Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 37981 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS); 

notice of public scoping meetings; 

requests for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

announces its intention to prepare, in 

cooperation with NFS, and EIS in 

accordance with the national 

Environmental Policy Act to assess 

potential effects on the human 

environment of alternative measures to 

address several issues regarding the 

Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management 

Plan. 

This notice announces a public 

process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed, and for 

identifying the significant issues related 

to amendment the plan. This notice is 

to alert the interested public of the 

scooping process, the development of 

the Draft EIS, and to provide for public 

participation in that process. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on 

September 4, 2009. Four public scoping 

meetings will be held during this 

comment period. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for dates, times, and 

locations. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent by any of the following methods: 

E-mail to the following address: 

dogfish3@noaa.gov. Please note on your 

correspondence and in the subject line 

of e-mail comments the following 

identifier: ‘‘Spiny Dogfish Amendment 

3 Scoping Comments.’’; 

Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T. 

Furlong, Executive Director, MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council, 

Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South 

New Street, Dover, Delaware 19904– 

6790. Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Spiny Dogfish Amendment 3 Scoping 

Comments.’’; 

Fax to: (302) 674–5399. 

The scoping document may also be 

obtained from the Council office at the 

previously provided address, or by 

request to the Council by telephone 

(302) 674–2331, or via the Internet at 

http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/ 

comments/comments.htm. 

Comments may also be provided 

verbally at any of the three public 

scoping meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for dates, times, and 

locations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, 

Dover, DE 19904; telephone: (302) 674– 

2331, extension 19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Meetings 

Four scoping meetings to facilitate 

public comment will be held on the 

following dates and locations: 

1. August 10, 2009, 7 p.m., Virginia 

Marine Fisheries Commission, 2600 

Building Meeting Room, 2600 

Washington Ave., Newport News, VA 

23607; 

2. August 11, 2009, 7 p.m., Ocean 

County Administration Building, Public 

Hearing Room ι119, 101 Hooper Ave, 

Toms River, NJ 08754; 

3. August 12, 2009, 6:30 p.m., New 

Hampshire Urban Forestry Center, 45 

Elwyn Rd, Portsmouth, NH 03801; 

4. August 13, 2009, 7 p.m., Radisson 

Plymouth, 180 Water Street, Plymouth, 

MA 02360. 

Issues Identified for Discussion under 

this Amendment 

(1) Research-Set-Aside (RSA) provision 

Currently there is no option for 

allocating a portion of the spiny dogfish 

quota for research. The Council is 

considering adding an RSA provision to 

the FMP. 

(2) Commercial Quota Allocation 

Alternatives 

Currently, the commercial quota for 

spiny dogfish is allocated seasonally 

into two periods in the fishing year. 

Period 1 (May 1 - Oct 31) is allocated 

57.9% of the quota and Period 2 (Nov 

1 - Apr 30) is allocated 42.1% of the 

quota. The Council is considering 

alternative allocation (i.e., geographic) 

schemes for the Federal quota. 

(3) Specifying the spiny dogfish quota 

and/or trip limits by sex 

The Council is considering 

modifications to the FMP that would 

allow for sex-specific annual 

specification of spiny dogfish quota 

and/or trip limits. 

(4) Limited Access Spiny Dogfish Permit 

Federal spiny dogfish permits are 

currently available to all vessels. The 

Council is considering modifying the 

Federal permit to make it a limited 

access permit. It is possible that an 

incidental catch permit would also be 

established that would be open access. 

(5) Recreational Spiny Dogfish Fishery 

To the extent that recreationallycaught spiny dogfish are retained, that 

component of the overall fishery is not 

acknowledged in the FMP. The Council 

is considering adding the recreational 

fishery to the FMP. 

The Council may deviate from these 

examples and develop additional 

approaches, consistent with their 

description in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, NS1, and the NS 1 Guidelines. The 

above issues under consideration are 

described in greater detail in the 

scoping document itself; copies may be 

obtained from the Council (see 

ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http:// 

www.mafmc.org.mid-atlantic/ 

comments/comments.htm. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aid 

should be directed to M. Jan Bryan, 

(302) 674–2331, ext. 18, at least 5 days 

prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: July 27, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18189 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ53 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Council; Scoping Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Scoping Meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council will hold scoping 

meetings to obtain input from fishers, 

the general public, and the local 

agencies representatives on the 

Document for Amendment 2 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the Queen 

Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands and Amendment X 

to the Reef Fish Fishery Management 

Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands (Including the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). 

DATES AND ADDRESSES: The scoping 

meetings will be held on the following 

dates and locations: 

For Puerto Rico, 

August 18, 2009, Mayaguez Resort 

and Casino, Rd. 104, Km. 0.3, 

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 

August 19, 2009, DoubleTree by 

Hilton San Juan, De Diego Avenue, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico 

For the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

August 18, 2009, Holiday Inn 

(Windward Passage Hotel) Charlotte 

Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
37982 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 

August 19, 2009, The Buccaneer 

Hotel, Estate Shoys, Christiansted, St. 

Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

All meetings will be held from 7:00 

p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

268 Mun ̃ oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1920, 

telephone (787) 766–5926. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

will holdScoping meetings to receive 

public input on the following 

management alternatives: 

4.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

The Management Alternatives Section 

contains actions for setting ACLs for 4 

species and species groups. One species 

not discussed in the actions is Nassau 

grouper, which is undergoing 

overfishing and therefore, would require 

an ACL by 2010. No action is discussed 

for Nassau grouper because current 

regulations exist which prohibit the take 

of Nassau grouper in the U.S. Caribbean 

(both from the EEZ and state waters). 

Because of this prohibition on take, no 

further action is required to end or 

prevent overfishing. Similar to Nassau 

grouper, queen conch management 

alternatives are only discussed for the 

fishery in St. Croix. This is a result of 

current regulations in the U.S Caribbean 

which prohibit the take of queen conch 

in the EEZ off Puerto Rico and St 

Thomas/St John. 

Other actions in the Management 

Alternatives Section include methods 

for modifying the reef fish FMU, setting 

recreational ACLs, methods for 

accounting for uncertainty, alternative 

methods for setting ACLs based on 

proxies for reducing fishing mortality, 

accountability measures, monitoring 

and enforcement, permits, and 

allowable fishing gear. 

4.1 Action 1: Amending the Stock 

Complexes in the Reef Fish Fishery 

Management Unit 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not 

change the stock complexes in the Reef 

Fish FMU 

Alternative 2. Modify the FMU by: 

Sub alternative A. Separating the 

Parrotfish Unit into 2 complexes. 

Parrotfish Unit 1 would include 

princess, queen, redfin, redtail, 

stoplight, redband, and striped 

parrotfishes and Parrotfish Unit 2 would 

include blue, midnight, and rainbow 

parrotfishes. 

Sub alternative B. Separate Grouper 

Unit 4 into Grouper Unit 4 (yellowfin, 

red, tiger, and black grouper) and 

Grouper Unit 5 (yellowedge and misty 

grouper). Add black grouper to Grouper 

Unit 4. 

Sub alternative C. Add cardinal 

snapper (Pristipomoides 

macrophthalmus) to Snapper Unit 2 and 

move wenchman (Pristopomoides 

aquilonaris) into Snapper Unit 1. 

Alternative 3. Examine reef fish FMU 

and reassign species not targeted, 

retained, sold, or used for personal 

consumption as ecosystem component 

species. 

Complex Current Proposed 

Snapper Unit 1 Silk (chillo) 

Black (pargo prieto) 

Blackfin (alinegra) 

Vermilion (besugo) 

Silk (chillo) 

Black (pargo prieto) 

Blackfin (alinegra) 

Vermilion (besugo) 

Wenchman (Pristopomoides aquilonaris) 

(limosnera) 

Snapper Unit 2 

Queen (cartucho) 

Wenchman (Pristopomoides 

aquilonaris) (limosnera) 

Queen (cartucho) 

Cardinal (Pristopomoides macrophthalmus) (muniama de 

afuera) 

Snapper Unit 3 Gray (pargo gris) 

Lane (arrayao) 

Mutton (sama) 

Dog (pargo colorao) 

Schoolmaster (pargo amarillo) 

Mahogany (rayao de yerba) 

Gray (pargo gris) 

Lane (arrayao) 

Mutton (sama) 

Dog (pargo colorao) 

Schoolmaster (pargo amarillo) 

Mahogany (rayao de yerba) 

Snapper Unit 4 Yellowtail Snapper (colirubia) Yellowtail Snapper (colirubia) 

Grouper Unit 3 Red hind 

Coney 

Rock hind 

Graysby 

Creole-fish 

Red hind 

Coney 

Rock hind 

Graysby 

Grouper Unit 4 

Yellowfin 

Red 

Tiger 

Yellowedge 

Misty 

Yellowfin 

Red 

Tiger 

Black 

Grouper Unit 5 Yellowedge 

Misty 

Parrotfish Blue 

Midnight 

Princess 

Queen 

Rainbow 

Redfin 

Redtail 

Stoplight 

Redband 

Striped 

Princess 

Queen 

Redfin 

Redtail 

Stoplight 

Redband 

Striped 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 37983 

Complex Current Proposed 

Parrotfish Unit 2 Blue 

Midnight 

Rainbow 

Discussion 

The original stock complexes were 

developed in the SFA and are in need 

of change due to fishermen’s input, 

reexamination of the biological 

characteristics of species within the 

complexes, exploitation levels, and 

omissions from the SFA. See Appendix 

3 for the Reef Fish FMU. 

If the Council chooses to separate 

Grouper Unit 4 into Grouper Unit 4 and 

Grouper Unit 5, a memo on the status 

of Grouper Unit 5 will be required 

indicating an unknown status so an ACL 

would not be required until 2011. 

4.2 Action 2: Annual Catch Limits for 

queen conch (Strombus gigas) off St. 

Croix 

Alternative 1. Do not set an ACL for 

queen conch off St. Croix 

Alternative 2. Set the ACL for queen 

conch off St. Croix equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters. 

Sub alternative B. Establish ACL of 

90,000 pounds, based on the average 

landings from 1994–2006. The ACL 

would include both state and federal 

water landings. 

Sub alternative C. Establish ACL of 

50,000 pounds which is the current 

allowable catch level established by the 

U.S.V.I. government for St. Croix. The 

ACL would include both state and 

federal water landings. Under this 

alternative, the season for queen conch 

would run from November 1 - June 30, 

or until such time the ACL is met; 

additionally, there would be a 200 

conch per boat limit. 

Sub alternative D. Establish an ACL of 

Zero in the EEZ. The ACL for state 

waters would be set at 50,000 pounds 

which is the current allowable catch 

level established by the U.S.V.I. 

government for St. Croix. 

Discussion 

4.3 Action 3: Annual Catch Limits for 

Parrotfish Unit 1 and Parrotfish Unit 2 

Alternative 1. No Action. 

Sub Alternative A. Do not set an ACL 

for Parrotfish Unit 1 or Parrotfish Unit 

2. 

Sub Alternative B. Do not establish an 

ACL for Parrotfish Unit 2, but include 

Parrotfish Unit 2 in the ACL for 

Parrotfish Unit 1. 

Alternative 2. For Parrotfish Unit 2: 

Sub alternative A. Set the ACL equal 

to zero in the EEZ and do not establish 

an ACL for state waters but rely on the 

data collection program (as described in 

Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish 

5 years after implementation of data 

collection program. 

Sub alternative B. Set the ACL equal 

to zero in the EEZ and recommend to 

Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I. that the 

ACL be set equal to zero in state waters. 

Alternative 3. Set the ACL for 

Parrotfish Unit 1 off Puerto Rico equal 

to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters, but rely on the data collection 

program (as described in Action 10) and 

revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after 

implementation of data collection 

program. 

Sub alternative B. Establish an ACL of 

80,000 pounds based on the average 

landings during 1999–2006. (ACLG 

February 2009 recommendation) 

Sub alternative C. Establish an ACL 

based on the average landings from 

1994–2006, multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Sub alternative D. Create equal ACLs 

for the commercial and recreational 

sectors based on commercial landings 

data. 

Alternative 4. Set the ACL for 

Parrotfish Unit 1 off St. Thomas/St. John 

equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters, but rely on the data collection 

program (described in Action 10) and 

revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after 

implementation of data collection 

program. 

Sub alternative B. 50,000 pounds 

based on the average landings during 

1999–2006 (ACLG February 2009 

recommendation) 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994–2006 multiplied 

by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 

for uncertainty scalar). 

Alternative 5. Set the ACL for 

Parrotfish Unit1 off St. Croix equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL in state 

waters, but rely on the data collection 

program (described in Action 10) and 

revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after 

implementation of data collection 

program. 

Sub alternative B. 250,000 pounds, 

based on the average landings during 

1999–2006 = (ACLG February 2009 

recommendation) 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994–2006 multiplied 

by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 

for uncertainty scalar). 

Sub alternative D. 82,000 pounds 

based on the average landings during 

1976–1990 = (discussed at the ACLG 

and SSC February 2009 meeting). 

Sub alternative E. 82,000 pounds 

based on the average landings during 

1983–1990 (SEFSC recommended time 

frame for pre-gillnet fishery). 

Sub alternative F: Set ACL for 

Parrotfish Unit 1 off St. Croix equal to 

250,000 pounds for the EEZ and do not 

establish a state water ACL, but rely on 

the data collection program (as 

described in Action 10) and revisit ACL 

for parrotfish five years after 

implementation of data collection 

program. 

Alternative 6. Set the ACL for 

Parrotfish Unit 1 in the U.S. Caribbean 

equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters, but rely on the data collection 

program (described in Action 10) and 

revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after 

implementation of data collection 

program. 

Sub alternative B. 380,000 pounds 

based on the average landings during 

1999–2006. 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994–2006 multiplied 

by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 

for uncertainty scalar). 

Discussion 

Parrotfish landings for Puerto Rico 

may be underestimated if they are 

reported as first class, second class, or 

third class species. Daniel Matos may be 

able to provide input about how 

frequently parrotfish are reported in one 

of those categories. 

4.4 Action 4: Annual Catch Limits for 

Grouper Unit 4 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set 

an ACL for Grouper Unit 4 

Alternative 2. Set the ACL for Grouper 

Unit 4 off Puerto Rico equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero in the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters , but rely on the data collection 

program (described in Action 10) and 

revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4 five years 

after implementation of the data 

collection program. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
37984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 

Sub alternative B. 10,000 pounds, 

based on the average corrected landings 

for identified Grouper Unit 4 species 

during 1994–2006. The ACL would 

include both state and federal water 

landings. 

Sub alternative C. 15,000 pounds, 

based on the average corrected landings 

for identified Grouper Unit 4 species 

during 1994–2006 plus the average 

proportional corrected landings estimate 

for Grouper Unit 4 species landed in the 

generic ‘‘Sea Basses’’ category during 

1994–2006. 

Sub alternative D. A sufficient level of 

catch for collecting data on the fishery. 

This catch level would be established by 

SEFSC, in cooperation with Puerto Rico, 

for purposes of scientific data 

collection. 

Alternative 3. Set the ACL for Grouper 

off St. Thomas/St. John at: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off 

St Thomas/St John and do not establish 

an ACL for state waters, but rely on the 

data collection program (described in 

Action 10) and revisit ACL for Grouper 

Unit 4 five years after implementation of 

the data collection program. 

Sub alternative B. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Grouper species = 61,000 pounds as part 

of a Grouper ACL 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Grouper species multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Alternative 4. Set the ACL for Grouper 

off St. Croix at: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off 

St. Croix and do not establish an ACL 

for state waters, but rely on the data 

collection program (described in Action 

10) and revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4 

five years after implementation of data 

collection program. 

Sub alternative B. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Grouper species = 32,000 pounds as part 

of a Grouper ACL 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Grouper species multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Alternative 5. Set the ACL for Grouper 

in the U.S. Caribbean equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters, but rely on the data collection 

program (described in Action 10) and 

revisit the ACL for grouper five years 

after implementation of the data 

collection program. 

Sub alternative B. 203,000 pounds, 

based on the average landings during 

1999–2006. 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994–2006 multiplied 

by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 

for uncertainty scalar). 

Discussion 

Note Alternative 2 sub alternative C 

does not include proportional 

readjustments in ‘‘First class’’, ‘‘Second 

class’’, and ‘‘Third class’’ landings 

estimates. Alternatives 3–5 examine an 

ACL for all grouper species due to the 

lack of species specific information in 

the USVI. Alternative 5 uses the 

‘‘grouper’’ category landings in the USVI 

and a summation of identified and 

redistributed grouper species in Puerto 

Rico that are in the reef fish FMU. 

4.5 Action 5: Annual Catch Limits for 

Snapper Unit 1 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set 

an ACL for Snapper Unit 1 

Alternative 2. Set the ACL for 

Snapper Unit 1 off Puerto Rico equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ 

and do not establish an ACL for state 

waters, but rely on the data collection 

program (described in Action 10) and 

revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1 five 

years after implementation of the data 

collection program. 

Sub alternative B. The average 

corrected landings for identified 

Snapper Unit 1 species during 1999– 

2006 = 300,000 pounds multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Sub alternative C. The average 

corrected landings for identified silk 

snapper during 1999–2006 = 200,000 

pounds for silk snapper multiplied by 

an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). Silk snapper would 

be the indicator species for Snapper 

Unit 1. 

Sub alternative D. Level in pounds to 

be determined (SEFSC), based on the 

average landings for 1994–2006 for the 

current Snapper Unit 1 multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Sub alternative E. 316,000 pounds, 

based on the average landings from 

1999–2006 identified for Snapper Unit 1 

species, plus the average proportional 

corrected landings estimate for Snapper 

Unit 1 species landed in the generic 

‘‘‘‘Snapper’’ category during 1999–2006, 

multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see 

Action 7 for uncertainty scalar). 

Sub alternative G. 374,000 pounds, 

based on the average 1994–2006 

landings for identified Snapper Unit 1 

species, plus the average proportional 

corrected landings estimate for Snapper 

Unit 1 species landed in the generic 

‘‘Snapper’’ category during 1994–2006, 

multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see 

Action 7 for uncertainty scalar). 

Sub alternative H. 500,000 pounds 

ACL in the EEZ and do not establish an 

ACL for state waters, but rely on the 

data collection program (described in 

Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper 

Unit 1 five years after implementation of 

the data collection program. 

Sub alternative J. 374,000 pounds 

each for both the commercial and 

recreational sectors. 

Alternative 3. Set the ACL for 

Snapper off St. Thomas/St. John at: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off 

St. Thomas/St. John and do not 

establish an ACL for state waters, but 

rely on the data collection program 

(described in Action 10) and revisit ACL 

for Snapper Unit 1 five years after 

implementation of the data collection 

program. 

Sub alternative B. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Snapper species =160,000 pounds as 

part of a Snapper ACL. 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Snapper species multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Alternative 4. Set the ACL for 

Snapper off St. Croix at: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off 

St. Croix and do not establish an ACL 

for state waters, but rely on the data 

collection program (described in Action 

10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1 

five years after implementation of data 

collection program. 

Sub alternative B. 112,000 pounds 

based on average landings during 1994 

- 2006 for all Snapper species. 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Snapper species multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 

Alternative 5. Set the ACL for 

Snapper in the U.S. Caribbean equal to: 

Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off 

the U.S. Caribbean and do not establish 

an ACL for state waters, but rely on the 

data collection program (described in 

Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper 

Unit 1 five years after implementation of 

the data collection program. 

Sub alternative B. 1,529,000 pounds, 

based on the average landings during 

1994 - 2006 for all Snapper species. 

Sub alternative C. The average 

landings during 1994 - 2006 for all 

Snapper species multiplied by an 

uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for 

uncertainty scalar). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 37985 

Discussion 

Note Alternative 2 sub alternative C 

does not include proportional 

readjustments in ‘‘First class’’, ‘‘Second 

class’’, and ‘‘Third class’’ landings 

estimates. Alternatives 3–5 examine an 

ACL for all snapper species due to the 

lack of species specific information in 

the USVI. Alternative 5 uses the 

‘‘snapper’’ category landings in the 

USVI and a summation of identified and 

redistributed snapper species in Puerto 

Rico that are in the reef fish FMU. 

Alternative 2 for Puerto Rico: Need to 

eliminate wenchman (P. 

macrophthalmus) from the alternatives 

in which it is included for SU1 — 

therefore need to correct the poundage 

also. This affects sub-alternatives D, E, 

F, and G of Alternative 2 from Action 

5. 

4.6 Action 6: Annual Catch Limits for 

the Recreational Sector 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set 

ACLs for the recreational sector. 

Alternative 2. Use Puerto Rico 

recreational average landings data from 

MRFSS during 2000–2007 to set 

recreational ACLs in the EEZ and state 

waters of Puerto Rico for Snapper Unit 

1, Grouper Unit 4, and Parrotfishes. Use 

the proportion of Puerto Rican 

recreational landings relative to the total 

of recreational and commercial Puerto 

Rican landings to set an ACL proxy in 

the EEZ and state waters for the USVI 

Recreational Fishery. For the USVI, 

proportions would be assigned to fish 

family (e.g., groupers, snappers, 

parrotfishes), until sufficient landings 

data are available to specify ACLs by 

unit. ACLs would equal zero for queen 

conch in the EEZ off St. Thomas/St. 

John and Puerto Rico; the recreational 

ACL for queen conch in the EEZ off St. 

Croix will be determined by the 

Council’s recommendation on Action 2. 

All island based recreational ACLs for 

Nassau grouper would equal zero. 

Alternative 3. Use Puerto Rico 

recreational average landings data from 

MRFSS during 2000–2007 to set 

recreational ACLs in the EEZ and state 

waters for Snapper Unit 1, Grouper Unit 

4, and Parrotfishes. Use the proportion 

of Puerto Rican recreational landings 

relative to the total of recreational and 

commercial Puerto Rican landings to set 

an ACL proxy in the EEZ. 

Alternative 4. Do not establish a 

recreational ACL in the USVI EEZ and 

state waters, but use the Commercial 

ACL for each unit or family as a proxy 

for the ACL for all sectors in the fishery. 

Alternative 5. Set the recreational 

ACL in the USVI equal to 10% of each 

islands commercial ACL. 

Alternative 6. Establish a separate 

charter boat sector ACL based on 

MRFSS data for Puerto Rico. 

Alternative 7. Establish recreational 

ACL equal to half of the commercial 

ACL in Puerto Rico 

Sub alternative A. Allow recreational 

fishers to harvest all species managed by 

the Council in the EEZ and state waters. 

Sub alternative B. Allow recreational 

fishers to harvest only fish species 

managed by the Council that are not 

listed as overfished or under going 

overfishing in the EEZ and state waters. 

Discussion 

Need to calculate proportions for 

setting ACLs on a unit by unit basis. 

4.7 Action 7: Accounting for 

Uncertainty 

Alternative 1. No Action. Set the ACL 

at the level specified in the previous 

actions. 

Alternative 2. In setting ACLs based 

on average catch, use: 

Sub alternative A. 75% of the 

specified level in the previous actions to 

adjust for uncertainty 

Sub alternative B. 50% of the 

specified level in the previous actions to 

adjust for uncertainty 

Sub alternative C. 25% of the 

specified level in the previous actions to 

adjust for uncertainty. 

Discussion 

A major aspect of the revised NS1 

guidelines is the concept of 

incorporating management and 

scientific uncertainty in using ACLs and 

AMs. Management uncertainty occurs 

because of the lack of sufficient 

information about catch (e.g., late 

reporting, underreporting, and 

misreporting of landings or bycatch). 

Management uncertainty also exists 

because of the lack of management 

precision in many fisheries due to lack 

of inseason fisheries landings data, lack 

of inseason closure authority, or the lack 

of sufficient inseason management in 

some FMPs when inseason fisheries 

data are available. Scientific uncertainty 

includes uncertainty around the 

estimate of a stock’s biomass and its 

Maximum fishing mortality threshold 

(MFMT); therefore, any estimate of OFL 

has uncertainty (74 FR 3181). For these 

reasons, the Council may choose to take 

a more precautionary approach to 

prevent overfishing by reducing the 

ACL to account for such uncertainty. 

4.8 Action 8: Alternative Methods for 

Reducing Fishing Mortality and 

Establishing ACL Proxies 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not 

implement alternative methods for 

reducing fishing mortality by 

establishing proxies for ACLs. 

Alternative 2. Work with fishermen to 

develop measures to reduce fishing 

effort (i.e., permits, data collection). 

Alternative 3. Establish ACL by sector 

for St. Thomas/St. John 

Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by 

net sector 

Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by 

trap/pot sector 

Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by 

hook-and-line sector 

Alternative 4. Establish ACL by sector 

for St. Croix 

Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by 

net sector 

Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by 

trap/pot sector 

Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by 

hook-and-line sector 

Alternative 5. Establish ACL by sector 

for Puerto Rico 

Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by 

net sector 

Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by 

trap/pot sector 

Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by 

hook-and-line sector 

Discussion 

There are limited circumstances that 

may not fit the standard approaches to 

specification of referenced points and 

management measures set forth in these 

guidelines.‘‘These include, among other 

things, conservation and management of 

ESA listed species, harvests from 

aquaculture operations, and stocks with 

unusual life history characteristics.’’ In 

these circumstances, Councils may 

propose alternative approaches for 

satisfying the NS1 requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (prevent 

overfishing) than those set forth in these 

guidelines.’’ Councils must document 

their rationale for any alternative 

approaches to these limited 

circumstances in an FMP or an FMP 

amendment, which will be reviewed for 

consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (50 CFR 600.310 (h)(3)). 

4.9 Action 9: Permits 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not 

establish a permit system for fishing in 

the EEZ 

Alternative 2. Require a federal permit 

for fishing in the EEZ. 

Sub Alternative A. Require a federal 

permit for recreational fishing in the 

EEZ. 

Sub Alternative B. Require a federal 

permit for commercial fishing in the 

EEZ. 

Sub Alternative C. Require the use of 

trap tags for all (lobster and fish) trap 

fisheries in the EEZ. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
37986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 

Sub Alternative D. Require a federal 

permit for charter boats fishing in the 

EEZ. 

Alternative 3. Require a federal permit 

to sell Council managed species. 

Alternative 4. Require a federal permit 

to purchase Council managed species. 

Discussion 

The Council moved to establish an Ad 

Hoc Advisory Panel to consist of 

fishermen and local and federal 

managers and scientists to develop a 

permitting and potentially a limited 

access system; these recommendations 

will be incorporated into this Action. 

4.10 Action 10: Monitoring and 

Enforcement of Annual Catch Limits 

Alternative 1. No Action. Set the ACL 

at the level specified in the previous 

actions. 

Alternative 2. Require any person 

landing Council managed species to 

submit an appropriate data collection 

form, as developed by the SEFSC or the 

Council’s SSC, after every trip with 

enough detail such that CPUE per 

species can be calculated for each gear. 

Alternative 3. Require any federal 

permit holder to submit an appropriate 

data collection form, as developed by 

the SEFSC or the Council’s SSC, after 

every trip with enough detail such that 

CPUE per species can be calculated for 

each gear. 

Alternative 4. Develop an updated 

catch report form in coordination with 

the SEFSC, local and territorial 

governments, fishermen, and the 

Council’s SSC with enough detail such 

that CPUE per species can be calculated 

for each gear. 

Discussion 

In their FMPs, or associated public 

documents such as SAFE reports as 

appropriate, Councils must describe 

general data collection methods, as well 

as any specific data collection methods 

used for all stocks in the fishery, and 

ecosystem component (EC) species, 

including: (1) Sources of fishing 

mortality (both landed and discarded), 

including commercial and recreational 

catch and bycatch in other fisheries; (2) 

Description of the data collection and 

estimation methods used to quantify 

total catch mortality in each fishery, 

including information on the 

management tools used (i.e., logbooks, 

vessel monitoring systems, observer 

programs, landings reports, fish tickets, 

processor reports, dealer reports, 

recreational angler surveys, or other 

methods); the frequency with which 

data are collected and updated; and the 

scope of sampling coverage for each 

fishery; and (3) Description of the 

methods used to compile catch data 

from various catch data collection 

methods and how those data are used to 

determine the relationship between total 

catch at a given point in time and the 

ACL for stocks and stock complexes that 

are part of a fishery (50 CFR 600.310 (i)). 

The SSC and ACLG continuously 

recommended implementing better data 

collection methodologies throughout 

their respective discussions. Currently, 

information of this type is limited or 

non-existent; therefore, better data 

collection methods are necessary. 

4.11 Action 11: Accountability 

Measures 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not 

establish Accountability Measures. 

Alternative 2. Implement 

accountability measures for exceeding 

an ACL based on: 

Sub alternative A. A single year of 

landings/catch. 

Sub alternative B. A 2-year average of 

landings/catch. 

Sub alternative C. A 3-year average of 

landings/catch. 

Alternative 3. Reduce the fishing 

season in the following year by a length 

determined to be appropriate to account 

for exceeding the ACL. 

Alternative 4. For queen conch 

exceedences in St Croix, close the EEZ 

to queen conch harvest. 

Alternative 5. Reduce the ACL in the 

subsequent fishing year by an amount 

equal to an overage in the previous year. 

Discussion 

The Council may choose to use 

different sub alternatives from 

alternative 2 for different species or 

species groups depending on the 

reliability and timeliness for the 

different fisheries. If this is the case, 

additional alternatives would be 

developed so the Council can indicate 

that desire. There may be some 

difficulty in implementing Alternative 6 

in the year directly following the 

overage due to the timeliness of the 

availability of the data; therefore, the 

reduction may take place up to two 

years after the overage of the ACL. 

4.12 Action 12: Allowable Gear for 

Reef Fish 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not alter 

allowable gear in the U.S. Caribbean 

Alternative 2. Review the list of 

allowable gear under 50 CFR 600.725 

Discussion 

The Council voted to request the 

Secretary of Commerce to list spear as 

an allowable gear in the reef fish fishery. 

A request to remove powerheads as an 

allowable gear was made by the CFMC 

(need to send a letter) with the rationale 

including the definition (powerheads 

use explosives so look at definition in 

Section 600). This is a simple process of 

rule making. A letter had been sent to 

the RA requesting that spear be allowed 

for the commercial fisheries. Trawls 

should not be allowed in the US 

Caribbean. Need to revise all the 

allowable gears. 

4.13 Action 13: Establish Framework 

Measures for ACLs and AMs in the Reef 

Fish FMP. 

Alternative 1. No Action. Do not 

establish a framework for ACLs and 

AMs 

Alternative 2. Establish a framework 

procedure for setting and adjusting 

ACLs and AMs 

Discussion 

Action 13 will require modification of 

the existing framework procedure so 

that ACLs and AMs may be quickly 

altered as necessary through a 

regulatory action. 

SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

For more information or request for sign 

language interpretation and other 

auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. 

Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

268 Mun ̃ oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918–1920, 

telephone (787) 766–5926, at least five 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: July 27, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18162 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

External Advisory Panel for NOAA’s 

Oceans and Human Health Initiative 

AGENCY: National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of 

Members for an External Advisory Panel 

for the NOAA Oceans and Human 

Health Initiative. 

SUMMARY: This notice responds to the 

Oceans and Human Health Act of 2005, 

Public Law 108–447, which authorizes 

the Secretary of Commerce to establish 

an Oceans and Human Health Advisory 

Panel (the Panel). This Panel assists in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES