[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