81 FR 5102 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 20 (February 1, 2016)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 20 (February 1, 2016)
| Page Range | 5102-5105 | |
| FR Document | 2016-01759 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 5102-5105] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-01759] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE401 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) announce their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to analyze the short- and long-term impacts on the human (biological, physical, social, and economic) environment of Amendment 28 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This notice also requests written comment. DATES: Public scoping will be conducted through this notice. Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on March 2, 2016 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on issues and alternatives by any of the following methods:Email: [email protected]. Fax: 360-753-9463, Attention Dr. John Stadler. [[Page 5103]] Mail: Submit written comments to Dr. John Stadler, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Lacey, WA 98503. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Stadler, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region at 360-534-9328 or [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background for Agency Actions and Proposed Action There are more than 90 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP). These groundfish stocks support an array of commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests in state and Federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. In addition, groundfish are also harvested incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries, most notably, the trawl fisheries for pink shrimp and California halibut. Amendment 28 to the FMP is intended to accomplish three goals: (1) Revise the essential fish habitat (EFH) components of the FMP; (2) make adjustments to the trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs); and (3) use the discretionary authorities in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to protect benthic habitats, including deep sea corals, from the adverse effects of fishing. These actions are described in detail below. Essential Fish Habitat The MSA mandates that each regional fishery management council designate EFH for the species that they manage. EFH is defined as ``those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.'' The regulations implementing the EFH provisions of the MSA (50 CFR 600.815) require or, in some cases, recommend that fishery management plans include the following components: 1. A description and identification of EFH, including habitat information for each managed species and life stage; 2. A description of the MSA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH and management measures to minimize those effects to the extent practicable; 3. A description of the non-MSA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, for example, those managed by state agencies; 4. A description of the non-fishing activities that may adversely affect; 5. and analysis, if feasible, of how the cumulative effects of fishing and non-fishing activities affect the function of EFH on an ecosystem or watershed scale; 6. A description of conservation and enhancement measures that encourage the conservation of EFH, including recommended options to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the adverse effects of fishing and non-fishing activities; 7. Identification of the major prey species of each species; 8. Identification of habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs); and 9. Identification of research and information needs that the Council and NMFS view as necessary to improve upon the description and identification of EFH, the identification of threats to EFH from fishing and other activities, and the development of conservation and enhancement measures for EFH; 10. A procedure for reviewing and revising, if warranted, the EFH components of the FMP. The PFMC designated EFH for Pacific Coast groundfish in 2005, and established the EFH components described above in Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP. In particular, the Council identified a number of EFH Conservation Areas (EFHCAs) where certain types of bottom-contact gear are prohibited to minimize the adverse effects of the groundfish fishery on EFH. Maps of the EFHCAs are available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/groundfish/map-gfish-efh-close.pdf. Subsequently, and in accordance with the regulations, NMFS and the Council completed a review of the information available in 2013, and the Council issued a request for proposals on changes to these 10 components. The Council received eight proposals, two of which were later withdrawn by the sponsors. Although these proposals covered a number of the EFH components, the Council determined that revisions were warranted for these five components: The essential fish habitat descriptions for each species and life stage; the description of the adverse effects of fishing on groundfish EFH and management measures to minimize those effects (i.e., the EFHCAs); the description of non- fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, conservation and enhancement measures that encourage the conservation of EFH; the research and information needs; and the procedure to review and revise the groundfish EFH components. In addition, minor clarifications and corrections to the FMP are warranted. Trawl RCA Adjustment Trawl RCAs are areas that are closed to bottom-trawl gear to protect overfished species, primarily several species of rockfishes, and were first implemented in 2002. The trawl RCAs extend along the entire West Coast and is bounded by lines approximating particular depth contours. In recent years, the Council also considered modifications to control the bycatch of several non-overfished species (e.g., spiny dogfish, longnose skate, and rougheye rockfish). In 2011, the trawl fishery was rationalized by Amendment 20 to the groundfish FMP and participants are now individually accountable for their bycatch of individual fishing quota species. Due to the success of this program at reducing bycatch, the Council is now considering making adjustments to the RCA boundaries or eliminating them entirely. Although the trawl RCAs were implemented to control bycatch of overfished species, the habitats within them have been largely protected from bottom-trawl gear since their inception in 2002, even though trawling for pink shrimp has occurred in some areas. Because of the habitat protections afforded by the RCAs, the habitats that have not been trawled for pink shrimp have recovered, at least partially, from the effects of past bottom trawling. Therefore the Council will evaluate adjustments to the RCA at the same time they are considering revisions to the EFHCAs. Prohibition of Bottom-Contact Gear in Water Deeper Than 3500 Meters When the Council adopted Amendment 19 to the groundfish FMP, it attempted to close waters deeper than 3500 meters to bottom trawling to minimize the effects of the fishery on groundfish EFH. However, because EFH did not extend beyond 3500 meters, NMFS disapproved that section of the amendment. The MSA contains several discretionary authorities that the Council may use to close these waters, regardless of their designation as EFH [MSA sections 303(b)(2)(A), 303(b)(2)(B), and 303(b)(12)]. The Council is considering using those authorities to prohibit all bottom-contact gear in waters deeper than 3500 meters unless an exempted fishing permit is issued. At the present time, fishing with such gear at these depths is neither technically nor economically feasible; however, the Council and [[Page 5104]] NMFS view this as a precautionary measure that may help to protect these pristine and highly sensitive habitats. Alternatives NEPA requires that agencies evaluate, in addition to the preferred alternative, a range of reasonable alternatives that addresses the purpose of and need for the agency action. The Council adopted a preliminary range of alternatives for analysis and public review at its meeting in September 2015 and is scheduled to review that range at its April 9-14, 2016, meeting. Alternatives to address EFH Components: Each of the EFH components has its own set of alternatives. The Council identified 15 action alternatives for analysis to modify the existing EFHCAs that prohibit bottom trawling. They include seven proposals received from various groups of stakeholders and Federal agencies. The proposals can be viewed at: www.pcouncil.org/2013/08/26497/gf-efh-received-proposals/. The seven proposals currently under consideration were submitted by: 1. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary--a proposal that addresses EFHCAs within the Sanctuary. 2. Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (now the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary)--a proposal that addresses EFHCAs within the Sanctuary. 3. Fishermen's Marketing Association--a proposal to make a small change to the EFHCAs adjacent to the Eel River Canyon. 4. Oceana, National Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy--a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs. 5. Marine Conservation Institute--a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs. 6. Greenpeace--a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs. 7. Northern and Central Collaborative Working Groups--a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs. In addition to these seven proposals, the Council preliminarily identified other action alternatives for analysis. They are: 8. Reopening those areas identified in the seven proposals described above. This alternative would not designate new areas for closure to bottom trawling. This is a coast-wide alternative. 9. Designating new EFHCAs within the current trawl RCAs, based on priority habitats. This is a coast-wide alternative. 10. Each of the six coast-wide alternatives (4 through 9) include changes to the EFHCAs within the usual and accustomed fishing areas (U&As) of the four Coastal Treaty Tribes in Washington (Ho, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault). These tribes are co-managers of the fishery resources within their U&As, and NMFS has a treaty-trust responsibility to address their concerns regarding our management decisions. Therefore, for each of these alternatives listed above (numbers 4-9), another alternative will be analyzed that excludes changes in the U&As. The remaining EFH components each have a single action alternative. They are: Use the best scientific information available to revise the descriptions of the habitat requirements for each species and life stage in Appendix B to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_B2.pdf and http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_B3.pdf). Use the best scientific information available to revise the description of the adverse effects of fishing on EFH in Appendix C, part 2, to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_C2.pdf). Use the best scientific information available to revise the description of the non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, and potential conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those adverse effects in Appendix D to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_D.pdf). Update the research and information needs for understanding the EFH requirements of the species managed under this FMP. Update the process to review and revise the groundfish EFH components of the FMP. Make minor clarifications and corrections to the EFH language in the FMP. Alternatives to adjust the Trawl RCAs: The Council preliminarily identified three action alternatives for making adjustments to the trawl RCAs. They are: 1. Complete removal of the existing RCAs. This alternative would remove the RCAs along the entire West Coast, restoring access to all of the areas that were previously closed to minimize the bycatch of overfished species. 2. Retaining a subset of the existing RCAs to protect overfished species. This alternative would restore access to some, but not all, of the areas that were closed to minimize bycatch of overfished species. The specific areas that would remain closed have not yet been identified. 3. Retaining a larger subset of the existing RCAs to protect overfished species and act as a catch-control mechanism for non- overfished species of groundfishes. The specific areas that would remain closed have not yet been identified. Alternative to prohibit bottom-contact gear in water deeper than 3500 meters: The Council preliminarily identified a ``no action'' alternative that would not use the discretionary authorities and one action alternative that would prohibit bottom-contact gear in waters deeper than 3500 m, the seaward limit of EFH, out to the full extent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone. Waters that meet this description occur off the coast of California only, south of the Gorda Escarpment, and are shown on the map of groundfish EFH at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/groundfish/map-gfish-efh.pdf. An exempted fishing permit would be required before any bottom-contact fishery could start up in these waters. Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in depth in the EIS. If, during the preparation of this EIS, NMFS determines that a finding of no significant impact can be supported, it may prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issue a retraction of this notice. Alternatively, NMFS may still continue with the preparation of an EIS. Information and analysis prepared for this action also may be used when scoping future groundfish actions to help decide whether to prepare an EA or EIS. Request for Comments NMFS provides this notice to: (1) Advise the public and other agencies of its plans to analyze effects related to the action, and (2) obtain suggestions and information that may be useful to the scope of issues and the full range of alternatives to include in the EIS. NMFS invites comment from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to Amendment 28 is identified. NMFS is specifically inviting comments on the proposed alternatives described above. In addition, NMFS invites comments on the types of habitats that should be prioritized for protection from the adverse effects of fishing gear. Comments should be as specific as possible. [[Page 5105]] Written comments concerning the proposed action and the environmental review should be directed to NMFS as described above (see ADDRESSES). All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. Public Scoping Process Public scoping will be conducted through this notice. Further participation by the public will occur throughout the Council's decision-making process. All decisions during the Council process benefit from written and oral public comments delivered prior to or during the Council meeting. These public comments are considered integral to scoping for developing this EIS. Council meetings that offer opportunities for public involvement include the April 9-14, 2016, meeting in Vancouver, Washington (Hilton Vancouver Washington, 301 W. 6th Street, Vancouver, WA 98660). Future opportunities for public involvement have yet to be determined but will be posted in the Council Briefing Book (on the Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/briefing-books/) prior to the meeting. For further information on these meetings, visit the Council's Web site, http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/future-meetings/. Special Accommodations The Council meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: January 27, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2016-01759 Filed 1-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![5102 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices
Assessment Part 2 for 2016 Ocean DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE spawn and protecting natural habitats
Salmon Fishery Regulations’’ is that support spawning fish may act as
scheduled to be posted on the Pacific National Oceanic and Atmospheric an effective strategy when managing a
Council Web site at http:// Administration sustainable fish population. In the EA,
www.pcouncil.org. The report will the Council is also considering the
RIN 0648–XD882
include a description of the salmon implementation of SMZs to protect
management alternatives and a Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of spawning snapper-grouper species in
summary of their biological and Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- the South Atlantic region, in addition to
economic impacts. Public hearings will Grouper Fishery Off the South Atlantic specifying the anchoring, transit, and
be held to receive comments on the States; Amendment 36 sunset provisions. Sunset provisions
proposed ocean salmon fishery designate the date that the SMZs would
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries be removed from the regulations unless
management alternatives adopted by the
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and retained through action by the Council
Pacific Council. Written comments
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NMFS.
received at the public hearings and a
Commerce. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
summary of oral comments at the
ACTION: Notice announcing the
hearings will be provided to the Pacific Dated: January 27, 2016.
Council at its April meeting. preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA). Emily H. Menashes,
All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
the following locations: SUMMARY: NMFS, Southeast Region, in Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
• March 28, 2016: Chateau Westport, collaboration with the South Atlantic [FR Doc. 2016–01756 Filed 1–29–16; 8:45 am]
Beach Room, 710 West Hancock, Fishery Management Council (Council), BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Westport, WA 98595, telephone 360– is preparing an EA for Amendment 36
268–9101. to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• March 28, 2016: Red Lion Hotel, South Atlantic Region (Amendment 36).
South Umpqua Room, 1313 North Amendment 36 considers alternatives to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR 97420, implement special management zones Administration
telephone 541–267–4141. (SMZs) in the exclusive economic zone
RIN 0648–XE401
• March 29, 2016: Motel 6, of the South Atlantic. This notice is
Convention Room, 400 South Main St, intended to inform the public of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Fort Bragg, CA 95437, telephone 707– change from the preparation of a draft
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
964–4761. environmental impact statement (DEIS)
Environmental Impact Statement
to an EA for Amendment 36.
Comments on the alternatives the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Pacific Council adopts at its March 2016
DeVictor, NMFS Southeast Regional Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
meeting, and described in Preseason
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, or Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Report II, may be submitted in writing Commerce.
email: rick.devictor@noaa.gov.
or electronically as described under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An NOI to ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
ADDRESSES, or verbally or in writing at
any of the public hearings held on prepare a DEIS for Amendment 36 was environmental impact statement (EIS);
March 28–29, 2016, or at the Pacific published in the Federal Register on request for comments.
Council’s meeting, April 9–14, 2016, at April 8, 2015 (80 FR 18823). The NOI
indicated that Amendment 36 would be SUMMARY: NMFS and the Pacific Fishery
the Hilton in Vancouver, WA. Details of Management Council (Council)
these meetings will be available on the supported by an environmental impact
statement, which was the preliminary announce their intent to prepare an
Pacific Council’s Web site (http:// environmental impact statement (EIS) in
www.pcouncil.org) and will be determination at the time the original
purpose and need of the amendment accordance with the National
published in the Federal Register. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
was drafted. In addition to publication
Written and electronically submitted 1969 to analyze the short- and long-term
of the NOI, the Council held scoping
comments must be received no later impacts on the human (biological,
meetings for Amendment 36 from April
than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time, April 3, physical, social, and economic)
20–23, 2015. When the Council first
2016, in order to be included in the environment of Amendment 28 to the
requested development of this
briefing book for the April Council Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
amendment, they were considering
meeting where they will be considered SMZs of comparably larger sizes. A Management Plan (FMP). This notice
in the adoption of the Pacific Council’s reassessment of the actions in also requests written comment.
final recommendation for the 2016 Amendment 36 relative to the National DATES: Public scoping will be conducted
salmon fishery management measures. Environmental Policy Act indicates an through this notice. Written comments
All comments received accordingly will EA is appropriate. Therefore, a DEIS must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific
be reviewed and considered by the will not be prepared for Amendment 36 Standard Time on March 2, 2016 (see
Pacific Council and NMFS. at this time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Through Amendment 36, the Council ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: January 27, 2016.
is considering modifications to the SMZ on issues and alternatives by any of the
process and framework procedures to following methods:
Emily H. Menashes, include the consideration of SMZs that • Email:
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable would protect locations where snapper- GroundfishAmendment28.wcr@
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. grouper species are likely to spawn and noaa.gov.
[FR Doc. 2016–01761 Filed 1–29–16; 8:45 am] natural habitats that support spawning • Fax: 360–753–9463, Attention Dr.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P fish. Protecting locations where fish John Stadler.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:33 Jan 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_5122/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices 5103
• Mail: Submit written comments to affect EFH, for example, those managed procedure to review and revise the
Dr. John Stadler, Essential Fish Habitat by state agencies; groundfish EFH components. In
Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region, 4. A description of the non-fishing addition, minor clarifications and
510 Desmond Drive SE., Lacey, WA activities that may adversely affect; corrections to the FMP are warranted.
98503. 5. and analysis, if feasible, of how the
cumulative effects of fishing and non- Trawl RCA Adjustment
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or fishing activities affect the function of Trawl RCAs are areas that are closed
individual, or received after the end of EFH on an ecosystem or watershed to bottom-trawl gear to protect
the comment period, may not be scale; overfished species, primarily several
considered by NMFS. 6. A description of conservation and species of rockfishes, and were first
enhancement measures that encourage implemented in 2002. The trawl RCAs
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
the conservation of EFH, including extend along the entire West Coast and
John Stadler, Essential Fish Habitat
recommended options to avoid, is bounded by lines approximating
Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region
minimize, or compensate for the adverse particular depth contours. In recent
at 360–534–9328 or john.stadler@
effects of fishing and non-fishing years, the Council also considered
noaa.gov.
activities; modifications to control the bycatch of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 7. Identification of the major prey several non-overfished species (e.g.,
Background for Agency Actions and species of each species; spiny dogfish, longnose skate, and
8. Identification of habitat areas of rougheye rockfish). In 2011, the trawl
Proposed Action
particular concern (HAPCs); and fishery was rationalized by Amendment
There are more than 90 species 9. Identification of research and 20 to the groundfish FMP and
managed under the Pacific Coast information needs that the Council and participants are now individually
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan NMFS view as necessary to improve accountable for their bycatch of
(Groundfish FMP). These groundfish upon the description and identification individual fishing quota species. Due to
stocks support an array of commercial, of EFH, the identification of threats to the success of this program at reducing
recreational, and tribal fishing interests EFH from fishing and other activities, bycatch, the Council is now considering
in state and Federal waters off the coasts and the development of conservation making adjustments to the RCA
of Washington, Oregon, and California. and enhancement measures for EFH; boundaries or eliminating them entirely.
In addition, groundfish are also 10. A procedure for reviewing and Although the trawl RCAs were
harvested incidentally in non- revising, if warranted, the EFH implemented to control bycatch of
groundfish fisheries, most notably, the components of the FMP. overfished species, the habitats within
trawl fisheries for pink shrimp and The PFMC designated EFH for Pacific them have been largely protected from
California halibut. Coast groundfish in 2005, and bottom-trawl gear since their inception
Amendment 28 to the FMP is established the EFH components in 2002, even though trawling for pink
intended to accomplish three goals: (1) described above in Amendment 19 to shrimp has occurred in some areas.
Revise the essential fish habitat (EFH) the Groundfish FMP. In particular, the Because of the habitat protections
components of the FMP; (2) make Council identified a number of EFH afforded by the RCAs, the habitats that
adjustments to the trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas (EFHCAs) where have not been trawled for pink shrimp
Conservation Areas (RCAs); and (3) use certain types of bottom-contact gear are have recovered, at least partially, from
the discretionary authorities in the prohibited to minimize the adverse the effects of past bottom trawling.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery effects of the groundfish fishery on EFH. Therefore the Council will evaluate
Conservation and Management Act Maps of the EFHCAs are available at: adjustments to the RCA at the same time
(MSA) to protect benthic habitats, http:// they are considering revisions to the
including deep sea corals, from the www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ EFHCAs.
adverse effects of fishing. These actions publications/gis_maps/maps/
groundfish/map-gfish-efh-close.pdf. Prohibition of Bottom-Contact Gear in
are described in detail below.
Subsequently, and in accordance with Water Deeper Than 3500 Meters
Essential Fish Habitat the regulations, NMFS and the Council When the Council adopted
The MSA mandates that each regional completed a review of the information Amendment 19 to the groundfish FMP,
fishery management council designate available in 2013, and the Council it attempted to close waters deeper than
EFH for the species that they manage. issued a request for proposals on 3500 meters to bottom trawling to
EFH is defined as ‘‘those waters and changes to these 10 components. The minimize the effects of the fishery on
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, Council received eight proposals, two of groundfish EFH. However, because EFH
breeding, feeding or growth to which were later withdrawn by the did not extend beyond 3500 meters,
maturity.’’ The regulations sponsors. Although these proposals NMFS disapproved that section of the
implementing the EFH provisions of the covered a number of the EFH amendment. The MSA contains several
MSA (50 CFR 600.815) require or, in components, the Council determined discretionary authorities that the
some cases, recommend that fishery that revisions were warranted for these Council may use to close these waters,
management plans include the five components: The essential fish regardless of their designation as EFH
following components: habitat descriptions for each species and [MSA sections 303(b)(2)(A),
1. A description and identification of life stage; the description of the adverse 303(b)(2)(B), and 303(b)(12)]. The
EFH, including habitat information for effects of fishing on groundfish EFH and Council is considering using those
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
each managed species and life stage; management measures to minimize authorities to prohibit all bottom-
2. A description of the MSA fishing those effects (i.e., the EFHCAs); the contact gear in waters deeper than 3500
activities that may adversely affect EFH description of non-fishing activities that meters unless an exempted fishing
and management measures to minimize may adversely affect EFH, conservation permit is issued. At the present time,
those effects to the extent practicable; and enhancement measures that fishing with such gear at these depths is
3. A description of the non-MSA encourage the conservation of EFH; the neither technically nor economically
fishing activities that may adversely research and information needs; and the feasible; however, the Council and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:33 Jan 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_5122/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices 5105
Written comments concerning the (‘‘PRA’’), this notice announces that the a request for an extension of a currently
proposed action and the environmental Information Collection Request (‘‘ICR’’) approved information collection.
review should be directed to NMFS as abstracted below has been forwarded to Abstract: On April 3, 2012, the
described above (see ADDRESSES). All the Office of Management and Budget Commission adopted Commission
comments and materials received, (‘‘OMB’’) for review and comment. The regulation 1.71 (Conflicts of interest
including names and addresses, will ICR describes the nature of the policies and procedures by futures
become part of the administrative record information collection and its expected commission merchants and introducing
and may be released to the public. costs and burden. brokers) 1 pursuant to section 4d(c) 2 of
Public Scoping Process DATES: Comments must be submitted on the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’).
or before March 2, 2016. Commission regulation 1.71 requires
Public scoping will be conducted generally that, among other things,
ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the
through this notice. Further futures commission merchants
burden estimated or any other aspect of
participation by the public will occur (‘‘FCM’’) 3 and introducing brokers
the information collection, including
throughout the Council’s decision- (‘‘IB’’) 4 develop conflicts of interest
suggestions for reducing the burden,
making process. All decisions during procedures and disclosures, adopt and
may be submitted directly to the Office
the Council process benefit from written implement written policies and
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
and oral public comments delivered procedures reasonably designed to
(‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB, within 30 days of the
prior to or during the Council meeting. ensure compliance with their conflicts
notice’s publication, by email at
These public comments are considered of interest and disclosure obligations,
OIRAsubmissions@omb.eop.gov. Please
integral to scoping for developing this and maintain specified records related
identify the comments by OMB Control
EIS. Council meetings that offer to those requirements.5 The
No. 3038–0078. Please provide the
opportunities for public involvement Commission believes that the
Commodity Futures Trading
include the April 9–14, 2016, meeting in information collection obligations
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or
Vancouver, Washington (Hilton imposed by Commission regulation 1.71
‘‘Commission’’) with a copy of all
Vancouver Washington, 301 W. 6th are essential (i) to ensuring that FCMs
submitted comments at the address
Street, Vancouver, WA 98660). Future and IBs develop and maintain the
listed below. Please refer to OMB
opportunities for public involvement conflicts of interest systems, procedures
Reference No. 3038–0078, found on
have yet to be determined but will be and disclosures required by the CEA,
http://reginfo.gov. Comments may also
posted in the Council Briefing Book (on and Commission regulations, and (ii) to
be mailed to the Office of Information
the Council’s Web site (http:// the effective evaluation of these
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/ registrants’ actual compliance with the
Management and Budget, Attention:
briefing-books/) prior to the meeting. CEA and Commission regulations. An
Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures
For further information on these agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
Trading Commission, 725 17th Street
meetings, visit the Council’s Web site, a person is not required to respond to,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, or
http://www.pcouncil.org/council- a collection of information unless it
submitted through the Agency’s Web
operations/council-meetings/future- displays a currently valid OMB control
site at http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow
meetings/. number. The Commission did not
the instructions for submitting
Special Accommodations comments through the Web site. receive any comments on the 60-day
Comments may also be mailed to: Federal Register notice, 80 FR 73732,
The Council meetings are physically dated November 25, 2015.
accessible to people with disabilities. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the
Commission, Commodity Futures Burden Statement: The Commission
Requests for sign language is revising its estimate of the burden for
interpretation or other auxiliary aids Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., this collection to reflect the current
should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt number of registered FCMs and IBs.
at Kris.Kleinschmidt@noaa.gov or (503) Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand
Delivery/Courier at the same address. Accordingly, the respondent burden for
820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the this collection is estimated to be as
meeting date. A copy of the supporting statements
for the collection of information follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. discussed above may be obtained by Number of Registrants: 1,362.6
Dated: January 27, 2016. visiting http://RegInfo.gov. All Estimated Average Burden Hours per
Emily H. Menashes, comments must be submitted in Registrant: 44.5.
Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable English, or if not, accompanied by an Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours:
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. English translation. Comments will be 60,609.
[FR Doc. 2016–01759 Filed 1–29–16; 8:45 am] posted as received to http:// Frequency of Recordkeeping/Third-
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
www.cftc.gov. party Disclosure: As applicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel,
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Division of Swap Dealer and 1 17 CFR 1.71.
COMMISSION Intermediary Oversight, Commodity 27 U.S.C. 6d(c).
Futures Trading Commission, (202) 3 For the definition of FCM, see section 1a(28) of
Agency Information Collection 418–5496, email: jchachkin@cftc.gov, the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(p). 7 U.S.C.
1a(28) and 17 CFR 1.3(p).
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Activities Under OMB Review and refer to OMB Control No. 3038– 4 For the definition of IB, see section 1a(31) of the
0078.
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(mm). 7 U.S.C.
Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1a(31) and 17 CFR 1.3(mm).
5 See 17 CFR 1.71.
ACTION: Notice. Title: Conflicts of Interest Policies and 6 Reflects a slight reduction in the number of
Procedures by Futures Commission registered FCMs and IBs provided in the 60-day
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Merchants and Introducing Brokers Federal Register notice, 80 FR 73732 (November 25,
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (OMB Control No. 3038–0078). This is 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:33 Jan 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_5122/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-01-30 01:17:08
Document Modified: 2016-01-30 01:17:08
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for comments. | |
| Dates | Public scoping will be conducted through this notice. Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on March 2, 2016 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). | |
| Contact | Dr. John Stadler, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region at 360-534-9328 or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 5102 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XE40 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR