60986 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

HARVEST TABLE

5–year population averages ‘‘High’’ growth rate ‘‘Intermediate’’ 

growth rate ‘‘Low’’ growth rate 

Expected 

Mortality 

Limit 

Less than 350 ...................................... 0 0 0 - 

350–399 ............................................... 8 strikes in 5 years 5 strikes in 5 years 5 strikes in 5 years 21 

400–449 ............................................... 9 strikes in 5 years 8 strikes in 5 years 5 strikes in 5 years 24 

450–499 ............................................... 10 strikes in 5 years 8 strikes in 5 years 5 strikes in 5 years 27 

500–524 ............................................... 14 strikes in 5 years 9 strikes in 5 years 5 strikes in 5 years 30 

525–549 ............................................... 16 strikes in 5 years 10 strikes in 5 

years 

5 strikes in 5 years 32 

550–574 ............................................... 20 strikes in 5 years 15 strikes in 5 

years 

5 strikes in 5 years 33 

575–599 ............................................... 22 strikes in 5 years 16 strikes in 5 

years 

5 strikes in 5 years 35 

600–624 ............................................... 24 strikes in 5 years 17 strikes in 5 

years 

6 strikes in 5 years 36 

625–649 ............................................... 26 strikes in 5 years 18 strikes in 5 

years 

6 strikes in 5 years 38 

650–699 ............................................... 28 strikes in 5 years 19 strikes in 5 

years 

7 strikes in 5 years 39 

700–779 ............................................... 32 strikes in 5 years 20 strikes in 5 

years 

7 strikes in 5 years 42 

780 + .................................................... Consult with co-managers to expand harvest 

levels while allowing for the population to 

grow 

(C) At the beginning of each 5–year 

period, an Expected Mortality Limit is 

determined from the Harvest Table 

using the 5–year average abundance. 

During the course of each calendar year, 

the number of beach casts carcasses and 

carcasses found floating either reported 

to NMFS or observed by NMFS 

personnel will be the number of 

mortalities for that year. If at the end of 

each calendar year this number exceeds 

the Expected Mortality Limit, then an 

unusual mortality event has occurred. 

The Estimated Excess Mortalities will be 

calculated as twice the number of 

reported dead whales above the 

Expected Mortality Limit. The harvest 

will then be adjusted as follows: 

(1) The harvest level for the remaining 

years of the current 5–year period will 

be recalculated by reducing the 5–year 

average abundance from the previous 5– 

year period by the Estimated Excess 

Mortalities. The revised abundance 

estimate would then be used in the 

harvest table for the remaining years 

and the harvest adjusted accordingly. 

(2) For the subsequent 5–year period, 

for the purpose of calculating the 5–year 

average, the Estimated Excess 

Mortalities would be subtracted from 

the abundance estimates of the year of 

the excess mortality event so that the 

average would reflect the loss to the 

population. This average would then be 

used in the table to set the harvest level. 

[FR Doc. E8–24511 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 071212833–8179–02] 

RIN 0648–XK90 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 

Quota Transfer 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason quota 

transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of Florida is transferring 

commercial bluefish quota to the State 

of New York from its 2008 quota. By 

this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas 

and announces the revised commercial 

quota for each state involved. 

DATES: Effective Ocotber 9, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Bryant, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9244, fax (978) 

281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the Atlantic 

bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 

648. The regulations require annual 

specification of a commercial quota that 

is apportioned among the coastal states 

from Florida through Maine. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state is described in § 648.160. 

Two or more states, under mutual 

agreement and with the concurrence of 

the Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator), can 

transfer or combine bluefish commercial 

quota under § 648.160(f). The Regional 

Administrator is required to consider 

the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) in 

the evaluation of requests for quota 

transfers or combinations. 

Florida has agreed to transfer 100,000 

lb (45,359 kg) of its 2008 commercial 

quota to New York. The Regional 

Administrator has determined that the 

criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) have 

been met. The revised bluefish quotas 

for calendar year 2008 are: New York, 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 60987 

947,057 lb (429,578 kg); and Florida, 

673,748 lb (305,607 kg). 

Classification 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

part 648 and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

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

Dated: October 8, 2008. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–24415 Filed 10–9–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 080225278–81191–02] 

RIN 0648–AS96 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; West 

Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 

14; Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions 

for Pacific Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

identifications and descriptions for 

Pacific salmon included in Amendment 

14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan (Salmon FMP). This 

final rule codifies the EFH 

identifications and descriptions for 

freshwater and marine habitats of 

Pacific salmon managed under the 

Salmon FMP, including Chinook, coho, 

and pink salmon. This action is 

necessary to comply with an order 

issued by the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Idaho which directed NMFS 

to codify the EFH identifications and 

descriptions contained in Amendment 

14 to the Salmon FMP. 

DATES: Effective November 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Record of 

Decision, the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, and 

Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP are 

available at www.nwr.noaa.gov or from 

D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, 

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115–0070, 

phone: 206–526–6150. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Copps (Northwest Region, NMFS), 

206–526–6140; fax: 206–526–6736. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson–Stevens Act) authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 

regulate domestic fisheries within the 

200–mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) (16 U.S.C. 1811, 1853). 

Conservation and management of fish 

stocks is accomplished through Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs). Eight 

regional fishery management councils 

develop FMPs and amendments to those 

plans for fisheries within their 

jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 1853). To be 

effective, FMPs and FMP amendments 

developed by the councils must be 

approved by the Secretary and then 

implemented through regulation (16 

U.S.C. 1854). More information on the 

FMP process can be found at 16 U.S.C. 

1851–1854. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson–Stevens Act, 

originally enacted in 1976, has been 

amended several times. In 1996, the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) 

amended the Magnuson–Stevens Act 

adding provisions intended to end 

overfishing and rebuild overfished 

fisheries, reduce bycatch, and assess 

and minimize the impacts of 

management measures on fishing 

communities. Congress articulated in its 

findings that one of the greatest long– 

term threats to the viability of 

commercial and recreational fisheries is 

the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, 

and other aquatic habitats. Habitat 

considerations should receive increased 

attention for the conservation and 

management of fishery resources of the 

United States (16 U.S.C. 1801(a)(9)). In 

making such findings, Congress 

declared one of the purposes of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act to be the 

promotion of ‘‘the protection of [EFH] in 

the review of projects conducted under 

Federal permits, licenses, or other 

authorities that affect or have the 

potential to affect such habitat’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1801(b)(7)). To ensure habitat 

considerations receive increased 

attention for the conservation and 

management of fishery resources, the 

amended Magnuson–Stevens Act 

required each existing, and any new, 

FMP to: describe and identify essential 

fish habitat for the fishery based on the 

guidelines established by the Secretary 

under section 1855(b)(1)(A) of this title; 

minimize to the extent practicable 

adverse effects on such habitat caused 

by fishing; and, identify other actions to 

encourage the conservation and 

enhancement of such habitat (16 U.S.C. 

1853(a)(7)). ‘‘EFH’’ is defined in the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act as ‘‘those waters 

and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity’’ (16 U.S.C. 1802(10)). 

The EFH regulations (50 CFR 600.815) 

establish additional guidance to the 

councils on how to identify and 

describe EFH. The regulations indicate 

that councils should obtain information 

to describe and identify EFH from the 

best available sources, including peer 

reviewed literature, unpublished 

scientific reports, data files of 

government resource agencies, fisheries 

landing reports, and other sources of 

information. 

The regulations identify four 

classification levels to organize 

available information relevant to EFH 

identifications and descriptions. Level 1 

information is limited to species 

distributional data; level 2 information 

includes habitat–related densities; level 

3 includes growth, reproduction or 

survival rates within habitats; and level 

4 consists of production rates by habitat. 

Councils are encouraged to identify and 

describe EFH based on the highest level 

of detail (i.e., level 4). The EFH 

regulations (50 CFR 600.815, subpart J) 

provide a complete description of each 

of these levels as well as guidance on 

how the councils should analyze the 

available information. 

To establish EFH, the regulations 

advise the councils to interpret the 

available information in a ‘‘risk–averse 

fashion to ensure adequate areas are 

identified as EFH for managed species’’ 

(50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(A)). For 

Pacific salmon, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Pacific Council) 

obtained information at all four levels 

for certain freshwater areas, and the first 

three levels of information for the 

estuaries; only the first level of 

information was available for marine 

areas. 

Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon 

Fishery Management Plan 

The Secretary approved the Salmon 

FMP under the Magnuson–Stevens Act, 

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), in 1978. The 

Pacific Council has amended the 

Salmon FMP 14 times since 1978. The 

Pacific Council identified and described 

EFH for Pacific Salmon in Amendment 

14 to the Salmon FMP and submitted it 

on June 12, 2000 for Secretarial review. 

Following a public comment period, the 

Secretary approved Amendment 14 on 

September 27, 2000. NMFS codified 

some, but not all, components of 

Amendment 14. The Pacific Salmon 

EFH descriptions and identifications, 

however, were not codified. 

In September of 2003, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Idaho (Court) 

(Case No. CV02–C–EJL) held that the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES