Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42329 

1 DSHMRA regulations provide that the 

Administrator may make allowance for deviation 

from the exploration plan for good cause, such as 

significantly changed market conditions (provided 

the request for extension is accompanied by an 

amended exploration plan to govern the activities 

of the licensee during the extended period). See 15 

CFR 970.515(b). 

2Although LMC has discussed some work 

performed in collaboration with a United Kingdom 

subsidiary in its annual reports, NOAA’s 

determination of substantial compliance was based 

upon an assessment of LMC’s contributions to these 

collaborative efforts. 

degree of flexibility for changes encountered 

by the licensee in such factors as its resource 

knowledge and financial considerations. 15 

CFR 970.602(c). 

The exploration plans associated with 

these licenses have evolved since their 

original approval as part of the initial 

license issuance in 1984. In 1991, 

NOAA approved a revised exploration 

plan for USA–1 delaying at-sea 

exploration due to unfavorable 

conditions in the metals markets.1

Subsequent extensions of USA–1 

included the approval of the exploration 

plan with the delayed implementation 

of at-sea activities (referred to as ‘‘Phase 

II Activities’’ in the exploration plan). 

When NOAA approved the transfer of 

USA–4 to the Ocean Minerals Company 

(OMCO), the predecessor to LMC, in 

1994, OMCO stated that no at-sea 

exploration activities were planned or 

needed due to data collection that 

preceded the enactment of DSHMRA. In 

2012, NOAA approved a consolidated 

exploration plan for USA–1 and 

USA–4 with the same contingency 

delaying the start of Phase II at-sea 

exploration activities due to unfavorable 

market conditions. In addition, the 

Licensee cited the need to have security 

of tenure through international 

recognition of the licenses by the 

International Seabed Authority 

following accession by the United States 

to the UNCLOS, as a justification for 

delay of the Phase II exploration 

activities. Since the last extension of 

these exploration licenses, LMC has 

made substantial expenditures on 

activities pursuant its approved 

exploration plan.2 Noteworthy activities 

of LMC include: 

• The integration of data into a GIS 

system to map nodule density including 

the density distribution of nodules by 

concentrations of target metals; 

• The development of environmental 

baseline metrics by benthic organism 

class; 

• The development of updated 

economic models based on the 

validation of the end-to-end baseline 

architecture for seabed mining through 

the assessment of each segment of the 

architecture for its technical and 

economic feasibility; 

• Benchtop metallurgical tests of 

extraction efficiencies for the primary 

commercial target metals and Rare Earth 

Elements found in nodules; 

• Selecting the chain of custody and 

processing protocols that will be used 

for mineral content certification which 

will be necessary in order to obtain 

financing for future operations; and 

• Participation in the meetings and 

discussions of the International Seabed 

Authority and various international 

programs pertaining to the deep seabed. 

In addition, the approved exploration 

plan includes environmental assessment 

activities that must occur as a 

prerequisite to undertaking Phase II. 

These activities are necessary to further 

advance the understanding of the 

seabed environment, and the scientific 

methodology for its characterization. 

Developing this understanding is not 

limited to activities pertaining 

specifically to the areas licensed to 

LMC. Working collaboratively with 

research institutions, nation states, and 

exploration contractors authorized by 

the International Seabed Authority, 

LMC has contributed to collaborative 

efforts that have made substantial 

advancements in identifying organisms 

inhabiting the deep seabed, their 

abundance, distribution, diversity, and 

community structure. In addition to 

taxonomic classifications, these efforts 

have included genetic characterizations, 

which are critical to establishing 

biogeographical distinctions and 

connectivity in the deep seabed 

environment. This data and 

information, in turn, can be used for 

predictive habitat modelling. These 

contributions to the advancement of 

science are expected to be applicable to 

activities in the areas within the 

USA–1 and USA–4 licenses when Phase 

II activities are proposed there. NOAA, 

therefore, views these efforts as further 

evidence of the Licensee’s diligence in 

pursuing the activities described in the 

exploration plan. 

As discussed in the exploration plan 

associated with the requested extension 

of USA–1 and USA–4, the Licensee 

continues to find that the market 

conditions and the lack of international 

tenure under UNCLOS prevent the 

company from moving forward with 

Phase II of its exploration plan. 

Nonetheless, the Licensee has 

demonstrated a commitment to retain 

the licenses on a legitimate presumption 

that the existing contingencies will be 

resolved. LMC’s annual reports 

demonstrate that preparatory work for 

at-sea exploration is continuing and 

NOAA has determined that such efforts 

constitute substantial compliance with 

the USA–1 and USA–4 licenses and 

associated exploration plan. As such, 

extension of USA–1 and USA–4 is 

warranted. 

Comment: Due to the LMC’s failure to 

adequately specify what activities are to 

occur under the individual exploration 

licenses, the applicant has failed to 

substantially comply with its license 

and application plan, and therefore, the 

extension requests should be denied. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. In 2012, 

NOAA approved a consolidated 

exploration plan for USA–1 and 

USA–4. The Phase I preparatory 

activities within the approved 

consolidated exploration plan are 

described generally and appropriately 

apply to both areas. Given the general 

nature of the preparatory activities 

under Phase I, separate descriptions of 

those activities for both license areas are 

not necessary. As described above, the 

Licensee has provided sufficient 

justification to determine that it has 

substantially complied with the licenses 

and associated exploration plan. If the 

Licensee proceeds to Phase II, activity 

descriptions pertaining specific areas 

may be necessary. 

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program 

Administration. 

Dated: August 30, 2017. 

Donna Rivelli, 

Associate Assistant Administrator for 

Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18994 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD990 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Essential Fish Habitat 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of Final 

Environmental Assessment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of a Final Environmental 

Assessment for Amendment 10 to the 

2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). This Final 

Amendment updates Atlantic HMS 

essential fish habitat (EFH) based on 

new scientific evidence or other 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42330 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

relevant information and following the 

EFH delineation methodology 

established in Amendment 1 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 

(Amendment 1); updates and considers 

new habitat areas of particular concern 

(HAPCs) for Atlantic HMS based on new 

information, as warranted; minimizes to 

the extent practicable the adverse effects 

of fishing on EFH; and identifies other 

actions to encourage the conservation 

and enhancement of EFH. This action is 

necessary to comply with the EFH 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the 

National Standard 2 requirement that 

conservation and management measures 

be based on the best scientific 

information available. 

DATES: The amendment was approved 

on August 30, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of Final 

Amendment 10 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and associated 

documents (including maps and 

shapefiles) may be obtained on the 

internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/ 

hms/documents/fmp/am10/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Cudney or Randy Blankinship 

by phone at (727) 824–5399. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

that Fishery Management Plans identify 

and describe EFH and, to the extent 

practicable, minimize the adverse 

effects on EFH caused by fishing, and to 

also identify other actions to encourage 

the conservation and enhancement of 

such habitat. (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(7)). 

NMFS has defined EFH as waters and 

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity 

(50 CFR 600.10). Federal agencies that 

authorize, fund, or undertake actions, or 

propose to authorize, fund, or undertake 

actions that may adversely affect EFH 

must consult with NMFS. In addition, if 

a Federal or State action or proposed 

action may adversely affect EFH, NMFS 

must provide the action agency with 

recommended measures to conserve 

EFH (§ 600.815(a)(9)). An adverse effect 

is defined as an effect that reduces 

quality and/or quantity of EFH. This 

includes direct or indirect physical, 

chemical, or biological alterations of the 

waters or substrate; loss of, or injury to 

species and their habitat, and other 

ecosystem components; or reduction of 

the quality and/or quantity of EFH. 

Adverse effects may result from actions 

occurring within EFH or outside of EFH. 

In addition to identifying EFH, NMFS 

or Regional Fishery Management 

Councils may designate HAPCs where 

appropriate. The purpose of a HAPC is 

to focus conservation efforts on 

localized areas within EFH that are 

vulnerable to degradation or are 

especially important ecologically for 

managed species. EFH regulatory 

guidelines encourage the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils and 

NMFS to identify HAPCs based on one 

or more of the following considerations 

(§ 600.815(a)(8)): 

• The importance of the ecological 

function provided by the habitat; 

• the extent to which the habitat is 

sensitive to human-induced 

environmental degradation; 

• whether, and to what extent, 

development activities are, or will be, 

stressing the habitat type; and/or, 

• the rarity of the habitat type. 

In addition to identifying and 

describing EFH for managed fish 

species, NMFS or Regional Fishery 

Management Councils must periodically 

review EFH FMP components, and 

make revisions or amendments, as 

warranted, based on new scientific 

evidence or other relevant information 

(§ 600.815(a)(10)). NMFS commenced 

this review and solicited information 

from the public in a Federal Register 

notice on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 15959). 

The initial public review/submission 

period ended on May 23, 2014. The 

Draft Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review 

was made available on March 5, 2015 

(80 FR 11981), and the public comment 

period ended on April 6, 2015. The 

Notice of Availability for the Final 

Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review was 

published on July 1, 2015 (80 FR 37598) 

(‘‘5-Year Review’’). 

The 5-Year Review considered data 

and information regarding Atlantic HMS 

and their habitats that have become 

available since 2009 that were not 

included in EFH updates finalized in 

Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (Amendment 1) (June 1, 

2010, 75 FR 30484); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (Amendment 3) (June 1, 

2010, 75 FR 30484); and the interpretive 

rule that described EFH for roundscale 

spearfish (September 22, 2010, 75 FR 

57698). NMFS determined that a 

revision of Atlantic HMS EFH was 

warranted, and that Amendment 10 to 

the Atlantic HMS FMP should be 

developed in order to implement these 

updates. NMFS determined in the 5- 

Year Review that the method used in 

Amendment 1 to delineate Atlantic 

HMS EFH was still the best approach. 

This method was therefore applied to 

complete analyses that support the new 

amendment. 

On September 8, 2016, NMFS 

published a notice of availability of the 

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) 

for Amendment 10 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (81 FR 

62100). Draft Amendment 10 considered 

all 10 components of EFH listed at 

§ 600.815(a). For evaluation of EFH 

geographic boundaries, the Draft 

Amendment incorporated new 

information and data that became 

available to the agency following 

publication of the previous EFH update 

(Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP in 2009). New 

information and data came from a 

literature and data meta-analysis 

completed as part of the recent EFH 5- 

Year Review, and from data and 

information submitted by NOAA 

scientists and the public during public 

comment periods. These data sets 

included sources such as fisheryindependent survey data records 

collected between 2009–2014, even for 

species where there were limited or no 

new EFH data found in the literature 

review. A complete list of data sources 

and information used to update Draft 

Amendment 10 is available in the Draft 

EA. Draft Amendment 10 used the same 

EFH delineation methodology 

established in Amendment 1 to update 

EFH boundaries. Draft Amendment 10 

proposed alternatives to modify existing 

HAPCs or designate new HAPCs for 

bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), and 

sandbar (Carcharhinus plumbeus), 

lemon (Negaprion brevisorstris), and 

sand tiger sharks (Carcharias taurus); 

analyzed fishing and non-fishing 

impacts on EFH through a consideration 

of environmental and management 

changes and new information that has 

become available since 2009; identified 

ways to minimize to the extent 

practicable the adverse effects of fishing 

activities on EFH; and identified other 

actions to encourage the conservation 

and enhancement of EFH. 

NMFS sought public comment on 

Draft Amendment 10 through December 

22, 2016. Additionally, NMFS 

conducted two public hearing 

conference calls/webinars for interested 

members of the public to submit verbal 

comments (81 FR 71076). Furthermore, 

NMFS presented information on Draft 

Amendment 10 to the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, 

and New England Fishery Management 

Councils. NMFS received 26 unique 

written comments on the Draft 

Amendment, and received a number of 

additional comments and/or clarifying 

questions at the Atlantic HMS Advisory 

Panel meeting and at Council meetings. 

NMFS received multiple comments in 

support of the proposed updates to EFH 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42331 

and for modification and/or creation of 

new HAPCs. Among other things, NMFS 

received comments and suggestions on 

the following: suggestions to improve 

EFH analysis methodology; 

recommendations against the 

establishment of EFH boundaries for 

dusky sharks north of a New England 

management demarcation line; 

modifications to proposed EFH updates 

for multiple shark species based on 

research submitted by commenters; 

modifications on the proposed extent of 

the bluefin tuna HAPC; and requests for 

inclusion of additional information in 

the EA. 

The Final Amendment modifies EFH 

for Atlantic HMS (Preferred Alternative 

2). When preparing Draft Amendment 

10, NMFS identified several new 

datasets and completed a 

comprehensive analysis of agency 

datasets that included the addition of 

six years of new data (2009–2014). 

Additional relevant datasets were not 

available in time for inclusion in Draft 

Amendment 10 but have been included 

in the Final Amendment 10. These 

datasets contained Level 1 point data 

from the Billfish Foundation, the 

Southeast Area Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (SEAMAP) 

icthyoplankton trawl survey, the 

SEAMAP Acoustic/Small Pelagics 

survey, the SEAMAP Shrimp/ 

Bottomfish survey, and the North 

Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources inshore gillnet/trawl survey 

data. There was additional pelagic 

longline observer data for white marlin 

was available following publication of 

Draft Amendment 10. 

Given the large number of new data 

points that became available during and 

following the public comment period 

for Draft Amendment 10, NMFS 

determined that for Final Amendment 

10 it was appropriate to rerun models 

for multiple species. For example, the 

inclusion of SEAMAP Acoustic/Small 

Pelagic and Shrimp/Bottomfish surveys 

in analyses rerun for Final Amendment 

10 added 1,533 data points for angel 

shark in the Gulf of Mexico. Inclusion 

of these new data points into the Kernal 

Density Estimation/95 Percent Volume 

Contour models resulted in minor 

modifications to the EFH boundary 

updates that were previously presented 

in Draft Amendment 10. 

The EFH model output generated for 

Final Amendment 10 was then 

subjected to robust scientific peer 

review and quality assurance/quality 

control (QA/QC) to ensure that updates 

to EFH boundaries were sound. The use 

of robust scientific peer review and QA/ 

QC after models are developed and EFH 

boundaries are derived from the 95 

percent probability boundary is 

consistent with provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section 

305(b)(1)(A). For example, Councils or 

NMFS may describe, identify, and 

protect habitats of managed species that 

are beyond the EEZ; however, such 

habitat may not be considered EFH for 

the purposes of the requirements under 

sections 303(a)(7) and 305(b) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (§ 600.805(a)(2)). 

Given these aspects of the EFH 

regulations, the 95 percent probability 

boundary derived from models is 

clipped, or made to match, the seaward 

EEZ boundary, depending on where the 

overlap occurred. Based on the 

recommendations of NMFS scientists in 

the Northeast and Southeast Fisheries 

Science Centers, and in cases where it 

made biological sense, NMFS clipped 

polygons to specified features or areas 

(e.g., bathymetric (depth) contours 

(isobaths), the continental shelf break, 

Chesapeake Bay, shorelines). This 

reflects the known information about 

these species’ habitats. In Final 

Amendment 10, NMFS provides 

additional clarifications on the process 

for QA/QC and scientific peer review 

considerations of model output (see 

Appendix F of the EA, see ADDRESSES

above for instructions on how to view/ 

locate the Final EA). Similarly, NMFS 

also added a more recently updated 

definition of shark nursery areas in 

Final Amendment 10 based on the 

discussion presented in Heupel et al. 

(2007) to assist in identifying habitats 

that were considered necessary for 

neonate/YOY and juvenile life stages of 

sharks (EFH definition) and/or may 

have been rare or played a particularly 

important ecological role (per HAPC 

criteria) (see Comments 15 and 16 

below; see Appendix F of the EA, see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions on 

how to view/locate the Final EA). 

Final Amendment 10 modifies the 

HAPC for bluefin tuna (Preferred 

Alternative 3b) and sandbar shark 

(Preferred Alternative 4b) from that 

established in Amendment 1 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP. New literature 

published by Muhling et al. (2010) 

suggests moderate (20–40 percent) 

probabilities of collecting larvae in areas 

of the eastern Gulf of Mexico that are 

not completely covered by the existing 

HAPC. Based on this information, Final 

Amendment 10 extends the HAPC for 

the Spawning, Eggs, and Larval life 

stage in the Gulf of Mexico from its 

current boundary of 86° W. longitude 

(long.), eastward to 82° W. long. The 

HAPC extends from the 100-meter 

isobath to the EEZ, and is based on the 

distribution of available data and 

recommendations from the SEFSC 

during QA/QC review. Final 

Amendment 10 also adjusts the 

neonate/YOY sandbar shark HAPC 

established in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic 

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks such that 

it is consistent with updates to EFH 

(Preferred Alternative 2b) in coastal 

North Carolina, Chesapeake Bay, and 

Delaware Bay for this life stage. The 

sandbar shark EFH changes include 

incorporation of additional area in 

Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay to 

reflect updated EFH designations, and 

adjustment of the HAPC around the 

Outer Banks of North Carolina to 

remove areas in Pamlico Sound. The 

HAPC for sandbar shark designated in 

1999 is outside the geographic 

boundaries of the most recent EFH 

designation (Amendment 1) for sandbar 

shark. This alternative would therefore 

adjust the boundaries of the HAPC so 

that it is contained within the 

geographic boundaries of the sandbar 

shark EFH. 

Amendment 10 also creates new 

HAPCs for juvenile and adult lemon 

sharks (Preferred Alternative 5b) off 

southeastern Florida between Cape 

Canaveral and Jupiter inlet and for sand 

tiger shark (Preferred Alternative 6b) in 

Delaware Bay (all life stages) and the 

Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury (PKD) 

Bay system in coastal Massachusetts 

(neonate/YOY and juveniles). These 

HAPCs were proposed in the Draft 

Amendment 10. The new HAPC for 

juvenile and adult lemon sharks is 

based upon tagging studies and public 

comments received that expressed 

concern about protection of habitat in 

locations where aggregations of lemon 

sharks are known to occur. The two new 

sand tiger shark HAPCs are based on 

data collected by the NEFSC, Haulsee et 

al. (2014 and 2016), and Kilfoil et al. 

(2014) indicating that Delaware Bay 

constitutes important habitat for sand 

tiger sharks. 

Response to Comments 

NMFS received 26 unique written 

comments from fishermen, council 

members, states, environmental groups, 

academia and scientists, and other 

interested parties on the Draft EA during 

the public comment period. Comments 

included submissions of 17 form letters 

that were identical or similar to 

comments provided by organizations. 

We also received comments from 

fishermen, states, and other interested 

parties at Council meetings, Atlantic 

HMS Advisory Panel meetings, and at 

two public conference calls/webinars. 

All written comments can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42332 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

Comments are summarized below by 

major topic together with NMFS’ 

responses. 

1. Draft EA Content (Comments 1–2), 

2. EFH Methodology (Comments 3–5), 

3. Bluefin Tuna EFH Boundary 

Designations (Comments 6–9), 

4. Bluefin Tuna HAPC Alternative 

(Comments 10–11), 

5. Shark EFH Boundary Designations 

(Comments 12–16), 

6. Sandbar Shark HAPC Alternative 

(Comment 17), 

7. Lemon Shark HAPC Alternative 

(Comments 18–20), 

8. Sand Tiger Shark HAPC Alternative 

(Comments 21–22), 

9. Other Comments (Comment 23), 

and 

10. Research and Restoration 

(Comments 24–26). 

Comments by Subject 

1. Draft EA Content 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments on the content of the Draft 

EA, requesting information confirming 

the importance of habitat associations, 

seasonality of peak EFH utilization, and 

a rationale for the changes in EFH made 

between Amendment 1 and Draft 

Amendment 10. 

Response: Habitat association and 

seasonality information, based on 

available scientific literature, have been 

included in both the Life History 

reviews and EFH Text Descriptions for 

Atlantic HMS species (see Chapter 6 of 

the Final EA). If appropriate, NMFS may 

develop products, such as GIS maps 

depicting peak seasonal use of EFH by 

region in the future. A rationale for the 

changes in EFH between Amendment 1 

and those established by Final 

Amendment 10 is included for each 

species, where applicable, following 

EFH Text Descriptions in Chapter 6 of 

the EA. 

Comment 2: NMFS should provide 

online access to the shapefiles and maps 

of non-preferred alternatives. 

Response: Shapefiles and maps 

depicting preferred alternative EFH and 

HAPC boundaries, and maps showing 

the extent of non-preferred HAPC 

alternatives, may be downloaded at the 

following Web site: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ 

documents/fmp/am10/index.html. 

NMFS did not make available shapefiles 

or maps of the non-preferred EFH 

boundary alternative (i.e., status quo) on 

the Amendment 10 Web site to reduce 

confusion between what EFH 

designations are currently in effect and 

what is being considered in this 

amendment. Shapefiles representing the 

previous EFH revision exercise, which 

reflect the status quo—no action 

alternative in Draft Amendment 10, are 

available on the Web site for 

Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP. 

2. EFH Methodology 

Comment 3: Preferred Alternative 2, 

which updates all Atlantic HMS EFH 

designations using the methodology 

established under Amendment 1, is 

appropriate. 

Response: NMFS concurs that it is 

appropriate to update Atlantic HMS 

EFH using new data collected since 

2009 and the methodology established 

under Amendment 1. Review and 

updates of Atlantic HMS EFH are 

consistent with the EFH provisions of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National 

Standard 2 (i.e., that conservation and 

management measures be based on the 

best scientific information available). 

During the 5-Year Review process, 

NMFS evaluated 11 different 

approaches used to assess EFH by the 

Agency or published in the literature, 

and determined that the methodology 

established under Amendment 1 

remained the best approach to update 

Atlantic HMS EFH. 

Comment 4: NMFS should consider 

designations of EFH by depth (surface, 

middle, and bottom) where appropriate 

and if there is scientific information that 

supports such a designation. 

Response: EFH text descriptions (see 

Chapter 6 of the EA) include references 

to depth where appropriate based on 

best available scientific information. 

EFH delineation in other sections of the 

water column could be useful in Habitat 

Consultations; however, information 

describing vertical distribution and 

habitat utilization in the water column 

are not available for all Atlantic HMS 

species in the literature. While NMFS 

did not specifically request vertical 

depth data from the public during the 5- 

Year Review and Draft Amendment 

comment periods, NMFS generally 

requested information on relevant EFH 

data and ideas for delineation methods 

and no data on vertical depth 

distribution data were submitted. NMFS 

may explore new models and 

approaches in the future, and at that 

time, could evaluate the feasibility of 

designating EFH vertically through the 

water column for Atlantic HMS. 

Comment 5: The methods used to 

delineate EFH may bias results. 

Sampling intensity can affect the 

observed density, particularly for larvae, 

as well as for determining the 

distribution of other species, which 

impacts EFH designations. In those 

cases, EFH becomes a function of data 

availability, not a function of animal 

behavior. 

Response: The current approach to 

designating EFH uses an unweighted 

model that delineates contour intervals 

around data points; therefore, the 

models are influenced by sampling 

intensity, the spatial distribution of 

data, and data availability. Several 

Atlantic HMS species are data-poor, and 

the available datasets may provide data 

points that are clustered in space or 

time based on the extent of sampling. 

NMFS may explore alternative models 

and approaches in the future, if 

appropriate, that better account for the 

spatial distribution of available data and 

other biases that may influence results. 

3. Bluefin Tuna EFH Boundary 

Designations 

Comment 6: NMFS received 

comments both supporting and not 

supporting the inclusion of the Slope 

Sea into the bluefin tuna EFH for the 

Spawning, Eggs, and Larval life stage. 

Some commenters supported the 

inclusion of Slope Sea spawning areas 

into EFH designations for this life stage 

because this reflects the best available 

scientific information. Other 

commenters voiced opposition to 

including EFH for bluefin tuna larvae 

areas outside the Gulf of Mexico, stating 

that the designation of EFH cannot be 

justified based on current scientific 

knowledge. Specifically, commenters 

had concerns about limited sample sizes 

in space and time across the Slope Sea. 

As discussed in Comment 24 below, 

commenters asked that NMFS 

encourage additional research on the 

Slope Sea. 

Response: During preparation of Draft 

Amendment 10, NMFS identified 

relevant research by Richardson et al. 

(2016) that included 67 data points 

where larval bluefin tuna were collected 

in the Slope Sea. Those data points were 

used as information input for the model. 

Despite the small sample size associated 

with Richardson et al. 2016, the number 

and distribution of data points were 

sufficient to meet or exceed model 

thresholds for inclusion in the 95 

percent volume contour. Since model 

results included the Slope Sea areas as 

part of the EFH for the bluefin tuna 

Spawning, Eggs, and Larval life stage, 

NMFS is retaining the Slope Sea area as 

EFH but is also encouraging additional 

research on these habitats (see Chapter 

7 of the EA) and Comment 24 below. 

Comment 7: Several commenters 

expressed concerns about management 

implications of identifying Spawning, 

Eggs, and Larval EFH in areas outside of 

the Gulf of Mexico given that current 

ICCAT management recommendations 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42333 

stipulate that the United States should 

not permit directed fishing on bluefin 

tuna in spawning areas. 

Response: The relative importance of 

the Slope Sea bluefin tuna spawning, 

eggs and larval EFH to the stock is 

unclear at this time, however the EFH 

model results included the Slope Sea as 

part of the EFH for the bluefin tuna 

Spawning, Eggs, and Larval life stage 

because the distribution of data points 

met the model’s threshold for inclusion 

in the 95 percent volume contour. 

ICCAT’s Standing Committee on 

Research and Statistics (SCRS) has 

noted that hypotheses concerning the 

Slope Sea’s importance as a spawning 

area still need to be tested (ICCAT 2016, 

http://iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/ 

Docs/2016_BFT_DATA_PREP_

ENG.pdf). Furthermore, there are a 

number of concerns about the 

conclusions drawn by the Richardson et 

al. (2016) paper concerning sample size, 

larval data corrections, variance in data, 

and conclusions about early maturation 

(e.g., Walter et al. 2016). The SCRS has 

recommended additional research be 

conducted to address these concerns 

and, at this time, the Slope Sea has not 

been recognized by ICCAT as western 

Atlantic spawning grounds. As 

additional information on the relative 

importance of the Slope Sea and if 

recognition as spawning grounds 

becomes available, NMFS will consider 

that information in developing or 

advocating for appropriate domestic and 

international measures. 

Comment 8: In concert with accepting 

Preferred Alternative 3b (Expand HAPC 

eastward), NMFS should, at a minimum, 

expand adult bluefin EFH to include the 

entire HAPC boundary. 

Response: Model results did not 

include the entire Gulf of Mexico into 

the EFH boundaries of adult bluefin 

tuna. Expansion of adult bluefin EFH 

eastward in the Gulf of Mexico to 

encompass all areas of the bluefin 

spawning, eggs, and larval life stage 

HAPC, would add only an additional 25 

locations (+ ∼2 percent of data points in 

the Gulf of Mexico). PSAT tagging data 

suggest that adult bluefin tuna migrate 

through this area, but do not utilize it 

as heavily as other areas of the central 

and western Gulf of Mexico (e.g., 

Wilson et al. 2015; see Figure 6.1, 

Section 6.2.3 of the Amendment 10 EA, 

see ADDRESSES above for instructions on 

how to view/locate the Final EA). As 

previously mentioned, the intent of EFH 

is not to delineate all areas where the 

species is known to occur, but rather the 

areas that are necessary for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. 

Therefore, NMFS has not modified the 

EFH designation for adult bluefin EFH 

to include the entire eastern GOM. 

Comment 9: NMFS should 

incorporate the migratory corridor to the 

Gulf of Mexico as adult EFH, rather than 

stopping abruptly off the coast of North 

Carolina, most importantly including 

the waters around the Charleston Bump 

where tagging studies have shown adult 

bluefin feed (Wilson et al. 2015). 

Response: Examination of PSAT 

tagging data (see Figure 6.1, Section 

6.2.3) implies that tagged bluefin tuna 

may heavily use pelagic habitats ranging 

from coastal North Carolina to areas 

north and east of the Bahamas. Data 

available for EFH analyses also indicate 

that pelagic habitats of the Blake Plateau 

are necessary habitat for adult Bluefin 

tuna. Therefore, based on further review 

of available data, NMFS adjusted the 

boundaries of adult bluefin EFH to 

include some of the areas recommended 

by the commenter. However, it is 

important to note that EFH designations 

are designed to focus attention on those 

habitats necessary for feeding, breeding, 

spawning, or growth to maturity. 

Migration routes, while important in 

their own right, are not within the scope 

of EFH as defined under NMFS’ 

regulations. 

4. Bluefin Tuna HAPC Alternative 

Comment 10: NMFS should accept 

Preferred Alternative 3b to expand the 

bluefin tuna HAPC in the Gulf of 

Mexico, as it meets all four 

considerations for a HAPC pursuant to 

§ 600.815(a)(8). 

Response: NMFS agrees that Preferred 

Alternative 3b is warranted based on the 

application of the HAPC criteria to the 

current body of scientific literature. 

Therefore, NMFS has expanded the 

current HAPC for the bluefin tuna 

Spawning, Eggs, and Larval life stage as 

provided under this alternative. 

Comment 11: NMFS should designate 

or include the Slope Sea, newly 

discovered bluefin tuna spawning 

habitat, as a HAPC. 

Response: A HAPC designation for a 

particular habitat must be based on one 

of four criteria: The importance of the 

ecological function provided by the 

habitat; the extent of sensitivity to 

human induced environmental 

degradation; whether, and to what 

extent, development activities are or 

will be stressing the habitat type; and 

the rarity of the habitat type. Whether 

the Slope Sea satisfies these criteria for 

bluefin tuna is unknown and research to 

better understand the role of this area as 

a spawning ground and other habitats 

for the species continue. Given the 

limited sample size to date, it is difficult 

to determine the importance of the 

ecological function provided by the 

Slope Sea for the western Atlantic 

bluefin stock. Additional sampling and 

research are also needed in order to 

effectively evaluate all HAPC criteria. 

The number of data points are fairly 

small and are limited temporally; 

therefore, it is difficult to delineate 

boundaries for an effective HAPC at this 

time. 

5. Shark EFH Boundary Designations 

Comment 12: Dusky sharks do not 

occur in New England waters. NMFS 

should establish a north/south 

demarcation line off New England 

where appropriate measures to reduce 

dusky shark mortality and protect dusky 

shark EFH could be implemented in 

areas south of the demarcation line. 

Eighteen copies of a form letter 

suggested that dusky shark EFH should 

be moved to waters south of New 

England and/or Montauk, NY. Other 

commenters supported designation 

south of an area known as ‘‘The Dump’’ 

(approximately 75 km east and slightly 

south of Montauk), or designation south 

of a line extending eastward from 

Shinnecock, NY (40°50′25′′ N. latitude). 

Response: Most of the data points 

collected for the EFH modeling exercise 

were located south of the Gulf of Maine, 

and therefore NMFS agrees it was not 

appropriate to include Gulf of Maine 

habitats in the proposed updates to EFH 

boundaries that were included in Draft 

Amendment 10. The available data and 

historical information from the 

scientific literature indicate that dusky 

sharks do occur in southern New 

England waters. The dusky shark EFH 

boundaries included in Draft 

Amendment 10, and the data used in 

the EFH models considered in Draft 

Amendment 10, reflect data points that 

are located offshore of southern New 

England (i.e., south of the southern coast 

of Long Island, Nantucket, and Martha’s 

Vineyard) and along the southern edge 

of Georges Bank and the continental 

shelf. However, the proposed EFH 

boundaries in Draft Amendment 10 for 

dusky sharks also included some 

inshore areas in Narragansett Bay, near 

coastal Rhode Island, and areas adjacent 

to southeastern Massachusetts. In 

consideration of public comments 

received and review of life history 

information and distribution data on 

dusky sharks, NMFS determined that 

minor adjustments to EFH boundary 

designations to remove some nearshore 

coastal areas of southern New England 

were appropriate. For example, model 

output published in Draft Amendment 

10 as EFH for dusky sharks included 

Narragansett Bay and parts of Buzzards 

Bay, however, the salinity of these areas 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42334 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

is generally considered to be too low for 

dusky sharks (C. McCandless, pers. 

comm, NOAA NEFSC). Parts of 

Vineyard Sound, Rhode Island Sound, 

Block Island Sound, and Nantucket 

Sound were also included, likely as a 

result of their proximity to a larger 

cluster of data points located further 

south and offshore. Generally, dusky 

sharks are collected in scientific surveys 

further offshore (C. McCandless, pers. 

comm, NOAA NEFSC). Therefore, in 

response to public comment and based 

on further review of the best available 

biological information, the EFH 

boundary designations for dusky shark 

have been revised to exclude these 

coastal areas. 

Commenters also advocated for the 

use of a north/south demarcation line to 

be used for management measures that 

would reduce dusky shark mortality and 

to implement EFH. Under the current 

modeling method, EFH boundaries are 

based on the distribution and 

availability of point data, which provide 

empirical evidence that the habitat is 

important for feeding, breeding, 

spawning or growth to maturity. While 

landmarks or features can be used as 

representations to describe the extent of 

current EFH, they must take into 

account the specific locations of a 

species’ habitat. Available data and the 

models developed using the current 

EFH delineation methodology suggested 

that some areas north and east of 

Montauk and Shinnecock NY or ‘‘the 

Dump’’ should be included within the 

EFH Boundaries. NMFS has described 

these locations within the EA. 

Comment 13: NMFS should adjust its 

EFH boundaries to encompass highly 

suitable habitats for great hammerhead 

and tiger sharks as predicted from 

habitat suitability modeling. The 

updates to EFH boundaries proposed by 

NMFS in Draft Amendment 10 are 

consistent with habitat suitability 

modeling for bull sharks. 

Response: NMFS compared the areas 

of high habitat suitability to data 

available for EFH analyses and found 

that, in general, the adjustment of EFH 

based on habitat suitability models is 

inconsistent with the approach used by 

NMFS in Amendment 10 because 

certain areas that were deemed highly 

suitable by the commenter contained 

little to no empirical point data. Rather 

the identification of highly suitable 

habitat was based on the confluence of 

certain environmental characteristics 

that was predicted to create a more 

favorable habitat for that species. The 

intent of EFH is not to delineate all 

areas where the species is known to 

occur, but rather areas that are necessary 

to a species spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growth to maturity. The 

current methodology assumes a 

relationship between the presence and 

density of points and the presence of 

EFH, and does not at this time 

incorporate a predictive aspect based on 

environmental variables. NMFS may 

explore alternative models and 

approaches for the next revision of EFH 

and, at that time, would evaluate the 

feasibility of incorporating habitat 

suitability modeling approaches (such 

as those put forward by this commenter) 

into the delineation of EFH, if 

appropriate. 

Comment 14: Maps and data 

pertaining to drumline surveys 

conducted between 2008–2015 by the 

University of Miami Shark Research and 

Conservation Lab suggest that areas with 

high catch rates in northern Biscayne 

Bay (between Elliot Key and Key 

Biscayne) should have been included in 

updates to EFH for blacktip sharks. 

NMFS should expand the EFH proposed 

in Draft Amendment 10 to include these 

areas. Areas with highest nurse, lemon, 

and sandbar shark CPUE are already 

contained within the proposed updates 

to EFH boundaries. NMFS should 

finalize the EFH boundary adjustments 

included in Draft Amendment 10 for 

these species. 

Response: NMFS agrees that areas 

identified for blacktip, nurse, lemon, 

and sandbar shark EFH off South 

Florida are necessary habitats for these 

species, and it is therefore appropriate 

to include these areas in the EFH 

boundaries that would be finalized 

under Amendment 10. Blacktip sharks 

are managed regionally, with a 

demarcation line separating the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic shark stocks at 

25°20.4′ N. latitude. In response to 

public comment and in consultation 

with the NEFSC and SEFSC, NMFS 

determined that adjustments to the EFH 

boundaries for the Atlantic stock of 

blacktip sharks were appropriate and, in 

Final Amendment 10, extended the 

southern extent of juvenile and adult 

EFH boundaries southward along the 

Florida east coast to 25°20.4′ N. latitude 

(which includes northern Biscayne 

Bay). Similarly, NMFS determined that 

the Gulf of Mexico stock boundary 

needed to be moved south along the 

Florida coast to terminate at the 25°20.4′ 

N. latitude stock demarcation line in 

order to be consistent with the 

management extent for this stock (it 

previously extended north of this line). 

Comment 15: NMFS should adjust 

EFH boundaries to include portions of 

Pamlico Sound, Core Sound, Back 

Sound, and other inshore coastal waters 

for juvenile and adult blacktip sharks, 

neonate/YOY and juvenile bull sharks, 

neonate/YOY and juvenile sandbar 

sharks, juvenile and adult blacknose 

sharks, neonate/YOY and adult Atlantic 

sharpnose sharks, and all life stages of 

smooth dogfish based on data from the 

annual North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries (NC DMF) gillnet and 

longline survey and from research on 

delineation of coastal shark habitat 

within coastal North Carolina waters 

using acoustic telemetry, fisheryindependent surveys, and local 

ecological knowledge (Bangley 2016). 

Response: The information and data 

referenced in this comment, NC DMF 

gillnet and longline survey data and 

data from Bangley 2016, provided 

NMFS an opportunity to evaluate 

Atlantic HMS nursery habitat utilization 

in inshore and coastal North Carolina 

waters. As noted in Heupel et al. (2007), 

‘‘the use of the term ‘shark nursery area’ 

by a wide array of scientists, resource 

managers and conservationists appears 

to be inconsistent and lacks proper 

scientific analysis and justification. In 

some cases regions are labeled shark 

nursery areas simply because of the 

presence of a few juvenile sharks . . . 

[which] threatens to undermine the 

importance of protecting EFH by 

potentially identifying all coastal waters 

as shark nursery areas.’’ Due to 

inconsistent use of the term ‘‘nursery 

area’’ across the scientific community 

and concerns identified in Heupel et al. 

2007), NMFS now prefers to apply the 

definitions laid out in Heupel et al. 2007 

to identify habitats in which: (1) Sharks 

are more commonly encountered in 

these areas versus other areas; (2) sharks 

remain or return to these areas for 

extended periods of time (i.e., site 

fidelity that is greater than mean fidelity 

to all sites across years); and (3) the 

habitat is repeatedly used across all 

years, whereas others are not. The 

annual mean number of neonate/YOY 

bull, sandbar, and blacktip sharks was 

small (e.g., approximately 5 bull and 

sandbar sharks per year, 9 blacktip 

sharks per year) and not consistent from 

year to year. Additionally, the survey 

with the longest timespan, NC DMF, 

had no supporting data for these species 

in Back and Core Sounds. 

Although some acoustic data are 

available (n = 1 blacktip and 3 

blacknose sharks), a bigger sample size 

would be needed to establish residency 

patterns of individuals and demonstrate 

site fidelity through time for these 

species in inshore North Carolina 

waters. The NC DMF dataset also 

contained only one blacknose shark, 

and therefore does not provide a 

scientifically sufficient means to 

analyze habitat utilization and potential 

EFH. NMFS had very few data points for 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42335 

juvenile and adult blacktip sharks (n = 

23 out of 6,383) and adult blacknose 

sharks (n = 2) in Pamlico, Core, and 

Back Sound. 

A larger number of smoothhound and 

Atlantic sharpnose shark records were 

noted in areas of Pamlico Sound closer 

to the inlets of the Outer Banks, and the 

model results supported keeping EFH in 

these areas as proposed. However, the 

NC DMF dataset did not include any 

Atlantic sharpnose or smoothhound 

shark data points for Core Sound or 

Back Sound, and the number of data 

points from the Bangley (2016) dataset 

in these locations were also small (n = 

33 Atlantic sharpnose sharks and 10 

smooth dogfish) so these are excluded 

for these species and life stages. Many 

of the habitats identified near inlets as 

potentially important may reflect a 

temporary condition that is tolerable to 

these animals as they follow schools of 

baitfish to feed; however, these 

conditions are temporary as the tides 

change. Bangley (2016) analyzes data 

with respect to distance to inlets and 

salinity, however, it does not consider 

tidal influence on the creation of 

temporary habitat through the presence 

of prey schools responding to tidal 

fluctuations. Therefore, NMFS 

encourages additional research to 

further evaluate these areas as nursery 

habitat per the definitions outlined in 

Heupel et al. 2007 (see Section 7.1.6 of 

the Final Environmental Asessement, 

which discusses HMS Research Needs), 

but has not designated Pamlico, Core, 

and Back Sounds as EFH for blacktip, 

sandbar, and bull sharks; or Core and 

Back Sounds as EFH for Atlantic 

sharpnose sharks and smooth dogfish. 

NMFS may evaluate inshore areas of 

coastal North Carolina for inclusion in 

these species’ EFH boundaries in the 

future if more data become available. 

Comment 16: Neonate/YOY and 

juvenile sandbar sharks are among the 

most common coastal sharks captured 

in NC DMF gillnet and longline surveys 

conducted in the spring and fall. NMFS 

should adjust EFH boundaries for 

sandbar shark to include portions of 

Pamlico Sound based on a dissertation 

(Bangley 2016) that suggested coastal 

North Carolina habitats, including 

Pamlico Sound, may be primary and 

secondary nursery habitats for multiple 

shark species, including sandbar shark. 

Response: Using NC DMF gillnet and 

longline survey data,and the data 

presented in Bangley (2016), NMFS 

assessed whether the information 

provided by the commenter supported 

inclusion of these habitats into neonate/ 

YOY EFH boundaries as nursery areas 

which are necessary for feeding and 

growth to maturity. Due to inconsistent 

use of the term ‘‘nursery area’’ across 

the scientific community and the 

contention of Heupel et al. (2007) that 

‘‘the occurrence of juvenile sharks in an 

area is insufficient evidence to proclaim 

it a nursery’’, NMFS now prefers to 

apply the definitions laid out in Heupel 

et al 2007 to identify habitats in which 

(1) sharks are more commonly 

encountered in these areas versus other 

areas; (2) sharks remain or return to 

these areas for extended periods of time 

(i.e., site fidelity that is greater than 

mean fidelity to all sites across years); 

and (3) the habitat is repeatedly used 

across all years, whereas others are not. 

NC DMF data indicate that, while these 

species are caught consistently between 

years in Pamlico Sound, the numbers of 

data points tend to be low compared to 

areas seaward of the Outer Banks. 

Additional research is needed to 

indicate an elevated degree of 

dependency, site fidelity, and 

utilization of these habitats compared to 

nearshore habitats that are seaward of 

the Outer Banks before they should be 

included within EFH boundaries per the 

rationale that they are ‘‘nursery areas’’. 

6. Sandbar HAPC Alternative 

Comment 17: NMFS should 

implement Alternative 4a (No Action 

Alternative) in concert with 

recommendations for Alternative 2 (see 

comments 15 and 16 above), which 

would update existing EFH designations 

and include an expansion of sandbar 

neonate/YOY and juvenile EFH into 

estuarine waters of North Carolina to 

protect nursery habitats. 

Response: As discussed in Comments 

15 and 16, there was a small number of 

data points available on neonate/YOY 

and juvenile sandbar sharks from the 

datasets and information referenced in 

this public comment (NC DMF inshore 

gillnet and trawl data, and Bangley 

2016). NOAA scientists from the SEFSC 

and NEFSC recommended that Pamlico 

Sound not be included in neonate/YOY 

EFH or that a HAPC for this life stage 

be retained in inshore North Carolina 

waters because insufficient data was 

available to compare the spatial and 

temporal utilization of these habitats 

with adjacent habitats, which are 

critical aspects of athe the nursery area 

definition outlined in Heupel et al. 

2007. Therefore, updates to EFH 

finalized in this Amendment do not 

include inshore coastal waters of North 

Carolina (i.e., Pamlico Sound). The 

commenter recommends accepting the 

No Action Alternative, which would 

retain HAPC boundaries in Pamlico 

Sound. Since a HAPC must be nested 

within updated EFH, and the updated 

EFH for sandbar shark does not include 

Pamlico Sound, it would be inconsistent 

with NMFS’ regulations that implement 

the EFH provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act to retain the current 

boundaries of the Sandbar HAPC. NMFS 

will continue to evaluate inshore areas 

of Pamlico Sound for EFH or HAPC 

inclusion as more data becomes 

available. 

7. Lemon Shark HAPC Alternative 

Comment 18: NMFS received three 

comments (including one from the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission) in support of Preferred 

Alternative 5b, the proposed lemon 

shark HAPC that spans from Cape 

Canaveral to Jupiter Inlet. Commenters 

indicated that the HAPC is needed and 

well placed, and could provide 

additional protection for Southeastern 

Florida lemon shark aggregations. Other 

commenters indicate that this 

alternative is most appropriate based on 

available tagging and genetic research 

that identifies the importance of 

aggregation sites and migration 

pathways contained within the 

proposed HAPC. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

proposed HAPC is the most appropriate 

alternative given independent research 

conducted by multiple institutions that 

confirm the areas are rare aggregation 

sites of unique importance (i.e., thermal 

refugia, nursery grounds for juveniles, 

resting/feeding grounds for adults) for 

lemon shark populations off the 

southeastern United States. Tagging and 

genetic studies also support the 

inclusion of habitats in between the two 

aggregation sites into the HAPC. These 

areas are adjacent to a region with 

extremely high population density, and 

are thus subject to potential 

environmental degradation and 

development activities. 

Comment 19: NMFS should not create 

a HAPC for lemon sharks. NMFS should 

apply the HAPC criteria strictly for this 

area, and not designate a HAPC as a 

response to pressure the agency has 

received to curtail fishing activity in the 

area. 

Response: As part of EFH 

designations for lemon sharks, NMFS 

considered whether those areas should 

include HAPCs based on the criteria for 

HAPC specification under 600.815(a): 

The importance of the ecological 

function provided by the habitat, the 

extent that the habitat is sensitive to 

human induced environmental 

degradation, the extent that 

development activities are or could be 

stressing the habitat type, and the rarity 

of the habitat type. A HAPC was 

included in the Final Amendment based 

on these analyses, as triggered by the 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42336 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

identification of scientific papers (e.g., 

Reyier et al. 2012; Kessel et al. 2014, 

Reyier et al. 2014) that indicated there 

was scientific evidence that habitats and 

areas had an important ecological 

function, were adjacent to highly 

populated areas and therefore 

susceptible to human use or 

degradation, and were rare aggregation 

sites for this population of lemon 

sharks. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

expressed concern that a HAPC 

designation for lemon sharks would 

open the door for new regulations to be 

implemented in the area. 

Response: The purpose of identifying 

HAPCs is to focus conservation efforts 

on localized areas within EFH that are 

vulnerable to degradation or are 

especially important ecologically for 

managed fish. HAPCs can also be used 

to target areas for area-based research. 

HAPCs are not required to have any 

specific management measures. 

However, such measures may need to be 

considered to achieve the stated goals 

and objectives of the HAPC. Public 

comment reflected concern for the 

status of populations of lemon sharks off 

Southwest Florida. Identification of a 

HAPC, or variations in abundance or 

even a change in stock status of a 

species for which a HAPC is identified 

does not, by itself, trigger an EFH 

rulemaking. Rather, an EFH rulemaking 

is triggered by a verifiable adverse effect 

on habitat from a fishing or non-fishing 

activity. The EFH provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act specify that 

FMPs must minimize to the extent 

practicable adverse effects of fishing on 

EFH, and that Councils (and NMFS) 

must 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 EFH in a manner that 

is more than minimal and not temporary 

in nature (600.815(a)(2)(ii). If sufficient 

evidence became available to suggest 

that fishing activity adversely affects 

EFH in a manner that is more than 

minimal and not temporary in nature, 

NMFS would provide notification to the 

public of any regulations associated 

with EFH or the HAPCs in a future 

rulemaking. 

8. Sand Tiger HAPC Alternative 

Comment 21: NMFS should 

implement Preferred Alternative 6b to 

update EFH, as Delaware Bay and the 

PKD bay system have been found to be 

important habitats for sand tiger sharks. 

Response: Data collected by the 

NEFSC via the Cooperative Atlantic 

States Shark Pupping and Nursery 

(COASTSPAN) survey and scientific 

research published by Haulsee et al. 

(2014 and 2016), Kilfoil et al. (2014), 

Kneebone et al. (2012 and 2014) suggest 

that the habitats meet several HAPC 

criteria (e.g., ecological function 

provided by the habitat—discrete and 

relatively rare nursery areas and adult 

aggregation sites, published concerns 

about development and environmental 

degradation). NMFS therefore agrees 

that it is appropriate to establish HAPCs 

in Delaware Bay and the PKD bay 

system. 

Comment 22: NMFS should consider 

a HAPC designation in the western end 

of New York’s Great South Bay since it 

has been discovered to be an important 

nursery ground for sand tiger sharks. 

Tagging studies show strong juvenile 

interannual site fidelity, that the area is 

only used by juveniles, and the area is 

located in a heavily populated area of 

New York that is susceptible to human 

induced habitat degradation. 

Response: NMFS was unable to obtain 

data associated with a potential nursery 

in Great South Bay, NY. One 

commenter, who was not a data author, 

provided a point of contact associated 

with the New York Aquarium that have 

initiated research on sand tiger sharks in 

Great South Bay and several newspaper 

and gray literature articles. The data 

author submitted a comment with 

recommendations, but did not provide 

data associated with the comment. 

NMFS staff attempted to communicate 

with the data author multiple times by 

phone and email between October 2016 

and January 2017, however the data 

author/commenter ultimately did not 

provide information or data to NMFS 

that would allow NMFS to further 

evaluate the assertion that Great South 

Bay habitat met the HAPC criteria. 

Therefore, NMFS has not delineated a 

HAPC for sand tiger sharks in this area 

at this time. 

9. Other Comments 

Comment 23: There is a white shark 

nursery off Long Island. NMFS should 

protect young white sharks in this area. 

Response: In Draft Amendment 10, 

NMFS considered a potential HAPC in 

the northern Mid-Atlantic and off 

southern New England for neonate/YOY 

and juvenile white sharks. In particular, 

Curtis et al. (2014) noted that a large 

number of YOY shark observations 

occurred between Great Bay, NJ and 

Shinnecock Inlet, NY. Depth and 

temperature associations were provided 

in this paper for YOY and juveniles; 

however, this report alone was not 

enough to support any one HAPC 

criterion. For this final amendment, 

NMFS examined additional data and 

literature that might support HAPC 

designation; however, the findings were 

insufficient to identify a discrete area 

that meets the criteria for a HAPC. The 

area identified by the commenter is 

already included as part of the EFH for 

neonate/YOY white sharks; therefore, 

impacts on EFH would be considered as 

part of Habitat Consultations in the 

future. 

10. Research and Restoration 

Comment 24: Additional research is 

needed to evaluate the Slope Sea as a 

potential bluefin tuna spawning site, the 

parentage of bluefin tuna larvae on the 

Slope Sea, and the relative magnitude of 

spawning in this area compared to other 

known spawning grounds. 

Response: NMFS has included these 

as high priority items in the Research 

Needs chapter of Final Amendment 10. 

Additionally, in June of 2017, the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

sponsored a cruise on NOAA vessel 

Gordon Gunter to conduct research on 

Slope Sea larval fish populations 

(specifically, bluefin tuna). 

Comment 25: Ongoing monitoring is 

prudent to ensure that there is no 

change in the distribution of dusky 

sharks or other species due to climatic 

shift. 

Response: In 2014, NMFS published 

the Atlantic HMS Management-Based 

Research Needs and Priorities 

document. The document contains a list 

of near- and long-term research needs 

and priorities that can be used by 

individuals and groups interested in 

Atlantic HMS to identify key research 

needs, improve management, reduce 

duplication, prioritize limited funding, 

and form a potential basis for future 

funding. 

The priorities range from biological/ 

ecological needs to socioeconomic 

needs and the document can be found 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ 

documents/hms_research_priorities_

2014.pdf. The Research Needs and 

Priorities document, along with 

feedback gathered on the Final Atlantic 

HMS EFH 5-Year Review and Draft 

Amendment 10 from the public and the 

scientific research community was used 

to develop a list of research priorities 

that would support future HMS EFH 

designation and protection in Chapter 7 

of the Amendment 10 Final EA. These 

research priorities are further 

characterized as high, medium, or low 

priority depending upon the needs 

identified by the managers. High 

priority items are generally those that 

are needed to address near-term stock 

assessment or management needs. 

Medium priority items are generally 

those that address longer-term needs, 

while low priority needs would provide 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42337 

for more effective HMS management, 

despite lacking an immediate need. 

NMFS has listed as a medium priority 

for all Atlantic HMS species 

‘‘[examination of] the influence of 

climate change on range, migration, 

nursery/pupping grounds, and prey 

species for Atlantic HMS in general’’ in 

Chapter 7 (which itemizes Research 

Needs) because EFH as a management 

tool is not useful if the EFH boundaries 

do not account for shifts in the 

distribution of managed species. 

Comment 26: NMFS should conduct 

focused research or provide funding to 

evaluate impacts to Atlantic HMS EFH 

in the western Gulf of Mexico 

(specifically, Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary) and for 

restoration. 

Response: Funding to evaluate EFH 

impacts to degraded habitats and for 

habitat restoration is beyond the scope 

of this Amendment. NOAA staff from 

the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary conduct sanctuary 

implemented and sanctuary facilitated 

ecological and biological research, 

including research focused on habitat. It 

is beyond the scope of this amendment 

for the Atlantic HMS Management 

Division to directly conduct focused 

research, or for the Atlantic HMS 

Management Division to direct the 

Sanctuary to conduct focused research, 

on Atlantic HMS EFH within Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary. Interested persons should 

visit the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary Web page for more 

information on current research 

programs: https://

flowergarden.noaa.gov/science/ 

research.html 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., and 1801 

et seq. 

Dated: September 1, 2017. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18961 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

[Docket ID: USN–2015–0004] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

ACTION: 30-day information collection 

notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by October 10, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be 

emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD 

Desk Officer, at Oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. Please identify the 

proposed information collection by DoD 

Desk Officer and the Docket ID number 

and title of the information collection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Licari, 571–372–0493. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title, Associated Form and OMB 

Number: USMC Children, Youth and 

Teen Programs (CYTP) Registration 

Packet; NAVMC 11720, NAVMC 1750/ 

4, and NAVMC 1750/5; OMB Control 

Number 0703–XXXX. 

Type of Request: New Collection. 

Number of Respondents: 112,000. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Annual Responses: 112,000. 

Average Burden per Response: 70 

minutes. 

Annual Burden Hours: 131,040. 

Needs and Uses: The information 

collected on these forms is used by MFP 

and Inclusion Action Team (IAT) 

professionals for purposes of patron 

registration, to determine the general 

health status of patrons participating in 

CYTP activities and if necessary the 

appropriate accommodations for the 

patron for full enjoyment of CYTP 

services, and provides consent for 

information to be exchanged between 

MFP personnel and other designated 

individuals or organizations about a 

patron participating in MFP. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; business or other for-profit. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet 

Seehra. 

You may also submit comments and 

recommendations, identified by Docket 

ID number and title, by the following 

method: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, Docket 

ID number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick 

Licari. 

Written requests for copies of the 

information collection proposal should 

be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD 

Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center 

Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Dated: August 31, 2017. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18928 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket No.: ED–2017–ICCD–0114] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Comment Request; Generic 

Application Package for Departmental 

Generic Grant Programs 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OS), 

Department of Education (ED). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is 

proposing an extension of an existing 

information collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: To access and review all the 

documents related to the information 

collection listed in this notice, please 

use http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching the Docket ID number ED– 

2017–ICCD–0114. Comments submitted 

in response to this notice should be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov by selecting the 

Docket ID number or via postal mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery. 

Please note that comments submitted by 

fax or email and those submitted after 

the comment period will not be 

accepted. Written requests for 

information or comments submitted by 

postal mail or delivery should be 

addressed to the Director of the 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 

216–32, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

specific questions related to collection 

activities, please contact Alfreida 

Pettiford, 202–245–6110. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Education (ED), in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES