31340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

CRA. The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

within the meaning of the CRA. It will 

not have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; it 

will not result in a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and it will not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Parts 59 and 

61 

Flood insurance, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency amends 44 CFR 

Chapter I as follows: 

PART 59—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 

41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 

12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 

1979 Comp., p. 376. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Pilot Inspection Program 

[Removed] 

■ 2. Remove subpart C, consisting of 

§ 59.30. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—INSURANCE COVERAGE 

AND RATES 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 

41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 

12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 

1979 Comp., p. 376. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A(4) to Part 61 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove Appendix A(4) to Part 61. 

Appendix A(5) to Part 61 [Removed] 

■ 5. Remove Appendix A(5) to Part 61. 

Appendix A(6) to Part 61 [Removed] 

■ 6. Remove Appendix A(6) to Part 61. 

Brock Long, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14477 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–52–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–XF559 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat 

Amendments 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of agency decision. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

approval of Amendment 115 to the 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area, 

Amendment 105 to the FMP for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, 

Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs, Amendment 13 to the FMP for 

the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off 

Alaska, and Amendment 2 to the FMP 

for Fish Resources of the Arctic 

Management Area, (collectively 

Amendments). These Amendments 

revise the FMPs by updating the 

description and identification of 

essential fish habitat (EFH), and 

updating information on adverse 

impacts to EFH based on the best 

scientific information available. This 

action is intended to promote the goals 

and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the FMPs, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: The amendments were approved 

on May 31, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Amendments, maps of the EFH areas, 

the Environmental Assessment (EA), 

and the Final EFH 5-year Summary 

Report (Summary Report) prepared for 

this action may be obtained from 

www.regulations.gov. The Summary 

Report is also available at ftp://

ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_

documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_

AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_15.pdf. The 

2017 Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat 

from Non-fishing Activities in Alaska 

Report (Non-fishing Effects Report) is 

available at ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/ 

noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_

AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_14.pdf. Stone 

(2014) is available at https://

spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/pp16.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Mackey, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that 

each regional fishery management 

council submit any FMP amendment it 

prepares to NMFS for review and 

approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval by the Secretary of Commerce. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also 

requires that NMFS, upon receiving an 

FMP amendment, immediately publish 

a notification in the Federal Register 

announcing that the amendment is 

available for public review and 

comment. 

The Notification of Availability for 

the Amendments was published in the 

Federal Register on March 5, 2018 (83 

FR 9257), with a 60-day comment 

period that ended on May 4, 2018. 

NMFS received five comments during 

the public comment period on the 

Notification of Availability for the 

Amendments. NMFS is not 

disapproving any part of these 

amendments in response to these 

comments. NMFS summarized and 

responded to these comments under 

Comment and Responses, below. 

NMFS determined that the 

Amendments are consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws, and the Secretary of 

Commerce approved the Amendments 

on May 31, 2018. The March 5, 2018, 

Notiication of Availability contains 

additional information on this action. 

No changes to Federal regulations are 

necessary to implement the 

Amendments. 

The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMPs under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMPs 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 

680. Section 303(a)(7) of the MagnusonStevens Act requires that each FMP 

describe and identify EFH, minimize to 

the extent practicable the adverse effects 

of fishing on EFH, and identify other 

measures to promote the conservation 

and enhancement of EFH. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as 

‘‘those waters and substrate necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity.’’ Implementing 

regulations at § 600.815 list the EFH 

contents required in each FMP and 

direct regional fishery management 

councils to conduct a complete review 

of all EFH information at least once 

every five years (referred to here as ‘‘the 

5-year review’’). 

The Council developed the 

Amendments as a result of new 

information available through the 5-year 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31341 

1Rooper, C.N., Wilkins, M.E., Rose, C.S. and 

Coon, C., 2011. Modeling the impacts of bottom 

trawling and the subsequent recovery rates of 

sponges and corals in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. 

Continental Shelf Research, 31(17), pp.1827–1834. 

review that began in 2014 (2015 5-year 

review) and adopted the Amendments 

in April 2017. The 2015 5-year review 

is the Council’s third review of EFH in 

the FMPs. Prior 5-year reviews were 

conducted in 2005 and 2010. The 

Council recommended amendments to 

the description and identification of 

EFH in the FMPs with new information 

and improved mapping as described in 

the Summary Report for the 2015 5-year 

review (see ADDRESSES). The Council 

also recommended updates to EFH 

information based on the best available 

information in the Summary Report. 

The Council recommended updates to 

EFH for all FMPs except for the FMP for 

the Scallop Fishery off Alaska because 

no new information is available to 

update EFH descriptions for scallops. 

The Amendments make the following 

changes to the FMPs: 

• Amendment 115 to the FMP for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Island Management Area and 

Amendment 105 to the FMP for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 

(Amendments 115/105) update the EFH 

descriptions for all managed species and 

update the identification of EFH for 

those managed species for which new 

population density or habitat suitability 

information is available. Sections 4.2.1 

and 5.2.1 of the EA (see ADDRESSES) list 

the EFH updates that will be made for 

each species and life stage. 

Amendments 115/105 also update 

information in Appendix F to each FMP 

on adverse impacts to EFH based on the 

best scientific information available in 

the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). 

• Amendment 49 to the FMP for 

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and 

Tanner Crabs updates the EFH 

descriptions for all managed species and 

updates the identification of EFH for 

those managed species for which new 

population density or habitat suitability 

information is available. Section 6.2.1 of 

the EA (See ADDRESSES) lists the EFH 

updates that will be made for each 

species and life stage. Amendment 49 

also updates information in Appendix F 

to the FMP on adverse impacts to EFH 

based on the best scientific information 

available in the Summary Report (see 

ADDRESSES). 

• Amendment 13 to the FMP for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska 

(Salmon FMP) replaces Appendix A, 

‘‘Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

(HAPC),’’ with a new Appendix A based 

on the best available information in the 

Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). 

Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP 

updates the marine EFH descriptions for 

all salmon species and updates the 

identification of marine EFH for each 

species and life stage for which new 

population density or habitat suitability 

information is available. Section 7.2.1 of 

the EA (see ADDRESSES) lists the EFH 

updates that will be made for each 

species and life stage. Amendment 13 

also updates information in Appendix A 

on adverse impacts to EFH based on the 

best scientific information available in 

the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). 

• Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish 

Resources of the Arctic Management 

Area updates the EFH descriptions for 

all managed species for which new 

information is available, and updates 

the identification of EFH for snow crab. 

Section 8.2.1 of the EA (See ADDRESSES) 

lists the EFH updates that will be made 

for each species and life stage. 

Amendment 2 also updates information 

in Appendix C on non-fishing impacts 

to EFH based on information available 

in the Non-fishing Effects Report (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comments and Responses 

During the public comment period for 

the Notification of Availability for the 

Amendments, NMFS received five 

unique comments from five members of 

the public on the Amendments. NMFS 

received one comment that was not 

relevant to the Amendments. NMFS is 

not disapproving any part of these 

amendments in response to these 

comments. NMFS’ responses to these 

comments are presented below. 

Comment 1: Two commenters 

expressed general support for this 

action. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges these 

comments. 

Comment 2: Amendment 13 to the 

Salmon FMP, Appendix A, is 

inconsistent with the requirement to use 

the best science information available. It 

also fails to recognize adverse effects to 

salmon EFH, including recreational 

fishing, and does not include scientific 

reports that document adverse effects to 

salmon EFH. 

Response: Appendix A to the Salmon 

FMP incorporates the best scientific 

information available from the 

Summary Report and the Non-fishing 

Effects Report (see ADDRESSES). The 

required information from the EFH final 

rule is also included in Appendix A. 

Regarding the effects of recreational 

fishing on EFH, recreational fishing falls 

under non-Magnuson-Stevens Act 

(MSA) fishing activities that may 

adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 

600.815(a)(3)). The regulations require 

FMPs to identify any fishing activities 

that are not managed under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act that may 

adversely affect EFH, including fishing 

managed by state agencies or other 

authorities. NMFS identified and 

addressed those activities in Section 2.3 

of the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). 

Section 2.3 of the Summary Report 

notes that the effects of non-MagnusonStevens Act fishing activities are 

covered within the discussion of fishing 

effects on habitat in the 2005 EFH EIS 

and remain valid. Therefore, the 

Summary Report does not provide 

additional analysis of the effects of nonMSA fishing activities on EFH. 

Comment 3: The EA failed to use the 

best scientific information available. 

The EA did not use predictive habitat 

models, failed to disclose adverse 

impacts of fishing on EFH for FMP 

species whose EFH includes corals and 

slow-growing habitat features, and is not 

sufficiently precautionary. 

Response: This comment can be 

divided into issues related to analysis of 

fishing impacts (Fishing Effects (FE) 

model) and issues related to the 

assessment of fishing activities that 

adversely affect EFH. 

The FE model and how it was used to 

understand the effects of fishing on EFH 

is fully described in the EA in Appendix 

7 (The Fishing Effects Model 

Description, see ADDRESSES). 

Regarding the analysis of fishing 

impacts, the FE model incorporated a 

published, peer-reviewed literature 

review (see Grabowski et al. (2014) in 

Appendix 7 of the EA; see ADDRESSES) 

to estimate impact and recovery 

parameters, which included studies of 

fishing gear interactions with 26 

categories of geological and biological 

substrates. NMFS is aware that 

information exists in the literature that 

provides additional information on the 

age of sensitive habitat types, including 

corals and sponges. The Grabowoski et 

al. literature review included at least 10 

Alaska-specific references. 

The recovery times specified in the FE 

model are the average time to recovery, 

when about 50 to 60 percent of the 

features are expected to have recovered 

from a potential fishery impact. The 

recovery projected by the FE model is 

intended to reflect both the distribution 

of damage (not all features are 

completely removed or killed) and the 

variable time to recovery consistent 

with the limited literature available. The 

recovery times projected by the FE 

model are similar to those in the 

published peer review literature (Rooper 

(2011)),1 which noted that mortality of 

67% of the coral biomass at a site would 

recover to 80% of the original biomass 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31342 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

after 34 years in the absence of further 

damage or removals. 

The FE model includes an assessment 

of ‘‘long-lived species’’ habitat in 

cobble/boulder habitat deeper than 300 

meters. The FE model accounts for 

corals, including sea pens, in mud and 

sand environments. Coral and other 

long-lived species are included in 

depths shallower than 300 meters as the 

‘‘coral/seapen’’ feature. They are 

attributes of the sand and mud habitat 

categories regardless of depth. The FE 

model notes that based on a review of 

fishing activities in 2015, over 94 

percent of area contacted by fishing gear 

was in sand and mud habitats. Sponge 

were a feature of all sediment types with 

the exception of mud, at all depths. 

Predictive models were not used in 

the FE model because the distribution of 

both biological and geological features 

were linked to sediment types rather 

than specific features. The FE model 

accounts for both biological and 

geological features. 

In April 2017, the SSC agreed with 

the conclusions of the FE model and 

agreed that, given current understanding 

of stock delineations, the effects of 

fishing on the EFH of fisheries species 

managed by the Council are minimal 

and temporary. The SSC also recognized 

that this FE model is the first of its kind 

and will benefit from continued 

research to refine the parameterization 

of the FE model. Currently the New 

England Fishery Management Council is 

working to modify the FE model to 

integrate fisheries data specific to New 

England. 

Regarding the assessment of more 

than minimal and not temporary in 

nature, the EFH regulations instruct the 

Council to act to prevent, mitigate, or 

minimize any adverse effects from 

fishing, to the extent practicable, if there 

is evidence that a fishing activity 

adversely affects habitats that are 

necessary for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity in a 

manner that is more than minimal and 

not temporary in nature (provide 

citation to regulation). Previous Council 

EFH reviews used the minimum stock 

size threshold (MSST) to determine if 

adverse effects were occurring. The 

Center of Independent Experts criticized 

this determination process during the 

2010 5-year EFH review. In April 2016, 

the SSC recommended the EFH 

workgroup develop criteria for 

evaluating the impact of fishing effects 

on EFH in response to the review by the 

Center of Independent Experts. In 

response, an assessment was presented 

to the Council’s crab and groundfish 

plan teams as well as the SSC at the 

Council’s October 2016 meeting (http:// 

npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=

F&ID=fc25a8ed-e85d-4579-a24b860688bf3974.pdf). The results from 

this assessment are incorporated in the 

FE model. 

Stock assessment authors used the 

methodology developed by the EFH 

workgroup to assess the effects of 

fishing on the EFH of each Councilmanaged stock. The stock assessment 

authors evaluated the quantitative 

evidence for potential links between 

habitat impacts and a series of metrics 

representing spawning, feeding, 

breeding, and growth to maturity (see 

section 10.3.7 of the Summary Report; 

see ADDRESSES). The SSC concurred 

with the assessment authors’ findings 

that no stocks needed mitigation review 

at this time, but noted that if a more 

than minimal and not temporary impact 

had been detected, the process provided 

a clear avenue for research leading to a 

species-specific mitigation plan. 

Comment 5: NMFS should include all 

fishing impacts (including recreational 

fishing), non-fishing impacts, impacts to 

coastal watersheds, a discussion of 

climate change, and address cumulative 

impacts in Appendix A to the Salmon 

FMP. In addition, NMFS should 

coordinate with state and local agencies 

when making decisions impacting EFH 

for salmon in Alaska. 

Response: The effects of fishing on 

salmon EFH are addressed in Section 

A.4 of Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. 

See also NMFS’ response to Comment 4 

above regarding the FE model analysis. 

NMFS analyzed non-fishing impacts 

(including watersheds and wetlands, 

and a discussion of climate change) in 

the Non-fishing Effects Report (see 

ADDRESSES). This report is referred to in 

Appendix A to the Salmon FMP. NMFS’ 

response to Comment 3 above 

ADDRESSES the effects of recreational 

fishing on EFH. 

Cumulative impacts are addressed in 

Section A.6 of Appendix A. The 

cumulative effects of fishing and nonfishing activities on EFH were 

considered in the 2005 EFH EIS, but 

available information was not sufficient 

to assess how the cumulative effects of 

fishing and non-fishing activities 

influence the function of EFH on an 

ecosystem or watershed scale. The Nonfishing Effects Report contains 

additional information on the potential 

cumulative impacts of non-fishing 

activities. For fishing impacts to EFH, 

the FE model provides an assessment of 

cumulative effects from fishing 

activities. Cumulative impacts are 

considered throughout the Summary 

Report. 

Regarding coordination with the state 

and other agencies, NMFS works closely 

with the Council, which includes state 

and Federal agency representatives as 

well as industry representatives in a 

collaborative decision-making process 

for managing Federal fisheries. 

Coordination and consultation on EFH 

is required by section 305(b) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, this 

consultation does not supersede the 

regulations, rights, interests, or 

jurisdictions of other Federal or state 

agencies. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires NMFS to make conservation 

recommendations to Federal and state 

agencies regarding actions that may 

adversely affect EFH. These EFH 

conservation recommendations are 

advisory, not mandatory, and may 

include measures to avoid, minimize, 

mitigate, or otherwise offset the 

potential adverse effects to EFH. Within 

30 days of receiving NMFS’ 

conservation recommendations, Federal 

action agencies must provide a detailed 

response in writing. The response must 

include measures proposed for 

avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the 

impact of a proposed activity on EFH. 

State agencies are not required to 

respond to EFH conservation 

recommendations. If a Federal action 

agency chooses not to adopt NMFS’ 

conservation recommendations, it must 

provide an explanation. Examples of 

Federal action agencies that permit or 

undertake activities that may trigger 

EFH consultation include, but are not 

limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, and the 

Department of the Navy. The Nonfishing Effects Report contains nonbinding recommendations for 

reasonable steps that could be taken to 

avoid or minimize adverse effects of 

non-fishing activities on EFH. 

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

Dated: June 28, 2018. 

Samuel. D Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14347 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES