[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13363-13364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6627]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[I.D. 103098C]
Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Generic Essential Fish Habitat
Amendment
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of agency decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the partial approval of the Generic Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment (Gulf EFH Amendment) to the Fishery
Management Plans (FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf EFH Amendment
was submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Council).
DATES: This agency decision is effective February 8, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Barnette, 727-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional
fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or
amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial
approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon
receiving an amendment, immediately publish a document in the Federal
Register stating that the amendment is available for public review and
comment. On November 9, 1998, NMFS published a notice of availability
(NOA) of the Gulf EFH Amendment to the Gulf of Mexico FMPs and
requested public comments through January 8, 1999 (63 FR 60287).
On February 8, 1999, after considering comments received, NMFS
partially approved the Gulf EFH Amendment. NMFS determined that
approval was warranted for the amendment, except for sections on the
identification of EFH for managed species and the assessment of fishing
impacts on EFH. NMFS approved the identification of EFH for 26 selected
species and the coral complex, but did not approve the identification
of EFH for the remaining species under management. In addition, NMFS
approved the assessment of impacts on EFH from the use of three types
of fishing gear (trawls, recreational fishing gear, and traps/pots),
but determined that an assessment of the impact on EFH by the other
gears used in the Gulf of Mexico should be considered in subsequent
amendments as more information becomes available.
Comments and Responses
Twelve commenters responded during the comment period for the Gulf
EFH Amendment.
Comment 1: Several commenters requested an extension of the comment
period past January 8, 1999, based on their belief that they could not
finish their comments on this lengthy amendment within the 60-day
period.
Response: Section 304(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act limits the
comment period to 60 days and provides no authority to extend it.
Furthermore, due to a statutory deadline of 30 days after the end of
the NOA comment period for action on the Gulf EFH Amendment, NMFS was
unable to grant an extension to the comment period.
Comment 2: Four commenters commented on issues regarding the scope
of review within the EFH document. All four groups found fault, to
varying degrees, with portions of the recommendations to minimize
impacts of identified threats from non-fishing activities. The
commenters stated that many of the recommendations were inappropriate,
based on current EFH designation, and did not take into account current
permitting regulations or restrictions from other agencies. One
commenter cited, for example, that the Council's recommendation for a
prescribed cut-off depth for oil rig structure removal does not take
into consideration the Rigs-to-Reefs program (allocation of disposed
oil rigs for an artificial reef program). Additionally, three
commenters disagreed with the broad EFH description, claiming that the
description detracts from the benefits of the EFH designation process;
they claimed that by designating as EFH, collectively, all Gulf of
Mexico waters from the shoreline to the EEZ, EFH is not unique. They
stated that by broadly encompassing all waters, this description
seriously threatens future activities currently in compliance with the
law within the region.
Response: NMFS believes the Council's recommendations in the Gulf
EFH Amendment to minimize adverse effects from non-fishing related
activities have been misinterpreted. The recommendations referenced in
the comments were intended by the Council as general guidance only. Due
to time and resource constraints, the Council opted for a broad range
of recommendations to serve as general guidance for any future actions.
NMFS supports this decision by the Council.
[[Page 13364]]
Specific cases will be reviewed and considered during any necessary EFH
consultation. Decisions regarding specific potential interaction with
EFH (e.g., Rigs-to-Reefs utilization) will be made, as appropriate,
during the EFH consultation process. Furthermore, recognizing the
limitations of available habitat information, NMFS agrees with the
Council's broad designation of EFH.
Comment 3: One commenter noted that vegetated wetlands conservation
was not adequately addressed in the Gulf EFH Amendment.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The Gulf EFH Amendment
adequately identified activities that may have the potential to
negatively impact coastal wetlands, including vegetated wetlands, and
contained recommendations to minimize those impacts (section 7.2). The
Council will consider further information for inclusion in future FMP
amendments when available. Public review of, and comment on, this
information will occur during the development of future amendments.
Comment 4: One commenter stated that section 6.2 (Identification of
Non-Fishing Related Activities That May Adversely Affect EFH) should be
rejected in favor of ranking EFH threats by severity.
Response: NMFS believes that section 6.2 is adequate. Due to time
constraints and the need to amend the FMPs to identify EFH, the ranking
of threats and the establishment of a systematic approach to addressing
those threats must await future FMP amendments.
Comment 5: Two commenters stated that the approval of the
recommendations within the Gulf EFH Amendment regarding oil and gas
permit consultation would burden NMFS and, in turn, cause time delays
and cost overruns for hydrocarbon exploration and production.
Response: NMFS intends to initiate new consultation processes only
where no existing process is available to conduct the EFH consultation
process required by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the
case of oil and gas exploration and development, NMFS believes that
there are adequate mechanisms already in place to accommodate any
needed EFH consultations. The environmental impact assessment and
review procedure under the National Environmental Policy Act is the
most likely existing process that will be used. NMFS does not intend to
increase the time or complexity needed to complete the environmental
impact and review procedures already in place. Therefore, NMFS
disagrees with these comments.
Comment 6: Several commenters noted that assessments of the impact
on EFH of all allowable fishing gear types and activities in the Gulf
of Mexico, including Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, were not
covered in section 6.1 of the Gulf EFH Amendment (Fishing Activities
That May Adversely Affect EFH). These commenters suggested that section
6.1 should be rejected until adequate assessments are provided.
Response: NMFS partially approved section 6.1. NMFS approved the
assessment of the impacts of trawls, recreational fishing, and traps/
pots on EFH; however, NMFS did not approve the assessment of the impact
on EFH of other gear types and fishing in general. NMFS agrees that
fishery-related EFH impacts are important issues that need to be better
addressed. Currently, the scientific information base in the Gulf of
Mexico lacks the necessary detail on fishing-related impacts on EFH to
support a more complete assessment. Fishing-related impacts on EFH can
and will be properly addressed in future amendments, as information
becomes available.
Comment 7: Several commenters claimed that the Gulf EFH Amendment
failed to assess cumulative impacts on EFH in the Gulf of Mexico. The
commenters claimed that, as a result, section 6.3 of the Gulf EFH
Amendment was inadequate and should be rejected.
Response: NMFS believes that section 6.3 is adequate and based on
the best scientific information that is currently available. NMFS
agrees that cumulative EFH impacts are important and need to be better
addressed. Currently, the scientific information base in the Gulf of
Mexico lacks the necessary detail on cumulative impacts on EFH to
assess them more fully. These impacts can and will be properly
addressed in future amendments, as information becomes available.
Comment 8: Three commenters claimed that the amendment failed to
include any conservation or management measures to prevent, mitigate,
or minimize identified adverse fishing impacts on EFH.
Response: Current FMPs for Gulf of Mexico fisheries in Federal
waters already contain many management measures to reduce fishing-
related impacts on habitat. NMFS believes that the current scientific
information base in the Gulf of Mexico lacks the necessary detail to
determine the practicality of additional management measures. The need
for additional management measures to reduce fishing-related impacts on
EFH can and will be properly addressed in future amendments, as
information becomes available. Future research on fishing-related
impacts on EFH will form the basis for future identification of
additional mitigating measures.
Comment 9: Three commenters noted that there was a lack of an
assessment of regional habitat information/research needs or current
regional habitat data gaps within the Gulf EFH Amendment. The
commenters stated that the information provided was inadequate and
failed to meet the necessary requirements, and, thus, should be
rejected.
Response: NMFS agrees that a section regarding comprehensive
research needs in the Gulf of Mexico EFH Amendment is desirable. A
general research needs section was included in the amendment and
provides adequate guidance for developing specific regional research
activities. NMFS agrees, however, that a research schedule is needed in
the future. The Council can address this need in subsequent FMP
amendments.
Comment 10: A commenter indicated that the Gulf EFH Amendment must
include a revision of the Council's Statement of Practices and
Procedures.
Response: Revision of the Council's Statement of Practices and
Procedures is outside the scope of the Gulf EFH Amendment and was not
necessary for its approval. Therefore, NMFS disagrees with this
comment.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 12, 1999.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-6627 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F