50 w 10 

Chiswell Islands GOA 59° 36.00 N 149° 34.00W 10 

Rugged Island GOA 59o 50.00 N 149° 23.10 w 59o 5LOON 149° 24.70W 10 

Point Elrington10' 11 GOA 59o 56.00N 148° 15.20 w 20 

Perry 

L10 GOA 60° 44.00N 147° 54.60 w 

The Needle10 GOA 60° 06.64 N 147° 36.17 w 

Point Eleanor10 GOA 60° 35.00N 147° 34.00 w 

Wooded L (Fish L) GOA 59° 52.90 N 147° 20.65 w 20 

Glacier Island10 GOA 60° 51.30 N 147° 14.50 w 

Seal Rocks (Cordova) 11 GOA 60° 09.78 N 146° 50.30 w 20 

Cape Hinchinbrook11 GOA 60° 14.00N 146° 38.50 w 20 

MiddletonL GOA 59° 28.30N 146° 18.80 w 10 

Hook Point11 GOA 60° 20.00N 146° 15.60 w 20 

ER25NO14.020</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 Pacific Cod 

No-fishing N

Zones for f

Area16 

Site Name 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (nm) 

Cape St. Elias GOA 59° 47.50 N 144° 36.20W 20 

BS = Bering Sea, AI = Aleutian Islands, GOA= Gulf of Alaska 

1 Where two sets of coordinates are given, the baseline extends in a clock-wise direction from the first set of geographic c

shoreline at mean lower-low water to the second set of coordinates. Where only one set of coordinates is listed, that loca

2 Closures as stated in 50 CFR 679.22(a)(7)(v), (a)(8)(iv), and (b)(2)(iii). 

3 No-fishing zones for vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are the waters between 0 nm and the nm specified in colum

each site and within the Bogoslofarea (BA) and the Seguam Foraging Area (SFA). 

4 Some or all of the restricted area is located in the SF A, which is closed to all gear types. The SF A is established as all w

between 52°N lat. and 53°N lat. and between 173°30' W long. and 172°30' W long. 

5 This site lies within the BA, which is closed to all gear types. The BA consists of all waters of area 518 as described in 

of a straight line connecting 55°00'N/170°00'W, and 55°00' N/168°11 '4. 75" W. 

6 Hook-and-line no-fishing zones apply only to vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA in waters east of 167° W lon

10 nm closure west of 167° W.long. applies to all hook-and-line and jig vessels. 

7 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters be

effective from January 20, 1200 hours, A.l.t., through June 10, 1200 hours, A.l.t. Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permi

directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters between 0 nm and 3 nm, effective from September 1, 1200 hour

November 1, 1200 hours, A.l.t. 

8 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters be

effective from January 20, 1200 hours, A.l.t., to June 10, 1200 hours, A.l.t. Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are p
■ 11. Revise Table 6 to Part 679 to read 

as follows: 


ER25NO14.021</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters between 0 nm and 20 nm, effective from September 1, 1200 hours, A.l

1200 hours, A.l.t. 

9 Restriction area includes only waters of the Gulf of Alaska Area. 

1° Contact the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for fishery restrictions at these sites. 

11 The 20 nm closure around this site is effective only in waters outside of the State of Alaska waters of Prince William 

12 See 50 CFR 679.22(a)(7)(i)(C) for exemptions for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using jig or hook-a

Bishop Point and Emerald Island closure areas. 

13 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line and p

nm and 3 nm from rookeries west of 172°59' W long. and in waters located between 0 nm and 20 nm east of 172°59' W 

14 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line and p

located between 0 nm and 20 nm of these sites west of 170° W long. 

15 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear i

nm and 10 nm on the east side of 170° W long. and are prohibited in waters located between 0 nm and 20 nm on the we

16Unless otherwise noted, closures apply to reporting areas of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska, incl

ER25NO14.022</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Table 6 to Part 679-Steller Sea Lion Protection Areas Atka Mackerel Fisheries Restrictions 

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area8 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 

Attu I./Cane Wran2:ell Aleutian Islands 52 54.60N 172 27.90 E 52 55.40 N 172 27.20 E 

Agattu 1./Gillon Pt. Aleutian Islands 52 24.13 N 173 21.31 E Attu 1./Chirikof Pt. Aleutian Islands 52 49.75 N 173 26.00 E 

Agattu I./Cape Sabak Aleutian Islands 52 22.50N 173 43.30 E 52 21.80 N 173 41.40 E 

Alaid I. Aleutian Islands 52 46.50N 173 51.50 E 52 45.00N 173 56.50 E 

Shemyal. Aleutian Islands 52 44.00N 174 08.70 E 

Buldir I. Aleutian Islands 52 20.25 N 175 54.03 E 52 20.38 N 175 53.85 E 

Kiska I./Cape St. Stephen Aleutian Islands 51° 52.50 N 177° 12.70 E 51 o 53.50 N 177° 12.00 E Kiska 1./Sobaka & Vega Aleutian Islands 51° 49.50 N 177° 19.00 E 51 o 48.50 N 177° 20.50 E 

Kiska I./Lief Cove Aleutian Islands 51° 57.16 N 177° 20.41 E 51 o 57.24 N 177° 20.53 E 

Kiska I./Sirius Pt. Aleutian Islands 52° 08.50 N 177° 36.50 E 

Tanadak I. (Kiska) Aleutian Islands 51° 56.80 N 177° 46.80 E 

Segula 1.6 Aleutian Islands 51° 59.90 N 178° 05.80 E 52° 03.06 N 178° 08.80 E 

Ayugadak Point6 Aleutian Islands 51°45.36N 178° 24.30 E 

Hawadax 1./Krysi Pt. 6 Aleutian Islands 51° 49.98 N 178° 12.35 E 

Little Sitkin I. 6 Aleutian Islands 51° 59.30 N 178° 29.80 E 

Amchitka I./Column Rocks Aleutian Islands 51° 32.32 N 178° 49.28 E Amchitka I./East Cape Aleutian Islands 51° 22.26 N 179° 27.93 E 51° 22.00N 179° 27.00 E Amchitka I./Cape Ivakin Aleutian Islands 51° 24.46 N 179° 24.21 E 

Semisopochnoi/Petrel Pt. 6 Aleutian Islands 52° 01.40 N 179° 36.90 E 52° 01.50 N 179° 39.00 E 

ER25NO14.023</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Boundaries from Boundaries to 1 

Site Name Area8 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 

Semisopochnoi I./Pochnoi Pt. 6 Aleutian Islands 51° 57.30N 179° 46.00 E 

Amatignak I. NitrofPt. Aleutian Islands 51°13.00N 179° 07.80 w 

Unalga & Dinkum Rocks Aleutian Islands 51° 33.67 N 179° 04.25 w 51°35.09N 179° 03.66 w Ulak I./Hasgox Pt. Aleutian Islands 51° 18.90N 178° 58.90 w 51°18.70N 178° 59.60 w 

Kavalga I. Aleutian Islands 51° 34.50 N 178° 51.73 w 51 o 34.50 N 178° 49.50 w 

Tag 1.4 Aleutian Islands 51° 33.50 N 178° 34.50 w 

Ugidak 1.4 Aleutian Islands 51° 34.95 N 178°30.45 w 

Gramp Rock4 Aleutian Islands 51° 28.87N 178° 20.58 w 

Tanaga I./Bumpy Pt.4 Aleutian Islands 51° 55.00 N 177° 58.50 w 51°55.00N 177° 57.10 w 

Bobrofl. Aleutian Islands 51° 54.00N 177° 27.00 w 

Kanaga I./Ship Rock Aleutian Islands 51° 46.70 N 177° 20.72 w Kanaga I./North Cape Aleutian Islands 51° 56.50 N 177° 09.00 w 

Adak I. Aleutian Islands 51°35.50N 176° 57.10 w 51°37.40N 176° 59.60 w 

Little Tanaga Strait Aleutian Islands 51°49.09N 176° 13.90 w 

Great Sitkin I. Aleutian Islands 52° 06.00N 176° 10.50 w 52° 06.60N 176° 07.00 w 

Anagaksik I. Aleutian Islands 51° 50.86 N 175° 53.00 w 

Kasatochi I. Aleutian Islands 52° 11.11 N 175° 31.00 w 

Atka 1./N orth Cape Aleutian Islands 52°24.20N 174°17.80W Amlia I./Sviech. Harbor5 Aleutian Islands 52° 01.80 N 173° 23.90 w 

Sagigik 1.5' 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 00.50 N 173° 09.30 w 

Amlia I./East5' 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 05.70 N 172° 59.00 w 52° 05.75 N 172° 57.50 w 

ER25NO14.024</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Boundaries from Boundaries to1 

Site Name Area8 

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 

Tanadak I. (Amlia)5' 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 04.20N 172° 57.60 w 

Agligadak I. 5' 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 06.09 N 172° 54.23 w 

Seguam 1./Saddleridge Pt. 5• 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 21.05 N 172° 34.40 w 52° 21.02 N 172° 33.60 w Seguam I./Finch Pt. 5' 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 23.40 N 172° 27.70 w 52° 23.25 N 172° 24.30 w Seguam I./South Side5• 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 21.60 N 172° 19.30W 52° 15.55 N 172° 31.22 w 

Amukta I. & Rocks 7 Aleutian Islands 52° 27.25 N 171° 17.90 w 

Chagulakl. Aleutian Islands 52° 34.00 N 171° 10.50 w 

Yunaska I. Aleutian Islands 52° 41.40 N 170° 36.35 w 

1 Where two sets of coordinates are given, the baseline extends in a clock-wise direction from the first set of geographic 

shoreline at mean lower-low water to the second set of coordinates. Where only one set of coordinates is listed, that loca

2 Closures as stated in 50 CFR 679.22(a)(7)(vi). 

3 No-fishing zones for vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are the waters between 0 nm and the nm specified in colu

4 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Atka mackerel using trawl gear in wate

a) 0 nm to 20 nm seaward of these sites and east of 178° W long. 

b) 0 nm to 3 nm seaward ofUgidak and Tanaga I./Bumpy Pt and west of 178° W long. 

c) 0 nm to 10 nm seaward of Tag I. and Gramp Rock and west of 178° W long. 

5 Some or all of the restricted area is located in the Seguam Foraging Area (SF A), which is closed to all gear types. The 

waters within the area between 52° N lat. and 53° N lat. and between 173° 30' W long. and 172° 30' W long. 

6 Vessels with a Federal Fisheries Permit are prohibited from directed fishing for Atka mackerel using trawl gear in wate

from this site between 178°E long. to 180° long. and in waters located 0 nm and 3 nm from Segula Island west of 178°E 

7 The Seguam Atka Mackerel Open Area (SAMOA) to the southeast of Seguam Pass in Area 541 is formed by the follo

order specified in a clock-wise direction. The SAMOA is open when directed fishing for Atka mackerel in Area 541 is o
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

[FR Doc. 2014–27658 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 


ER25NO14.025</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2

From 

172° 17.760'W/51° 57.000'N 172° 41.400' W/51 o 57.000' N 172° 37.500' W/52° 0.000' N 172° 30.000' W/52° 0.000' N 172° 30.000' W/52° 3.600' N 172° 20.400' W/52° 4.800' N 172° 13.200' W/52° 7.080' N 172° 6.600' W/52° 9.600' N 172° 2.400' W/52° 12.000' N 172° 0.000' W/52° 12.000' N 172° 0.000' W/52° 14.820' N 

171 o 58.200' W/52° 18.000' N 171 o 58.200' W/52° 24.000' N 171 o 54.000' W/52° 24.000' N 171 o 54.000' W/52° 27.000' N 171 o 42.000' W/52° 27.000' N 171 o 42.000' W/52° 18.000' N 171 o 48.000' W 52° 18.000' N 171 o 48.000' W 52° 11.760' N 

8 Unless otherwise noted, closures apply to reporting areas of the Aleutian Islands, including adjacent state waters.