83 FR 31340 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat Amendments
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)
| Page Range | 31340-31342 | |
| FR Document | 2018-14347 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 31340-31342] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-14347] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 RIN 0648-XF559 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat Amendments AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of agency decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the approval of Amendment 115 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, Amendment 105 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska, and Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area, (collectively Amendments). These Amendments revise the FMPs by updating the description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH), and updating information on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable laws. DATES: The amendments were approved on May 31, 2018. ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Amendments, maps of the EFH areas, the Environmental Assessment (EA), and the Final EFH 5-year Summary Report (Summary Report) prepared for this action may be obtained from www.regulations.gov. The Summary Report is also available at ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_15.pdf. The 2017 Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-fishing Activities in Alaska Report (Non-fishing Effects Report) is available at ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_14.pdf. Stone (2014) is available at https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/pp16.pdf. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notification in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Notification of Availability for the Amendments was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2018 (83 FR 9257), with a 60-day comment period that ended on May 4, 2018. NMFS received five comments during the public comment period on the Notification of Availability for the Amendments. NMFS is not disapproving any part of these amendments in response to these comments. NMFS summarized and responded to these comments under Comment and Responses, below. NMFS determined that the Amendments are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, and the Secretary of Commerce approved the Amendments on May 31, 2018. The March 5, 2018, Notiication of Availability contains additional information on this action. No changes to Federal regulations are necessary to implement the Amendments. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680. Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other measures to promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as ``those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.'' Implementing regulations at Sec. 600.815 list the EFH contents required in each FMP and direct regional fishery management councils to conduct a complete review of all EFH information at least once every five years (referred to here as ``the 5-year review''). The Council developed the Amendments as a result of new information available through the 5-year [[Page 31341]] review that began in 2014 (2015 5-year review) and adopted the Amendments in April 2017. The 2015 5-year review is the Council's third review of EFH in the FMPs. Prior 5-year reviews were conducted in 2005 and 2010. The Council recommended amendments to the description and identification of EFH in the FMPs with new information and improved mapping as described in the Summary Report for the 2015 5-year review (see ADDRESSES). The Council also recommended updates to EFH information based on the best available information in the Summary Report. The Council recommended updates to EFH for all FMPs except for the FMP for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska because no new information is available to update EFH descriptions for scallops. The Amendments make the following changes to the FMPs:Amendment 115 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Management Area and Amendment 105 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (Amendments 115/105) update the EFH descriptions for all managed species and update the identification of EFH for those managed species for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Sections 4.2.1 and 5.2.1 of the EA (see ADDRESSES) list the EFH updates that will be made for each species and life stage. Amendments 115/105 also update information in Appendix F to each FMP on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs updates the EFH descriptions for all managed species and updates the identification of EFH for those managed species for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Section 6.2.1 of the EA (See ADDRESSES) lists the EFH updates that will be made for each species and life stage. Amendment 49 also updates information in Appendix F to the FMP on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska (Salmon FMP) replaces Appendix A, ``Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC),'' with a new Appendix A based on the best available information in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP updates the marine EFH descriptions for all salmon species and updates the identification of marine EFH for each species and life stage for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Section 7.2.1 of the EA (see ADDRESSES) lists the EFH updates that will be made for each species and life stage. Amendment 13 also updates information in Appendix A on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area updates the EFH descriptions for all managed species for which new information is available, and updates the identification of EFH for snow crab. Section 8.2.1 of the EA (See ADDRESSES) lists the EFH updates that will be made for each species and life stage. Amendment 2 also updates information in Appendix C on non-fishing impacts to EFH based on information available in the Non-fishing Effects Report (see ADDRESSES). Comments and Responses During the public comment period for the Notification of Availability for the Amendments, NMFS received five unique comments from five members of the public on the Amendments. NMFS received one comment that was not relevant