[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19340]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 663
[Docket No. 940817-4217; I.D. 032194D]
RIN No.: 0648-AF38
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise groundfish trawl
regulations and simplify the marking requirement for commercial
vertical hook-and-line gear that is closely tended in the Pacific Coast
Groundfish fishery. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals
and objectives of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) by enhancing the effectiveness of minimum mesh size regulations
for trawl gear, making trawl gear requirements less likely to be
circumvented, updating the regulations to be more consistent with
changes in gear technology, and removing unnecessary burdens on the
industry.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 8, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to J. Gary Smith, Acting Director,
Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point
Way N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Rodney R. McInnis,
Acting Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service,
501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Information
relevant to this proposed rule has been compiled in aggregate form and
is available for public review during business hours at the Office of
the Director, Northwest Region, NMFS. Copies of the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) can be obtained from the
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Avenue, Suite 420,
Portland, OR 97201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140,
or Rodney R. McInnis at 310-980-4030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is issuing a proposed rule based on a
recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council),
under the authority of the FMP and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The FMP provides a socio-economic
framework procedure under which gear regulations may be changed without
amendment to the FMP. This proposed rule would affect trawl gear and
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear (also called Portuguese
longline).
The proposed changes to the trawl regulations would: (1) Enhance
the effectiveness of current trawl mesh-size requirements by applying
the minimum mesh size to the entire net, rather than just the codend;
(2) remove an unnecessary distinction between bottom trawls and roller
trawls; (3) clarify the distinction between bottom and pelagic (mid-
water) trawls and reduce the possibility that pelagic gear is fished
on-bottom; and (4) revise the chafing gear requirements to make them
more enforceable and effective. This proposed rule also would remove an
unnecessarily burdensome gear-marking requirement on vessels using
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear. Minor administrative changes to
the gear regulations also are included.
The minimum mesh-size requirements apply only to the last 50 meshes
of the trawl net. Prior to May 9, 1992, the minimum mesh size for
roller trawl gear (bottom trawl gear with rollers or bobbins on the
footrope of the net) was 3 inches (7.62 cm) in the Vancouver, Columbia,
and Eureka subareas (north of 40 deg.30' N. lat., near Pt. Arena, CA).
On May 9, 1992, this minimum mesh size was increased to 4.5 inches
(11.43 cm) (57 FR 12212, April 9, 1992). This change was made: (1) To
reduce waste caused by discarding fish too small to market that were
more likely to be caught in the 3-inch (7.62-cm) mesh; (2) to postpone
the need for more restrictive trip limits until later in the year; and
(3) to increase long-term yield by reducing the harvest of juvenile
groundfish. This change also made the minimum mesh size for bottom
trawl and roller trawl gear uniform in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon,
and California.
Almost immediately upon implementation, the Council heard testimony
that the regulations were being circumvented by tying off the net ahead
of the last 50 meshes, thereby taking advantage of smaller mesh that
could legally be used in the intermediate mesh in front of the codend
(called the ``intermediate''). In July 1992, the Council convened its
Legal Gear Committee of industry, state, Federal, and enforcement
representatives to address this issue and to consider whether other
changes to the gear requirements should be made. The Council again
discussed gear changes in April 1993 and the draft EA was made
available for public review in August 1993. The Council made its final
recommendations, which appear in this proposed rule, at its September
1993 meeting in Portland, OR. The Council's recommendations are
summarized below:
(1) Apply the trawl minimum mesh size throughout the net.
Currently, the minimum mesh size applies to the last 50 meshes of the
trawl net. This proposed rule would apply the minimum mesh size
requirements throughout the net.
Trawl mesh size affects the species and numbers of small or
unmarketable fish that are brought on board and subsequently discarded.
Fish can escape a trawl net by swimming or wiggling through the meshes.
Each species has a different body shape, size, swimming speed, and
endurance, and each has different net avoidance habits. Thus, the size
and shape of meshes directly affects which fish are captured and which
are more likely to escape. Most of the capture, and a large portion of
the escape, occur in the codend, the terminal portion of the net, and
codend minimum mesh-size restrictions can be an effective method for
controlling the harvest of both target and incidental species.
Therefore, the minimum mesh-size regulations were applied only to the
terminal 50 meshes in the net. The effect of mesh size in the
intermediate portion of the net (forward of the codend) is less clear.
However, when a net is designed or modified to capture and hold fish in
a forward portion of the net, and that forward portion of the net has
smaller mesh than the codend, the effectiveness of the codend minimum
mesh size is compromised. A large percentage of the west coast trawl
fleet uses intermediates with at least a small section of mesh smaller
than the legal mesh size in the codend (EA/RIR, page 13, see
ADDRESSES). Requiring the mesh throughout the net to be no smaller than
the current codend mesh size removes all incentive for cinching off the
codend to circumvent the mesh size regulations.
(2) Remove the legal distinction between bottom and roller trawls.
Once the minimum mesh size became identical for bottom and roller
trawls in May 1992 (57 FR 12212, April 9, 1992), the need to
distinguish between the two in Federal regulations disappeared. The
industry generally has considered roller trawls as a type of bottom
trawl, so this change would be consistent with common usage.
Current regulations require two continuous riblines along the
length of bottom and roller trawls if a vessel carries a net of less
than 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh. The continuous riblines were intended to
make it difficult to switch to illegal, smaller-mesh codends. Since
bottom and roller trawls have the same minimum mesh size, there no
longer would be an issue of switching codends between these gears.
Although the potential exists for putting a pelagic trawl codend on a
bottom trawl, the Legal Gear Committee felt that this was not likely to
be a big problem, and that the ribline requirement was not a sufficient
deterrent to someone intent on violating the regulations. This rule
would eliminate the continuous ribline requirement.
(3) Clarify the distinction between bottom and pelagic (midwater)
trawls. The current pelagic trawl requirements state that the footrope
at the trawl mouth must be unprotected and that sweeplines, including
the bottom of the bridle, must be bare.
The Council felt additional requirements are needed to ensure that
small-mesh (3 inches or 7.62 cm) pelagic trawls would not be used on
the sea floor. The Council developed two provisions that would make
pelagic trawls impractical and ineffective for fishing on the bottom.
First, rollers, bobbins, tires, discs, or any other similar device used
to protect the net from the sea floor could not be used anywhere in the
net. This would make the net fragile, if dragging across the sea floor.
Second, either bare ropes or 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum mesh must
encircle the net for at least 20 feet (6.15 m) immediately behind the
footrope or headrope of the net. This also would make the net weak if
fished on the bottom.
(4) Modify chafing gear requirements. Chafing gear is webbing or
other material attached to a trawl net to protect the net from wear,
particularly the codend as it scrapes the sea floor or slides onto the
vessel. If attached in certain ways, chafing gear could reduce the
effective mesh size by compressing or covering the webbing. The current
regulations require that: (1) Chafing gear must not be connected
directly to the terminal end of the net; (2) in bottom trawls, chafing
gear must have a minimum mesh size of 15 inches (38.1 cm) unless only
the bottom half of the codend is covered; and (3) in roller trawls in
the Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka subareas, and in pelagic trawls in
all subareas, chafing gear covering the upper one-half of the codend
must have a minimum mesh size of 6 inches (15.24 cm).
The first provision appears not to be an effective way to enhance
escapement. Even if chafing gear is not connected directly to the
terminal end of the net, it could legally be attached near the terminal
end, where the mesh is puckered and mesh size already is reduced,
further impeding escapement. The second and third provisions need
modification to be consistent with the proposed revisions for bottom
and roller trawls.
The Legal Gear Committee suggested new requirements for chafing
gear. At any location on the net, chafing gear may cover no more than
50 percent of the circumference of the net. No section of chafing gear
may be longer than 50 meshes of the net to which it is attached, and
each section must not be connected at its terminal end (the end
farthest from the mouth of the net). Chafing gear must be attached
outside any riblines or restraining straps. There is no limit on the
number of sections of chafing gear that may be used as long as they, in
combination, satisfy the provisions in this paragraph. These provisions
are intended to provide the necessary gear protection without unduly
impeding escapement of fish through the webbing.
(5) Modify marking requirements for commercial vertical hook-and-
line gear. Prior to the mid-1980's, commercial vertical hook-and-line
gear was not extensively used. The effectiveness of the gear and its
low cost made it attractive to small vessels with access to nearshore
reefs and other fishing grounds. As this gear became more popular, the
Council became concerned about entanglement with similar gear and with
mobile gear that is used in the same area. Consequently, on August 1,
1987, the same marking requirements required of other fixed gear (pole,
flag, light, radar reflector, and buoy) also were required of
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear. However, problems have surfaced
with the marking requirement. First, although the gear is anchored, it
is lightweight and may be dragged by prevailing winds and currents. The
radar reflector provides a large surface area that catches the wind and
acts as a sail, making the gear less effective and forcing vessels to
chase it. Second, the cost of the radar reflector, lights, and buoys is
substantial in comparison to the cost of the gear itself. Since most
vessels using this gear stay in the immediate vicinity of the gear,
tending the lines frequently, there appears to be less need for such
extensive marking requirements. The Council recommended that the gear
marking requirements remain the same with one exception--that
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear that is closely tended could be
marked only with a single buoy clearly identifying the vessel's number
or otherwise marked in accordance with state law. The Council's
Enforcement Consultants Committee did not develop a definition for
``closely tended,'' so such a definition was not included in the
Council's recommendation. After further consideration, NMFS has
developed a definition that it believes to be reasonable and
enforceable, and has included it in this proposed rule for public
comment. The proposed definition for ``closely tended'' is within
sight, or within \1/4\ nautical mile (nm) (463 m) as determined by
electronic navigational equipment, of the deployed gear. This
definition should be easy to comply with and to enforce, and ensures
that the fishing vessel stays near its gear.
(6) Correct a mesh definition. Reference to double-ply mesh at 50
CFR 663.2 has been used inappropriately. Ply refers to the number of
strands twisted together to make twine. The regulation was intended to
mean two lengths of twine tied together in one knot, or ``double-bar''
mesh. The definition is changed accordingly.
Biological impacts. To the extent that escapement is enhanced and
discards reduced by increasing the mesh size in the intermediate part
of the net, landings will be more reflective of harvest levels and more
accurate information may be included in the biological models
estimating the status of the resource.
An increase in escapement, and reduction in mortality, of small
fish suggests increased survival to maturity and potentially an
increase in spawning biomass. However, any changes in biomass probably
would not be measurable with existing assessment measures.
The other proposed changes to the bottom and roller trawl, chafing
gear, and pelagic trawl requirements are intended to enhance compliance
and effectiveness of current minimum mesh size requirements, and also
are unlikely to have a measurable biological impact.
The relaxed marking requirement for closely tended vertical hook-
and-line gear would not have a measurable biological impact. Closely
tended gear is not likely to be lost and involved in ghost fishing.
Economic impacts.
Operating efficiency. Replacing the intermediate of the net with
larger mesh may result in operational differences that are difficult to
detect. First, larger mesh generally has reduced water resistance or
``drag'' when pulled through the water. Less drag means the net can be
pulled faster with the same power or at the same speed with less power.
Some reduction in fuel consumption could result. Second, the geometry
of the net may change, which could affect fishing efficiency, and
result in the need to modify the footrope or headrope configuration.
The third and main effect is likely to be the amount of fish retained
in the net. With larger mesh in the intermediate, more fish may fall
through the mesh as the net is fishing or is retrieved. This is more a
result of mesh size in the codend, however, than in the intermediate.
Cost. There is no official record of the types and number of nets
that would need to be replaced. However, some believe that nearly every
vessel will need some modification to its nets. The cost of the changes
to trawl gear is lessened if the changes are phased in as old gear
wears out. Some fishermen have been aware of these proposed changes and
already have modified their gear. The minimum cost to a fisherman with
a relatively small vessel should be about $150 (if the gear does not
already conform). The maximum cost would be for a net manufacturer to
rebuild a fully-rigged trawl for as much as $6000. If more than one net
is used, which often is the case, the cost could be at least doubled.
However, nets normally must be replaced periodically as they wear out,
so the conversion price should be viewed as a maximum, one-time cost
that is depreciated over several years. Under the limited entry program
that was implemented January 1, 1994, approximately 381 vessels are
expected to qualify for initial issuance of a fishing permit with an
endorsement for trawl gear. If every one of these vessels required a
completely new net built by a manufacturer (as opposed to building it
with existing mesh and crew labor), the total cost to the industry
would be $1.1 to $2.3 million. These values greatly exceed any
reasonable expectation of the impact on the trawl industry because it
assumes: (1) Every vessel currently uses small mesh in the
intermediate; (2) all vessels would purchase nets rather than doing any
of the changes with existing labor and materials; and (3) all net
replacement is due to the regulation rather than to normal wear and
tear. However, to minimize costs to the industry, the Council
recommended that changes to the trawl regulations be phased in over a
6-month period, so that new gear could replace worn gear.
By increasing mesh size in the intermediate, the proposed rule may
reduce the catch, and thus dollars per hour that the trawl fishery
produces. However, the codend mesh size is more critical than the mesh
size forward of the codend. In the Dover sole/thornyhead/sablefish
fishery (also called the DTS or deepwater complex), the most
significant reduction in dollars per hour may come from the thornyhead
contribution. However, reduced catch rates may be compensated for by
making longer or more frequent tows.
Gilling (entangling fish in the webbing), particularly of rockfish,
may increase with larger mesh in the intermediate portion of the net,
but gilled fish are expected to be usable for the most part. Increased
time necessary to untangle gilled fish may be offset by decreased time
sorting small and unmarketable fish from the catch. However, the
decrease in sorting time seems most likely for flatfish species.
The marking requirement for vertical hook-and-line gear relieves an
unnecessary restriction, and could reduce the cost of purchasing new
marking equipment by about half. The current regulation is estimated to
cost a maximum of $147 per unit of gear, for a total of $735-$882 per
vessel, assuming an average of five to six units of gear per vessel.
This proposed rule would reduce the cost by as much as $80 per unit of
gear, or a reduction of $400-$480 per vessel. However, because most
vessels are in compliance with the current regulations, the initial
cost of marking gear already has been incurred, and any savings would
occur as additional gear is acquired. Because this change would relieve
a restriction, the Council requested that, if this action were
approved, it would be effective upon filing of the final rule with the
Office of the Federal Register.
Social impacts. As a whole, these proposed regulations are simpler
than the current regulations, and would facilitate both enforcement and
compliance. The economic impact of reduced catch rates would be borne
most by individuals who circumvented the current codend mesh size
regulations. Individuals who operate in accordance with current
regulations are likely to notice little change in current catch rates.
This proposed rule would not eliminate the need for trip limits or
other management measures in the fishery, but it possibly could delay
more restrictive late-season changes in trip limits if catch rates are
not maintained by increased tow duration and frequency.
No impacts on vessel safety are expected. There is a potential
increased risk of collision with commercial vertical hook-and-line gear
marked only with a single buoy if fishermen lose or leave their gear
unattended, because visibility of the gear would be reduced. However,
leaving such gear unattended would violate the proposed regulations
because unattended fixed gear would still be subject to the more
stringent marking requirements.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has initially
determined that this action is consistent with the FMP and the national
standards and other provisions of the Magnuson Act.
The General Counsel of the Department of Commerce certified to the
Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. Approximately 381 groundfish trawl vessels were initially issued
limited entry permits. This number has been reduced to 320 through
combination of vessel permits. The proposed trawl regulations would
directly affect an unknown portion of these entities. Even if every one
of the trawl vessels in the limited entry fishery required a completely
new net built by a manufacturer, the total cost to the industry would
be $1.1 to $2.3 million. These values greatly exceed any reasonable
expectation of the impact on the trawl industry because they assume
three extreme conditions: (1) Every vessel currently uses small mesh in
the intermediate; (2) all vessels would purchase nets rather than doing
any of the changes with existing labor and materials; and (3) all net
replacement is due to the regulation rather than to normal wear and
tear. There is no record of the number of vessels using vertical hook-
and-line gear. This proposed rule would remove the expense of
maintaining current gear marking requirements for closely tended gear,
and thus relieves a regulatory burden for this sector of the industry.
Thus, it is determined the proposed measures could affect a substantial
number of entities, but would not cause significant economic impacts on
the affected small entities. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is not required.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 663
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 3, 1994.
Gary Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 663 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 663--PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 663.2 is amended as follows:
a. The definition of ``Commercial fishing'' is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1) and (2) and the
definition for ``Fishing gear'' is amended by redesignating paragraphs
(a) through (w) as paragraphs (1) through (23) respectively.
b. The definition for ``Fishing gear'' is amended by revising the
newly redesignated paragraphs (1) through (3), (6), (14), (16), and
(18) to read as follows:
Sec. 663.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Fishing gear:
(1) Bobbin trawl means the same as a roller trawl, and is a type of
bottom trawl.
(2) Bottom trawl means a trawl in which the otter boards or the
footrope of the net are in contact with the seabed. It includes roller
(or bobbin) trawls and Danish and Scottish seine gear. It also includes
pair trawls fished on the bottom. Any trawl not meeting the
requirements for pelagic trawl at Sec. 663.22(b)(6) is a bottom trawl.
(3) Chafing gear means webbing or other material attached to the
codend of a trawl net to protect the codend from wear.
* * * * *
(6) Double-bar mesh means two lengths of twine tied into a single
knot.
* * * * *
(14) Pelagic (midwater or off-bottom) trawl means a trawl in which
the otter boards may be in contact with the seabed but the footrope of
the net remains above the seabed. It includes pair trawls if fished in
midwater. A pelagic trawl has no rollers or bobbins on the net.
* * * * *
(16) Roller trawl (bobbin trawl) means a trawl with footropes
equipped with rollers or bobbins made of wood, steel, rubber, plastic,
or other hard material that keep the footrope above the seabed, thereby
protecting the net. A roller trawl is a type of bottom trawl.
* * * * *
(18) Single-walled codend means a codend constructed of a single
wall of webbing knitted with single or double-bar mesh.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 663.22, paragraphs (a), (b)(2) through (b)(4), and (c)
are revised; paragraph (b)(5) is removed; and paragraph (b)(6) is
redesignated as paragraph (b)(5) and revised to read as follows:
Sec. 663.22 Gear Restrictions.
(a) General. The following types of fishing gear are authorized,
with the restrictions set forth in this section: trawl (bottom and
pelagic), hook-and-line, longline, pot or trap, set net, trammel net,
and spear.
(b) Trawl gear. (1) * * *
(2) Mesh size. Trawl nets may be used if they meet the minimum mesh
sizes set forth below. The minimum sizes apply throughout the net.
Minimum trawl mesh size requirements are met if a 20-gauge stainless
steel wedge, 3.0 or 4.5 inches (7.6 or 11.4 cm) (depending on the gear
being measured) less one thickness of the metal at the widest part, can
be passed with only thumb pressure through at least 16 of 20 sets of
two meshes each of wet mesh.
Minimum Trawl Mesh Size
[in inches]\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subarea
Trawl type -------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver Columbia Eureka Monterey Conception
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom.......... 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Pelagic......... 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Metric conversion: 3.0 = 7.6 centimeters; 4.5 inches = 11.4
centimeters.
(3) Chafing gear. Chafing gear may encircle no more than 50 percent
of the net's circumference any place on the net. No section of chafing
gear may be longer than 50 meshes of the net to which it is attached.
The terminal end (the end farthest from the mouth of the net) of
chafing gear must not be connected to the net. Chafing gear must be
attached outside any riblines and restraining straps. There is no limit
on the number of sections of chafing gear on a net.
(4) Codends. Only single-walled codends may be used in any trawl.
Double-walled codends are prohibited.
(5) Pelagic trawls. Pelagic trawl nets must have unprotected
footropes at the trawl mouth, and must not have rollers, bobbins,
tires, wheels, rubber discs, or any similar device anywhere in the net.
Sweeplines, including the bottom leg of the bridle, must be bare.
Either bare ropes or mesh of 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum mesh size must
completely encircle the net for at least 20 feet (6.15 m) in length
immediately behind the footrope or headrope of the net.
(c) Fixed gear. (1) Fixed gear (longline, trap or pot, set net, and
stationary hook-and-line gear, including commercial vertical hook-and-
line gear) must be:
(i) Marked at the surface, at each terminal end, with a pole, flag,
light, radar reflector, and a buoy except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section; and
(ii) Attended at least once every 7 days.
(2) Commercial vertical hook-and-line gear that is closely tended
may be marked only with a single buoy of sufficient size to float the
gear. ``Closely tended'' means that a vessel is within visual sighting
distance or within \1/4\ nautical mile (463 m) as determined by
electronic navigational equipment, of its commercial vertical hook-and-
line gear.
(3) A buoy used to mark fixed gear under paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (2)
of this section must be:
(i) marked in the manner required by applicable state law (at
Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 220; Oregon Administrative Rule
635; California Fish and Game Code, sections 7850 and 9029), or
(ii) if no state requirement applies, marked permanently with the
vessel documentation number issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, or, for an
undocumented vessel, the vessel registration number issued by the
state.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-19340 Filed 8-4-94; 10:41 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
