[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12782]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 25, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 651
[Docket No. 940552-4152; I.D. 051294A]
Northeast Multispecies Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement measures contained in
Framework Adjustment 4 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). The measures contained in this rule are a series of time
and area closures for sink gillnet gear to reduce bycatch of harbor
porpoise. These measures replace blocks of time during each month
during which all sink gillnets would be required to be removed from the
water. The intent of this rule is to reduce significantly the bycatch
of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 5, its regulatory impact review (RIR)
and the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) contained with the
RIR, its final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS), and
Framework Adjustment #4 and its environmental assessment are available
upon request from Douglas G. Marshall, Executive Director, New England
Fishery Management Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1097.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Martin Jaffe, NMFS, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 508-281-9272.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted
Amendment 5 to NMFS on September 27, 1993. One of its principal
objectives was to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of
Maine sink gillnet fishery by the end of year 4 of implementation of
the Amendment to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the population,
based on the best estimates of abundance and bycatch.
The Council was requested by NMFS in October 1992 to take action to
reduce the harbor porpoise bycatch within the context of Amendment 5.
The Council agreed to develop fishery management measures that would
address the issue on the basis that the sink gillnet fishery was
subject to regulation under the FMP, there were no existing regulatory
mechanisms to reduce porpoise takes, and the current level of bycatch
in the fishery was not sustainable.
Additionally, on January 7, 1993, NMFS published a proposed rule
(58 FR 3108) to list the Gulf of Maine population of harbor porpoise as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), due primarily to the
level of incidental takes in the sink gillnet fishery and the lack of
an adequate regulatory mechanism to accomplish bycatch reductions. As
NMFS noted in the rule, the Marine Mammal Exemption Program contained
in the 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) did
not set bycatch limits.
The Council subsequently adopted the goal of achieving reductions
in harbor porpoise bycatch, so that the actual amount of harbor
porpoise caught as bycatch in the sink gillnet fishery would not exceed
2 percent of the estimates of the harbor porpoise population, in part
to avoid the pending ESA listing. This objective was based on a
recruitment rate for harbor porpoise that is about 4 percent per year,
and a conservative fisheries bycatch level that should not exceed 50
percent of the recruitment rate for marine mammals. The 1991/1992
pooled harbor porpoise population abundance estimate is 47,200. Using
the lower bound of the 95-percent confidence interval for that
estimate, 39,500, the 1990, 1991, and 1992 ratios of bycatch to average
population abundance were approximately 6 percent, 4.3 percent and 2.2
percent, respectively. A 2-percent goal allocated solely to the Gulf of
Maine sink gillnet fishery did not take into account the unknown level
of harbor porpoise takes in the Mid-Atlantic region and in adjacent
Canadian waters.
Because the 1992 abundance and bycatch information was not
available until June 1993, however, development of effective measures
based on the best scientific information lagged behind the formulation
of the overall Amendment 5 package. The harbor porpoise bycatch
mitigation measure implemented by the final rule for the Amendment
required the removal of all sink gillnets from the water during 4-day
blocks of time each month in year 1 after implementation of Amendment
5. Years 2 and 3 of Amendment 5 called for 8-day blocks each month.
Year 4 required 12-day blocks and year 5 required 16-day blocks. The
Council supported, and NMFS approved, the use of blocks of time as an
interim measure on the assumption that appropriate time and area
management measures would be developed as soon as possible.
The rationale for the interim measure was based largely on the lack
of information concerning the sink gillnet fishery. By ``masking''
periods of time monthly, during which all sink gillnets must be removed
from the water, the time during which harbor porpoise would be exposed
to that gear would be reduced. In a simulation analyzing the effect of
closing the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery for 4 consecutive random
days per month, approximately 8.5 percent of the fish would not be
landed and 9.3 percent of the harbor porpoise bycatch would be avoided.
The effect of choosing random days, however, produced very different
values of harbor porpoise bycatch for the different trials.
Because of the imprecise nature of the impacts of the blocks of
time, and upon receipt of the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center's
(NEFSC) comprehensive spatial and temporal analysis of the bycatch in
the fall of 1993, the Council voted to support the development of a
time and area closure management system. The intent was to replace the
existing gillnet alternative (nets removed from the water for specified
blocks of time) as the harbor porpoise bycatch mitigation measure. The
Council decided, and NMFS agreed, that the gillnet fleet would not be
subject to groundfish effort reductions until the effect of the harbor
porpoise bycatch reduction measures could be evaluated for their
impacts on groundfish fishing effort (approximately 1 year after
implementation of Amendment 5).
NMFS is amending the regulations under the framework abbreviated
rulemaking procedure established by Amendment 5 and codified at 50 CFR
part 651, subpart C. This procedure requires the Council, when making
specifically allowed adjustments to the FMP, to develop and analyze the
actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council
must provide the public with advance notice of both the proposals and
the analysis, and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the
second Council meeting. Upon review of the analysis and public comment,
the Council may recommend to the Regional Director of NMFS that the
measures be published as a final rule if certain conditions are met.
The Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, (Regional Director) may publish
the measures as a final rule or as a proposed rule if additional public
comment is needed.
The Council complied with the procedural requirements and submitted
the rule to NMFS, and NMFS concurs with the provisions of the Council's
submission. This final rule implements time and area closures based on
an analysis by the NEFSC of harbor porpoise bycatch using NMFS weighout
and observer program data on the distribution of sink gillnet activity
and the seasonal and spatial distribution of harbor porpoise in the
Gulf of Maine. Extensive discussions among the Council, the fishing
industry and scientists led to the measures outlined below.
For purposes of the management measures contained in this final
rule for Framework Adjustment #4, the Gulf of Maine is divided into
three areas: The Northeast (from Penobscot Bay to Eastport, ME); Mid-
coast (from Cape Ann to Penobscot Bay); and Massachusetts Bay (from
Cape Cod to Cape Ann). The Council recommended 30-day closures for each
of these areas. The timing of the closures corresponds to periods when
harbor porpoise bycatch is most likely to occur. The duration accounts
for the variability of harbor porpoise movements. The Council
recognizes that the Mid-coast and Northeast areas account for more of
the bycatch than Massachusetts Bay. At this time, however, harbor
porpoise bycatch mitigation measures are being applied uniformly across
all regions in the Gulf of Maine.
The NEFSC estimated that reductions of 20 to 40 percent might be
realized in the first year of implementation of Framework Adjustment #4
if boundaries discussed in its initial analysis of a time and area
management system for the Gulf of Maine were used in conjunction with
the proposed 30-day closures. The Council's boundary modifications
could alter that estimate to some unknown degree because of the
potential displacement of gillnet fishing effort to areas where harbor
porpoise are still subject to some level of bycatch. It is reasonable,
however, to anticipate the minimum estimate of approximately 20
percent, given that the timing of the closures occurs in seasons of
highest bycatch of harbor porpoise in their respective areas. It is
also reasonable to conclude that the continued annual target reductions
may be accomplished by modifications to the same measures.
The Council adopted the approach of integrating effort reductions
for key species of groundfish stocks with harbor porpoise bycatch
mitigation measures after the first year of program implementation. If
the measures, or any future approach that is adopted, accomplish the
harbor porpoise objective without reducing gillnet fishing effort
sufficiently to reach the 50 percent effort reduction target, the
Council will impose additional fishing restrictions.
A. Northeast Closure Area
This area will be closed to fishing with sink gillnets from August
15 through September 13 of each fishing year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE1................................ Maine shoreline 68 deg.55.0'W.
NE2................................ 43 deg.29.6' N. 68 deg.55.0' W.
NE3................................ 44 deg.04.4' N. 67 deg.48.7' W.
NE4................................ 44 deg.06.9' N. 67 deg.52.8' W.
NE5................................ 44 deg.31.2' N. 67 deg.02.7' W.
NE6................................ Maine shoreline 67 deg.02.7' W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Mid-coast Closure Area
This area will be closed to fishing with sink gillnets from
November 1 through November 30 of each fishing year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MC1....................................... 42 deg.45' N. Massachusetts shoreline.
MC2....................................... 42 deg.45' N. 70 deg.15' W.
MC3....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 70 deg.15' W.
MC4....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 69 deg.00' W.
MC5....................................... Maine shoreline 69 deg.00' W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Massachusetts Bay Closure Area
This area will be closed to fishing with sink gillnets from March 1
through March 30 of each fishing year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB1....................................... 42 deg.30' N. Massachusetts shoreline.
MB2....................................... 42 deg.30' N. 70 deg.30' W.
MB3....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.30' W.
MB4....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.00' W.
MB5....................................... Massachusetts shoreline 70 deg.00' W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a band outside the Mid-coast closure area that encompasses
Jeffreys Ledge and is described relative to the Mid-coast area as east
on 42 deg.30 N. from the shore to 70 deg.00 W., north along 70 deg.00
W. to 43 deg.00 N., on 43 deg.00 N. to 69 deg.00 W., then north on
69 deg.00 W. to the shore. According to the sea sampling data base,
harbor porpoise bycatch in this band has been relatively high during
the last 3 years. Concerns focus on whether a displacement of more
fishing effort into this region might account for a kill rate as high
as or potentially higher than in previous years. Under provisions of
this final rule, the band will remain open, but the Council recommended
mandatory observer coverage for vessels fishing in the area if funds
are available.
D. Open Areas:
Areas shown on Figure 4 to part 651, but not enclosed by the
boundary lines described above, would not be subject to closure at this
time.
The Council program calls for a 20-percent reduction in the Gulf of
Maine harbor porpoise bycatch in year 1 of implementation of Amendment
5. To ensure continued efforts to reduce the bycatch, Amendment 5
states that a Harbor Porpoise Review Team (HPRT), appointed by the
Council, will evaluate the effectiveness of the Council's mitigation
measures annually by September 15 of each year and, if necessary,
recommend changes to ensure that the bycatch reduction goals are met.
Future management measures will be designed to achieve a 60-percent
reduction in the bycatch of harbor porpoise from current levels over a
3-year period. Based on a bycatch of 1,300 animals (a figure that
constitutes a rough average of the bycatch estimates over the last 2
years), the bycatch in years 1, 2, and 3 would be reduced to 1,040,
780, and 520 animals, respectively.
Such a reduction schedule might surpass the goal of reducing the
harbor porpoise bycatch to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the
estimates of population abundance and bycatch (39,500 and approximately
1,300, respectively). The use of the lower bound of the 95-percent
confidence interval for the abundance estimate, 39,500, adds a level of
conservatism that in part addresses the problem of the confidence
intervals surrounding the bycatch estimates. As previously discussed,
the entire 2 percent bycatch cannot be allocated solely to the Gulf of
Maine sink gillnet fleet.
A specific target for year 4 will be established by the HPRT after
consideration of previous targets not met in any given year or because
of possible increased bycatch reductions required by the 1994
amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. For example, if the 20
percent target is missed in any of the first three years, the fourth
year allows the flexibility to add that portion of the target
reductions not achieved in any of the first three years to be deferred
until the next year or until year four of the program. The year-4
target, however, cannot exceed 20 percent of the total reduction
required over the entire 4-year period.
Comments and Responses
The Council held the first of two meetings required under the
Amendment 5 framework adjustment process on February 17, 1994. Two
public hearings were subsequently held on March 9, 1994, in Portsmouth,
NH, and on March 10, 1994, in Ellsworth, ME. The Council approved the
closures for the Northeast and Mid-coast areas at the second Council
meeting held on March 17, 1994. On April 6, 1994, the Council adopted
boundaries and a 30-day closure period for the Massachusetts Bay area.
In addition to the meetings held within the formal framework
period, the public was notified of all Marine Mammal Committee meetings
held between September 1993 and March 1994, for the purpose of
developing the time and area closure plan. For scoping purposes, the
issue also was included in the Amendment 5 public hearing document and
was reviewed at a series of coastwide meetings held in the spring of
1993.
Comments on the Council's proposal were received from Maine
Congressional Rep. Olympia J. Snowe and the following organizations:
Cape Ann Gillnetter's Association, Beverly, MA; Coonamessett Farm,
Falmouth, MA; International Wildlife Coalition, East Falmouth, MA;
Maine Gillnetters Association, Stonington, ME; Massachusetts Netters
Association, Marshfield, MA; and the New Hampshire Commercial
Fishermen's Association, Rye, NH.
Comment: Numbers of fishermen had serious concerns about the
quality of the data used to determine time and area closures.
Response: Measures contained in Framework Adjustment #4 are based
on the best scientific information available. NMFS has conducted two
population surveys of harbor porpoise abundance in the Gulf of Maine/
Bay of Fundy region. Additionally, bycatch estimates have been
calculated from observed gillnet trips, based on sea sampling data
collected since 1989. Since June 1991, observers have made trips on
roughly 9 percent of the Gulf of Maine gillnet trips. All available
information on the biology, seasonal distribution, abundance and
bycatch was reviewed at two international workshops convened by the
NEFSC in Woods Hole, MA in May 1992 and February 1994.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the harbor
porpoise abundance estimates for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy
population and the disparity between the point estimates for 1991 and
1992. They urged the Council to ask NMFS to conduct ongoing surveys in
order to better refine the data.
Response: Again, the estimates are based on the best scientific
information available. NMFS abundance estimates for 1991 and 1992 are
37,500 (% coefficient of variation (CV)=28.8, 95% confidence interval
(CI)=26,700 to 86,400) and 67,500 (%CV=23.1, 95% CI=32,900 to 104,600),
respectively. The reason for the nearly twofold, but statistically
insignificant, increase between 1991 and 1992 is unknown. Although the
increase is statistically insignificant, it may reflect a real change
in abundance due to a distribution change or methodological sampling
error. Methods to investigate this difference were recommended at the
February 23-25 NEFSC workshop to evaluate the status of harbor porpoise
in the western North Atlantic. An abundance survey has been recommended
for 1995.
Comment: A suggestion was made to divide the Northeast closure area
in half, longitudinally, or simply to make the entire area smaller.
Response: The Northeast area proposed for closure from August 15
through September 13 already represents a compromise forged between
fishermen and the Council. But concerns still exist that animals will
move into adjacent areas where vessels may concentrate and increase the
likelihood of takes, rather than reduce that possibility. Also, NMFS
survey data indicate that harbor porpoise usually frequent the same
general areas of the Gulf of Maine, but not always at the same time
every year. Because of this variability, shorter closures in smaller
areas could result in little or no reduction in bycatch, if animals are
not present during the closure period. This would result in lost
fishing time with no benefit.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about Northeast time and area
closures that would eliminate fishing in the Schoodic Ridge area, a
region vital to the ``downeast'' fishermen.
Response: The Council's final decision took into account the fact
that the time and area plan would be phased in over 4 years. During the
first year of implementation, the Schoodic Ridge fishing grounds will
be left open. Further changes to the area will be based on the harbor
porpoise bycatch estimates derived from sea sampling program and other
relevant data submitted to the Council.
Comment: Commenters from Maine questioned why Jeffreys Ledge, an
area located off the coasts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire that
accounts for a relatively high level of bycatch, was being left open in
the first year of the plan.
Response: The Council's Mid-coast closure area incorporates an area
known as Jeffreys Basin, but excludes Jeffreys Ledge. In past years,
the basin area has represented a higher level of bycatch than Jeffreys
Ledge. Concerns focus on whether the displacement of more fishing
effort onto Jeffreys Ledge might account for a kill rate as high as or
potentially higher than, in previous years. As with the Northeast area,
however, the Council considered the boundaries adequate for year one of
implementation of Framework Adjustment #4. Bycatch of harbor porpoise
will be monitored and the need to adjust the boundaries can be
accomplished under the framework system.
Comment: One individual asked for an exemption for small-boat
operators who fish inshore only, and who are responsible for little or
no harbor porpoise bycatch. Otherwise, they would effectively be
excluded from the fishery as of the November 1-30 Mid-coast closure
because they are too small to fish in offshore conditions. Another
commenter suggested that these vessels fish under the 500-pound (226.8
kg) possession limit for regulated species of groundfish.
Response: Harbor porpoise throughout the Gulf of Maine are
distributed both inshore and offshore and become entangled in gillnets,
regardless of vessel size. Additionally, all sink gillnet vessels
fishing under a Federal multispecies permit, regardless of where they
are fishing, are subject to the porpoise bycatch reduction measures.
Comment: Gillnet gear should be given credit, one commenter said,
for being size-selective and for resulting in discards of juvenile
finfish.
Response: Once the time and area program has been in place
(approximately 1 year from the date of implementation), the Council
will evaluate the impact of the gillnet fishery on the mortality of
groundfish stocks and develop management measures that are appropriate
for the gillnet sector.
Comment: Some commenters felt the harbor porpoise bycatch reduction
program was a mechanism being used by other interests to close the sink
gillnet fishery.
Response: The Council's measures are designed to minimize impacts
on the sink gillnet fishery, while at the same time achieve the stated
harbor porpoise bycatch reduction objectives. The Council has held 16
public meetings since its initial commitment to incorporate bycatch
measures in Amendment 5 and has involved the fishing community,
conservation groups and interested parties in the development of the
FMP.
Comment: Several commenters felt it was inappropriate to use the
harbor porpoise time and area closure plan to protect endangered
whales.
Response: As part of the Council's obligations under section 7 of
the ESA, a consultation with NMFS is required if a fishery affects,
either directly or indirectly, endangered or threatened species or any
designated critical habitat. Because this framework adjustment
represents a change in management measures for a gear type that has
interactions with endangered species, the Council re-initiated the
section 7 consultation developed for Amendment 5, identified potential
interactions and has addressed them in the context of this framework
adjustment.
Comment: Many fishermen supported the use of ``pingers,'' sound
emitting devices that increase an animal's awareness of nets, as a
bycatch mitigation measure. A suggestion was made to use pingers in
year 1 of implementation of Amendment 5 in conjunction with four-day
blocks of time, but with no subsequent expansion of the days during
which nets would be removed from the water in future years.
Response: The 4-day blocks of time during which all gillnets would
be removed from the water each month throughout the range of species
covered by the Northeast Multispecies FMP was almost universally
rejected by commenters who attended public meetings and by those who
submitted written comments. The Council and NMFS are aware that
initiatives are underway which involve acoustical alarm research and
possible modifications to gillnet gear to reduce porpoise bycatch. If
any of these approaches produce scientifically supportable results that
can be incorporated into a management strategy, the Council would
recommend them through a framework adjustment with a minimum of
regulatory delay.
Comment: Several commenters questioned why the Council rejected the
use of an industry proposal based on a reduction in the number of
gillnets in use.
Response: At this time, it is not possible to determine the
relationship between the number of nets and fishing or harbor porpoise
mortality. It is known only that there is a relationship that is not
linear. Even a simple estimation of the number of nets in use is
impossible, at present, because of the variability of length of nets,
numbers of nets in a string, soak time and the variable numbers of both
full- and part-time vessels participating in the fishery. Moreover,
enforcement of a reduction in the number of nets in the ocean, as
opposed to a time and area prohibition, would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to accomplish at this time.
Classification
This regulation is not subject to the requirements to prepare a
proposed rule under the conditions met by this framework action that
have provided adequate prior public comment when the action was
proposed and discussed over the course of several Council meetings.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared for this
action because it is exempt from such an analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds there is
good cause to waive prior notice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Public meetings held by the Council
to discuss the management measures implemented by this rule provided
adequate opportunity for public comment to be considered. Thus,
additional opportunity for public comment is unnecessary.
The AA also finds that under section 553(d)(1) of the APA, because
immediate implementation of this rule relieves a restriction that would
require 4 days out of the water by all vessels using sink gillnet gear
in May and June, there is no need to delay for 30 days the
effectiveness of this regulation.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 651
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 20, 1994.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 651 is amended
as follows:
PART 651--NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 651 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 651.2 is amended by removing the definition of ``bottom-
tending gillnet or sink gillnet'' and adding a definition of ``sink
gillnet'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 651.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Sink gillnet means any gillnet, anchored or otherwise, that is
designed to be, capable of being, or is fished on or near the bottom in
the lower third of the water column.
* * * * *
3. Section 651.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(13) and
(e)(31) to read as follows:
Sec. 651.9 Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(13) Fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel, or fail
to remove a sink gillnet from the areas and for the times specified in
Sec. 651.32(a), unless authorized in writing by the Regional Director.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(31) Fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel, or fail
to remove a sink gillnet from the EEZ portion of the areas, and for the
times specified in Sec. 651.32(a), unless authorized in writing by the
Regional Director.
* * * * *
4. Section 651.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) (1)
and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 651.32 Sink gillnet requirements to reduce harbor porpoise takes.
(a) General. In addition to the measures specified in Secs. 651.20
and 651.21, persons owning or operating vessels using, possessing on
board a vessel, or fishing with, sink gillnet gear are subject to the
following restrictions, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the
Regional Director:
(1) Areas closed to sink gillnets. All persons owning or operating
vessels must remove all of their sink gillnet gear from, and may not
use, set, haul back fish with, or possess on board a vessel a sink
gillnet in, the EEZ portion of the areas and for the times specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section; and, all persons
owning or operating vessels issued a Federal Multispecies Limited
Access Permit must remove all of their sink gillnet gear from, and, may
not use, set, haul back fish with or possess on board a vessel a sink
gillnet in, the entire areas and for the times specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Northeast Closure Area. During the period August 15 through
September 13 of each fishing year, the restrictions and requirements
specified in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of this section
shall apply to an area known as the Northeast Closure Area, which is an
area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the
order stated (see Figure 4 of this part).
Northeast Closure Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE1....................................... Maine shoreline 68 deg.55.0' W.
NE2....................................... 43 deg.29.6' N. 68 deg.55.0' W.
NE3....................................... 44 deg.04.4' N. 67 deg.48.7' W.
NE4....................................... 44 deg.06.9' N. 67 deg.52.8' W.
NE5....................................... 44 deg.31.2' N. 67 deg.02.7' W.
NE6....................................... Maine shoreline 67 deg.02.7' W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Mid-coast Closure Area. During the period November 1 through
November 30 of each fishing year, the restrictions and requirements
specified in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of this section
shall apply to an area known as the Mid-coast Closure Area, which is an
area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the
order stated (see Figure 4 of this part).
Mid-coast Closure Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MC1....................................... 42 deg.45' N. Massachusetts shoreline.
MC2....................................... 42 deg.45' N. 70 deg.15' W.
MC3....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 70 deg.15' W.
MC4....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 69 deg.00' W.
MC5....................................... Maine shoreline 69 deg.00' W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Massachusetts Bay Closure Area. During the period March 1
through March 30 of each fishing year, the restrictions and
requirements specified in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section shall apply to an area known as the Massachusetts Bay
Closure Area, which is an area bounded by straight lines connecting the
following points in the order stated (see Figure 4 of this part).
Massachusetts Bay Closure Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB1....................................... 42 deg.30' N. Massachusetts shoreline.
MB2....................................... 42 deg.30' N. 70 deg.30' W.
MB3....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.30' W.
MB4....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.00' W.
MB5....................................... Massachusetts shoreline 70 deg.00' W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) * * * (1) By September 15 of each year, the Council's Harbor
Porpoise Review team (HPRT) shall complete an annual review of harbor
porpoise bycatch and abundance data in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet
fishery, evaluate the impacts on other measures that reduce harbor
porpoise take, and may make recommendations on other ``reduction-of-
take'' measures in light of the harbor porpoise mortality reduction
goals.
(2) At the first Council meeting following the HPRT annual meeting,
the team shall make recommendations to the Council as to what
adjustments or changes, if any, to the ``reduction-of-take'' measures
should be implemented in order to meet harbor porpoise mortality
reduction goals.
* * * * *
5. Figure 4 is added to the part as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
TR25MY94.001
[FR Doc. 94-12782 Filed 5-20-94; 4:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
