[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31340-31342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14347]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Magnuson-Stevens 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31341]]

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:
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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-Magnuson-Stevens 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 non-MSA 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

[[Page 31342]]

after 34 years in the absence of further damage or removals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rooper, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-a24b-860688bf3974.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 Council-
managed 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 non-fishing 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 Non-fishing 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 Non-fishing Effects Report contains 
non-binding 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