99-6627. Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
2/8/1999
Published:
03/18/1999
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Notice of agency decision.
Document Number:
99-6627
Dates:
This agency decision is effective February 8, 1999.
Pages:
13363-13364 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
I.D. 103098C
PDF File:
99-6627.pdf
CFR: (1)
50 CFR 622