to the Amendments. NMFS is not disapproving any part of these amendments in response to these comments. NMFS' responses to these comments are presented below. Comment 1: Two commenters expressed general support for this action. Response: NMFS acknowledges these comments. Comment 2: Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP, Appendix A, is inconsistent with the requirement to use the best science information available. It also fails to recognize adverse effects to salmon EFH, including recreational fishing, and does not include scientific reports that document adverse effects to salmon EFH. Response: Appendix A to the Salmon FMP incorporates the best scientific information available from the Summary Report and the Non- fishing Effects Report (see ADDRESSES). The required information from the EFH final rule is also included in Appendix A. Regarding the effects of recreational fishing on EFH, recreational fishing falls under non-Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.815(a)(3)). The regulations require FMPs to identify any fishing activities that are not managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that may adversely affect EFH, including fishing managed by state agencies or other authorities. NMFS identified and addressed those activities in Section 2.3 of the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). Section 2.3 of the Summary Report notes that the effects of non-Magnuson-Stevens Act fishing activities are covered within the discussion of fishing effects on habitat in the 2005 EFH EIS and remain valid. Therefore, the Summary Report does not provide additional analysis of the effects of non-MSA fishing activities on EFH. Comment 3: The EA failed to use the best scientific information available. The EA did not use predictive habitat models, failed to disclose adverse impacts of fishing on EFH for FMP species whose EFH includes corals and slow-growing habitat features, and is not sufficiently precautionary. Response: This comment can be divided into issues related to analysis of fishing impacts (Fishing Effects (FE) model) and issues related to the assessment of fishing activities that adversely affect EFH. The FE model and how it was used to understand the effects of fishing on EFH is fully described in the EA in Appendix 7 (The Fishing Effects Model Description, see ADDRESSES). Regarding the analysis of fishing impacts, the FE model incorporated a published, peer-reviewed literature review (see Grabowski et al. (2014) in Appendix 7 of the EA; see ADDRESSES) to estimate impact and recovery parameters, which included studies of fishing gear interactions with 26 categories of geological and biological substrates. NMFS is aware that information exists in the literature that provides additional information on the age of sensitive habitat types, including corals and sponges. The Grabowoski et al. literature review included at least 10 Alaska-specific references. The recovery times specified in the FE model are the average time to recovery, when about 50 to 60 percent of the features are expected to have recovered from a potential fishery impact. The recovery projected by the FE model is intended to reflect both the distribution of damage (not all features are completely removed or killed) and the variable time to recovery consistent with the limited literature available. The recovery times projected by the FE model are similar to those in the published peer review literature (Rooper (2011)),\1\ which noted that mortality of 67% of the coral biomass at a site would recover to 80% of the original biomass [[Page 31342]] after 34 years in the absence of further damage or removals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Rooper, C.N., Wilkins, M.E., Rose, C.S. and Coon, C., 2011. Modeling the impacts of bottom trawling and the subsequent recovery rates of sponges and corals in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Continental Shelf Research, 31(17), pp.1827-1834. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FE model includes an assessment of ``long-lived species'' habitat in cobble/boulder habitat deeper than 300 meters. The FE model accounts for corals, including sea pens, in mud and sand environments. Coral and other long-lived species are included in depths shallower than 300 meters as the ``coral/seapen'' feature. They are attributes of the sand and mud habitat categories regardless of depth. The FE model notes that based on a review of fishing activities in 2015, over 94 percent of area contacted by fishing gear was in sand and mud habitats. Sponge were a feature of all sediment types with the exception of mud, at all depths. Predictive models were not used in the FE model because the distribution of both biological and geological features were linked to sediment types rather than specific features. The FE model accounts for both biological and geological features. In April 2017, the SSC agreed with the conclusions of the FE model and agreed that, given current understanding of stock delineations, the effects of fishing on the EFH of fisheries species managed by the Council are minimal and temporary. The SSC also recognized that this FE model is the first of its kind and will benefit from continued research to refine the parameterization of the FE model. Currently the New England Fishery Management Council is working to modify the FE model to integrate fisheries data specific to New England. Regarding the assessment of more than minimal and not temporary in nature, the EFH regulations instruct the Council to act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing, to the extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing activity adversely affects habitats that are necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity in a manner that is more than minimal and not temporary in nature (provide citation to regulation). Previous Council EFH reviews used the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) to determine if adverse effects were occurring. The Center of Independent Experts criticized this determination process during the 2010 5-year EFH review. In April 2016, the SSC recommended the EFH workgroup develop criteria for evaluating the impact of fishing effects on EFH in response to the review by the Center of Independent Experts. In response, an assessment was presented to the Council's crab and groundfish plan teams as well as the SSC at the Council's October 2016 meeting (http://npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=fc25a8ed-e85d-4579-a24b-860688bf3974.pdf). The results from this assessment are incorporated in the FE model. Stock assessment authors used the methodology developed by the EFH workgroup to assess the effects of fishing on the EFH of each Council- managed stock. The stock assessment authors evaluated the quantitative evidence for potential links between habitat impacts and a series of metrics representing spawning, feeding, breeding, and growth to maturity (see section 10.3.7 of the Summary Report; see ADDRESSES). The SSC concurred with the assessment authors' findings that no stocks needed mitigation review at this time, but noted that if a more than minimal and not temporary impact had been detected, the process provided a clear avenue for research leading to a species-specific mitigation plan. Comment 5: NMFS should include all fishing impacts (including recreational fishing), non-fishing impacts, impacts to coastal watersheds, a discussion of climate change, and address cumulative impacts in Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. In addition, NMFS should coordinate with state and local agencies when making decisions impacting EFH for salmon in Alaska. Response: The effects of fishing on salmon EFH are addressed in Section A.4 of Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. See also NMFS' response to Comment 4 above regarding the FE model analysis. NMFS analyzed non- fishing impacts (including watersheds and wetlands, and a discussion of climate change) in the Non-fishing Effects Report (see ADDRESSES). This report is referred to in Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. NMFS' response to Comment 3 above ADDRESSES the effects of recreational fishing on EFH. Cumulative impacts are addressed in Section A.6 of Appendix A. The cumulative effects of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH were considered in the 2005 EFH EIS, but available information was not sufficient to assess how the cumulative effects of fishing and non- fishing activities influence the function of EFH on an ecosystem or watershed scale. The Non-fishing Effects Report contains additional information on the potential cumulative impacts of non-fishing activities. For fishing impacts to EFH, the FE model provides an assessment of cumulative effects from fishing activities. Cumulative impacts are considered throughout the Summary Report. Regarding coordination with the state and other agencies, NMFS works closely with the Council, which includes state and Federal agency representatives as well as industry representatives in a collaborative decision-making process for managing Federal fisheries. Coordination and consultation on EFH is required by section 305(b) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act. However, this consultation does not supersede the regulations, rights, interests, or jurisdictions of other Federal or state agencies. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to make conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH. These EFH conservation recommendations are advisory, not mandatory, and may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset the potential adverse effects to EFH. Within 30 days of receiving NMFS' conservation recommendations, Federal action agencies must provide a detailed response in writing. The response must include measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of a proposed activity on EFH. State agencies are not required to respond to EFH conservation recommendations. If a Federal action agency chooses not to adopt NMFS' conservation recommendations, it must provide an explanation. Examples of Federal action agencies that permit or undertake activities that may trigger EFH consultation include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Department of the Navy. The Non-fishing Effects Report contains non-binding recommendations for reasonable steps that could be taken to avoid or minimize adverse effects of non-fishing activities on EFH. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: June 28, 2018. Samuel. D Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018-14347 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![31340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
CRA. The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
within the meaning of the CRA. It will Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
not have an annual effect on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Conservation and Management Act
economy of $100,000,000 or more; it Administration (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that
will not result in a major increase in each regional fishery management
costs or prices for consumers, 50 CFR Part 679 council submit any FMP amendment it
individual industries, Federal, State, or RIN 0648–XF559 prepares to NMFS for review and
local government agencies, or approval, disapproval, or partial
geographic regions; and it will not have Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic approval by the Secretary of Commerce.
significant adverse effects on Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Act also
competition, employment, investment, Amendments requires that NMFS, upon receiving an
productivity, innovation, or on the FMP amendment, immediately publish
ability of United States-based AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries a notification in the Federal Register
enterprises to compete with foreign- Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and announcing that the amendment is
based enterprises in domestic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), available for public review and
export markets. Commerce. comment.
ACTION: Notification of agency decision. The Notification of Availability for
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Parts 59 and the Amendments was published in the
61 SUMMARY: The National Marine Federal Register on March 5, 2018 (83
Flood insurance, Reporting and Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the FR 9257), with a 60-day comment
recordkeeping requirements. approval of Amendment 115 to the period that ended on May 4, 2018.
For the reasons set forth in the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for NMFS received five comments during
preamble, the Federal Emergency Groundfish of the Bering Sea and the public comment period on the
Management Agency amends 44 CFR Aleutian Islands Management Area, Notification of Availability for the
Chapter I as follows: Amendment 105 to the FMP for Amendments. NMFS is not
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, disapproving any part of these
PART 59—GENERAL PROVISIONS Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering amendments in response to these
Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner comments. NMFS summarized and
■ 1. The authority citation for Part 59 Crabs, Amendment 13 to the FMP for responded to these comments under
continues to read as follows: the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Comment and Responses, below.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Alaska, and Amendment 2 to the FMP NMFS determined that the
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR for Fish Resources of the Arctic Amendments are consistent with the
41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. Management Area, (collectively Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, Amendments). These Amendments applicable laws, and the Secretary of
1979 Comp., p. 376. revise the FMPs by updating the Commerce approved the Amendments
* * * * * description and identification of on May 31, 2018. The March 5, 2018,
essential fish habitat (EFH), and Notiication of Availability contains
Subpart C—Pilot Inspection Program updating information on adverse additional information on this action.
[Removed] impacts to EFH based on the best No changes to Federal regulations are
■ 2. Remove subpart C, consisting of scientific information available. This necessary to implement the
§ 59.30. action is intended to promote the goals Amendments.
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens The North Pacific Fishery
* * * * * Fishery Conservation and Management Management Council (Council)
Act, the FMPs, and other applicable prepared the FMPs under the authority
PART 61—INSURANCE COVERAGE
laws. of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.
AND RATES
1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S.
DATES: The amendments were approved fisheries and implementing the FMPs
■ 3. The authority citation for Part 61 on May 31, 2018.
continues to read as follows: appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 680. Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Amendments, maps of the EFH areas,
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR
Stevens Act requires that each FMP
the Environmental Assessment (EA), describe and identify EFH, minimize to
41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O.
and the Final EFH 5-year Summary the extent practicable the adverse effects
12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376. Report (Summary Report) prepared for of fishing on EFH, and identify other
this action may be obtained from measures to promote the conservation
* * * * *
www.regulations.gov. The Summary and enhancement of EFH. The
Appendix A(4) to Part 61 [Removed] Report is also available at ftp:// Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as
ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_ ‘‘those waters and substrate necessary to
■ 4. Remove Appendix A(4) to Part 61.
documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_ fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
Appendix A(5) to Part 61 [Removed] AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_15.pdf. The growth to maturity.’’ Implementing
2017 Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat regulations at § 600.815 list the EFH
■ 5. Remove Appendix A(5) to Part 61.
from Non-fishing Activities in Alaska contents required in each FMP and
Appendix A(6) to Part 61 [Removed] Report (Non-fishing Effects Report) is direct regional fishery management
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
available at ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/ councils to conduct a complete review
■ 6. Remove Appendix A(6) to Part 61.
noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_ of all EFH information at least once
Brock Long, AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_14.pdf. Stone every five years (referred to here as ‘‘the
Administrator, Federal Emergency (2014) is available at https:// 5-year review’’).
Management Agency. spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/pp16.pdf. The Council developed the
[FR Doc. 2018–14477 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amendments as a result of new
BILLING CODE 9111–52–P Megan Mackey, 907–586–7228. information available through the 5-year
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Jul 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM 05JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31469/page/1.svg)
![31342 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
after 34 years in the absence of further response, an assessment was presented activities. For fishing impacts to EFH,
damage or removals. to the Council’s crab and groundfish the FE model provides an assessment of
The FE model includes an assessment plan teams as well as the SSC at the cumulative effects from fishing
of ‘‘long-lived species’’ habitat in Council’s October 2016 meeting (http:// activities. Cumulative impacts are
cobble/boulder habitat deeper than 300 npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M= considered throughout the Summary
meters. The FE model accounts for F&ID=fc25a8ed-e85d-4579-a24b- Report.
corals, including sea pens, in mud and 860688bf3974.pdf). The results from Regarding coordination with the state
sand environments. Coral and other this assessment are incorporated in the and other agencies, NMFS works closely
long-lived species are included in FE model. with the Council, which includes state
depths shallower than 300 meters as the Stock assessment authors used the and Federal agency representatives as
‘‘coral/seapen’’ feature. They are methodology developed by the EFH well as industry representatives in a
attributes of the sand and mud habitat workgroup to assess the effects of collaborative decision-making process
categories regardless of depth. The FE fishing on the EFH of each Council- for managing Federal fisheries.
model notes that based on a review of managed stock. The stock assessment Coordination and consultation on EFH
fishing activities in 2015, over 94 authors evaluated the quantitative is required by section 305(b) of the
percent of area contacted by fishing gear evidence for potential links between Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, this
was in sand and mud habitats. Sponge habitat impacts and a series of metrics consultation does not supersede the
were a feature of all sediment types with representing spawning, feeding, regulations, rights, interests, or
the exception of mud, at all depths. breeding, and growth to maturity (see jurisdictions of other Federal or state
Predictive models were not used in section 10.3.7 of the Summary Report; agencies. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
the FE model because the distribution of see ADDRESSES). The SSC concurred requires NMFS to make conservation
both biological and geological features with the assessment authors’ findings recommendations to Federal and state
were linked to sediment types rather that no stocks needed mitigation review agencies regarding actions that may
than specific features. The FE model at this time, but noted that if a more adversely affect EFH. These EFH
accounts for both biological and than minimal and not temporary impact conservation recommendations are
geological features. had been detected, the process provided advisory, not mandatory, and may
In April 2017, the SSC agreed with a clear avenue for research leading to a include measures to avoid, minimize,
the conclusions of the FE model and species-specific mitigation plan. mitigate, or otherwise offset the
agreed that, given current understanding Comment 5: NMFS should include all potential adverse effects to EFH. Within
of stock delineations, the effects of fishing impacts (including recreational 30 days of receiving NMFS’
fishing on the EFH of fisheries species fishing), non-fishing impacts, impacts to conservation recommendations, Federal
managed by the Council are minimal coastal watersheds, a discussion of action agencies must provide a detailed
and temporary. The SSC also recognized climate change, and address cumulative response in writing. The response must
that this FE model is the first of its kind impacts in Appendix A to the Salmon include measures proposed for
and will benefit from continued FMP. In addition, NMFS should avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the
research to refine the parameterization coordinate with state and local agencies impact of a proposed activity on EFH.
of the FE model. Currently the New when making decisions impacting EFH State agencies are not required to
England Fishery Management Council is for salmon in Alaska. respond to EFH conservation
working to modify the FE model to Response: The effects of fishing on recommendations. If a Federal action
integrate fisheries data specific to New salmon EFH are addressed in Section agency chooses not to adopt NMFS’
England. A.4 of Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. conservation recommendations, it must
Regarding the assessment of more See also NMFS’ response to Comment 4 provide an explanation. Examples of
than minimal and not temporary in above regarding the FE model analysis. Federal action agencies that permit or
nature, the EFH regulations instruct the NMFS analyzed non-fishing impacts undertake activities that may trigger
Council to act to prevent, mitigate, or (including watersheds and wetlands, EFH consultation include, but are not
minimize any adverse effects from and a discussion of climate change) in limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of
fishing, to the extent practicable, if there the Non-fishing Effects Report (see Engineers, the Environmental Protection
is evidence that a fishing activity ADDRESSES). This report is referred to in Agency, Bureau of Ocean Energy
adversely affects habitats that are Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. NMFS’ Management, the Federal Energy
necessary for spawning, breeding, response to Comment 3 above Regulatory Commission, and the
feeding, or growth to maturity in a ADDRESSES the effects of recreational Department of the Navy. The Non-
manner that is more than minimal and fishing on EFH. fishing Effects Report contains non-
not temporary in nature (provide Cumulative impacts are addressed in binding recommendations for
citation to regulation). Previous Council Section A.6 of Appendix A. The reasonable steps that could be taken to
EFH reviews used the minimum stock cumulative effects of fishing and non- avoid or minimize adverse effects of
size threshold (MSST) to determine if fishing activities on EFH were non-fishing activities on EFH.
adverse effects were occurring. The considered in the 2005 EFH EIS, but
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Center of Independent Experts criticized available information was not sufficient
this determination process during the to assess how the cumulative effects of Dated: June 28, 2018.
2010 5-year EFH review. In April 2016, fishing and non-fishing activities Samuel. D Rauch, III,
the SSC recommended the EFH influence the function of EFH on an Deputy Assistant Administrator for
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
workgroup develop criteria for ecosystem or watershed scale. The Non- Regulatory Programs, National Marine
evaluating the impact of fishing effects fishing Effects Report contains Fisheries Service.
on EFH in response to the review by the additional information on the potential [FR Doc. 2018–14347 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am]
Center of Independent Experts. In cumulative impacts of non-fishing BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Jul 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM 05JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31469/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-03 23:40:41
Document Modified: 2018-07-03 23:40:41
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Notification of agency decision. | |
| Dates | The amendments were approved on May 31, 2018. | |
| Contact | Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 31340 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XF55 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR