[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19067-19069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9728]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR part 660
[I.D. 103098A]
RIN 0648-AL49
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;
Pelagic Fisheries, Amendment 8; Crustacean Fisheries, Amendment 10;
Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries, Amendment 6; Precious
Corals Fisheries, Amendment 4
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of agency decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the partial approval of a ``comprehensive
amendment'' that addresses essential fish habitat (EFH), overfishing
definitions, bycatch, fishing sectors, and fishing communities in the
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's
[[Page 19068]]
(Council) four fishery management plans.
DATES: This agency decision is effective February 3, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Amendments and Environmental Assessment may be
obtained from the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council,
1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alvin Z. Katekaru, Fishery Management
Specialist, Pacific Islands Area Office, NMFS, at 808- 973-2985.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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 5,
1998, NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) of the Western
Pacific amendments in the Federal Register and requested public
comments through January 4, 1999 (63 FR 59758).
On February 3, 1999, after considering comments received, NMFS
partially approved the Western Pacific comprehensive amendment. NMFS
approved the definitions of EFH for each of the four FMPs. All of the
amendments identify and describe EFH for the species managed under
these FMPs. EFH-related research and information needs are consistent
with NMFS goals. The non-fishing impacts on EFH are described, and
mitigation measures to address adverse impacts of fishing on EFH
already implemented are appropriate. No new measures would be
practicable at this time. NMFS will work with the Council to better
understand and minimize impacts of gear not originating in local
fisheries, such as high seas driftnets, trawl gear, and lost fishing
line that float into the Council's area from outside the Western
Pacific exclusive economic zone. Disapproved sections of the
comprehensive amendment include the bycatch provisions of Amendment 6
to the FMP for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, as well as those for
Amendment 8 to the Pelagics FMP. Although both amendments adequately
describe reporting procedures in place and provide a general
description of bycatch, quantification of bycatch by all sectors of the
fisheries managed by the Council is needed, as is a description of the
adequacy and identification of any shortfalls in the data. Both
amendments should include a more detailed discussion of specific
measures taken to minimize bycatch and minimize the mortality of
bycatch once taken.
Amendment 8 to the Pelagics FMP also fails to address the fact that
the catch of sea turtles has remained relatively consistent for the
last several years. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to address
measures to reduce this take, through modification of gear or fishing
effort. There should also be a discussion of data and estimates of
seabird incidental catch in the fishery.
Also disapproved were the criteria for identifying when overfishing
would occur in the bottomfish, pelagics, and crustaceans fisheries. The
Council's use of spawning potential ratio (SPR) percentages or ranges
as a proxy for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in determining minimum
stock size threshold as described in the amendment is not acceptable.
SPR is not an appropriate proxy for MSY, because it does not provide a
measure of stock biomass as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
determine the status of each stock. Further, the discussion of these
fisheries uses the term ``control rule'' incorrectly. A control rule
should contain two elements: A precautionary target (meaning a
reference point that is precautionary with respect to the limit
reference point and stocks status), which triggers action before the
limit reference point is reached, and the action to be taken to
expediently control (reduce) fishing mortality if such a point is
reached. The identification of fishing communities is acceptable, with
the exception of the categorization of the State of Hawaii as a fishing
community. This categorization is overly broad. The Council needs to
revisit its determination, specifically focusing on the definition of
``fishing community'' in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the
requirement to identify communities that are `` * * *substantially
dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of
fishery resources to meet social and economic needs * * *'' [Sec.
3(16)]. The NMFS National Standard Guidelines (63 FR 24212, May 1,
1998), further stipulate a fishing community as an economic or social
group that resides in a specific location and shares a common
dependency on fishing or related fisheries dependent industries and
services. Although NMFS recognizes that there are cases in which an
island may be appropriately designated as a community, the Council
should have provided additional background and analysis to justify the
designations. In the case of Hawaii, a more narrow categorization needs
to be developed.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received two comments from the Marine Fish Conservation
Network (MFCN) during the comment period on the NOA.
Comment 1: The MFCN commented that the comprehensive amendment
fails to evaluate the effects of all 35 gear types listed (63 FR 4030,
January 27, 1999) as used in the Western Pacific, fails to evaluate the
effect of the take of prey species as an effect on EFH, fails to
minimize any identified adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH,
and fails to establish research closure areas to evaluate further the
impacts of fishing activities on EFH.
Response: The amendment focuses on gear types predominantly used in
the Western Pacific waters under Federal jurisdiction, the majority of
which were defined as EFH. The amendment identifies these gears as
longline, handline, troll, all variations of hook-and-line gear, and
lobster traps. Examination of catch data from Hawaii, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands indicates that more than 88
percent (by weight) of the 1997 catch from Federal waters (seaward of
state waters) were landed by hook-and-line, longline, and trolling
gear. Other gear types such as manned submersibles used to harvest
precious corals, or harvest by hand (e.g., spear or small throw net)
are unlikely to adversely affect habitat. The actual and potential
effects of the predominant fishing gears on habitat within Federal
waters were evaluated and found by the Council not to warrant
additional measures at this time.
The Council, however, previously took action to minimize the
adverse impacts of fishing activities on EFH. For example, the Council
evaluated several potentially destructive gear types and banned their
use in Federal waters. These include bottomfish trawls, bottom-set
gillnets, explosives, poisons, and tangle net dredges. Current Federal
regulations also prohibit unattended lobster traps in order to prevent
ghost fishing and to minimize the potential for lost gear that could
have an adverse effect on EFH.
Regarding the take of prey species resulting from fishing
activities, no managed fisheries target such species. Although some
prey species are taken as bycatch by tuna purse seiners operating
around certain remote U.S. Pacific
[[Page 19069]]
island areas such as Palmyra Atoll, and the islands of Howland, Baker,
and Jarvis, the quantity harvested annually is less than 10 mts. NMFS
believes that this level of catch of prey species will not have an
adverse effect on EFH.
According to NMFS' EFH Guidelines (62 FR 66531, December 19, 1997),
the establishment of research closure areas is not a mandatory element
of fishery management plans. Even though the Council did not create
specific research closure areas, currently established refugia,
protected species study zones, and longline closed areas could be used
as research closure areas for that purpose under experimental fishing
permits.
Comment 2: The MFCN also commented that the comprehensive amendment
fails to comply with statutory mandates to create a standardized
reporting methodology for bycatch and to minimize to the extent
practicable bycatch and bycatch mortality in its fisheries.
Response: NMFS recognized the shortcomings of the sections of the
comprehensive amendment regarding bycatch in the bottomfishing and
pelagics fisheries and disapproved them. Although the bycatch sections
of the crustaceans and precious corals amendments could be strengthened
by more specific discussion and analysis of all fishing gears used in
the Western Pacific, NMFS has determined that they are adequate, but
will work with the Council to improve them. No new management measures
to address bycatch appear to be practicable at this time.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 13, 1999.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-9728 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
