Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations also analyzed with two Mexican harvest scenarios including a fixed tonnage 6,044 mt and a fixed rate 9.9 percent of Pacific sardine biomass. The Councils CPS Management Team chose to include only the modeling results for the 20052018 productivity scenario as part of its rationale for its recommendations because this time period represents a broader range of recruitment observed for this stock than the modeled subset of years 2010 to 2018, which include only years with low Pacific sardine productivity. The modeling results for 20102018 also provided a relatively low spawning stock biomass target i.e., the models estimated rebuilding target under this productivity scenario of only 38,122
mt, which is less than the overfished threshold of 50,000 mt in the CPS FMP.
As a result, the CPS Management Team determined that the model results from the low productivity scenario do not adequately represent the fluctuating Pacific sardine population, and therefore relied on analysis of the model results for the moderate productivity scenario when developing management alternatives. The decision was also made to consider the modeling runs based on the fixed rate assumption for Mexico versus a fixed catch level on the presumption that it is reasonable to assume Mexican catch might go up and down based on stock size. Despite the models limitations discussed above in the response to Comment 2, it is the best model available to project Pacific sardine biomass forward in time, taking into account recruitment, fishing mortality, etc. and was an appropriate source of information for NMFS to rely on when reaching its decision.
Furthermore, the Councils SSC
endorsed the use of the model for this purpose.
However, NMFS acknowledges the limitations of the model and took that into account in reaching its decision by relying on other sources of information to inform its decision. When evaluating the Councils recommendation, NMFS
took several other aspects into consideration, including the basic biology and life history of Pacific sardine estimates of its large population fluctuations over thousands of years, and the history of the Pacific sardine fishery on the west coast of North America. One of the primary drivers of Pacific sardine biology that the model cannot take into account is the widerscale oceanographic conditions that drive Pacific sardine recruitment. There is no model that exists that can accurately predict when ocean conditions will ultimately allow for
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Jun 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

more favorable Pacific sardine recruitment. NMFS understands these limitations and explained the caveats of the modeling results and analyzed them holistically with other non-model based considerations. NMFS notes that the shortcomings of the Rebuilder Tool and the SWFSCs resulting Pacific Sardine Rebuilding Analysis highlighted by Oceana apply to all of the alternatives analyzed.
Comment 4: Oceana claims that NMFS must establish a rebuilding biomass level target consistent with the long-term BMSY i.e., the biomass at maximum sustainable yield from previous management strategy evaluations. In addition to a 2014
management strategy evaluation, Oceana also cites a value from a 2012
SWFSC scientific paper for consideration of a BMSY. Relevant to this, Oceana also claims that the proposed BMSY of 150,000 mt age 1+
biomass in Amendment 18 is too low because below that threshold, the primary directed fishery for Pacific sardine is prohibited from operating.
Response: NMFs has determined that the established rebuilding target is supported by the best scientific information available and represents a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield under prevailing environmental conditions.
Because Pacific sardine biomass fluctuates drastically with prevailing oceanographic conditions, BMSY also fluctuates with the stocks productivity.
This is why so many values that could potentially be used for BMSY exist in relevant literature, and also why the Council and NMFS have never explicitly defined a single BMSY
reference point for Pacific sardine. The two values that Oceana implies NMFS
should consider using for BMSY are based on older stock assessment data. In recommending a rebuilt level of 150,000
mt age 1+ biomass, the Council and NMFS used the most recent data from the 2020 Pacific sardine stock assessment which includes the recent decline in the population and recent low recruitments. The Councils SSC
endorsed using the 2020 stock assessment and the model for this purpose.
Regarding Oceanas claim that 150,000 mt age 1+ biomass is too low because it represents a level where the population is too low to support a commercial fishery, the comment misunderstands the structure of the CPS
FMP and the precaution built into its framework. The Council chose a CUTOFF threshold at which it would automatically close the primary directed fishery not because the stock could not
PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33145

support a fishery at that level, but in order to provide additional protections to the stock as biomass began decreasing in response to environmental conditions. This CUTOFF threshold is part of the optimum yield considerations built into the Pacific sardine harvest guideline control rule. A
stock on an upward trend does not require the same safeguards. In addition, NMFS notes that the CUTOFF value is three times the overfished biomass level, demonstrating both how precautionary the automatic closure level is and that it represents the level at which the stock will produce maximum sustainable yield.
Additionally, when developing a rebuilding plan it is important to consider the current environmental and/
or reproductive conditions the stock is experiencing, which is why the model used to project rebuilding timelines used the most recent stock assessment.
Although history and science have shown that the Pacific sardine population can recover quickly when conditions are favorable, as previously stated it is unknown when those conditions will change. If the modeling analysis to determine an appropriate rebuilt level or the rebuilding plan included high biomass levels and high recruitment levels witnessed in the past as suggested by Oceana, then the model could potentially over assume the level of catches that could occur for rebuilding.
Comment 5: Oceana claims that NMFS fails to use the best scientific information available on international catch levels in its consideration of Amendment 18. Specifically, Oceana claims that the Distribution parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest control is inconsistent with recent high catch levels by Mexico published in the 2020
Pacific sardine stock assessment.
Response: NMFS notes that changes to the management framework of Pacific sardine and to the Pacific sardine harvest control rules are set in the CPS
FMP and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, NMFS would like to respond to this comment.
The value for the Distribution parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest control rules has recently been reviewed. In 2015, a 3-day meeting was held that included agency and nonagency scientists to review the Distribution parameter. The results of this workshop were then presented to the Council and its advisory bodies, including the SSC. The Council subsequently concluded that there was no superior data to inform this parameter. Additionally, NMFS notes that the Distribution parameter in the
E:FRFM24JNR1.SGM

24JNR1