Jump to main content.

Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf of Alaska, King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, Scallop and Salmon Fisheries Off the Coast of Alaska

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 
[Federal Register: January 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 7)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1325-1326]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ja02-16]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[I.D. 010302B]
 
Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 
and the Gulf of Alaska, King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the Bering 
Sea/Aleutian Islands, Scallop and Salmon Fisheries Off the Coast of 
Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of preliminary alternative approaches for 
essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern 
(HAPC); request for written comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces preliminary alternative approaches for the 
designation of EFH and HAPC for the following fishery management plans 
(FMPs): Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; 
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and 
Tanner Crabs; Scallop Fishery off Alaska; and Salmon Fisheries in the 
EEZ off the Coast of Alaska.

DATES: Written comments on the preliminary alternative approaches for 
EFH and HAPC must be received by close of business on January 22, 2002 
(see ADDRESSES).

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the preliminary alternative approaches 
for identifying and describing EFH and HAPC should be submitted to 
Theodore F. Meyers, Assistant Regional Administrator, Habitat 
Conservation Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 
99802-1668, Attn: Lori Durall, Records Management Office. Comments may 
be sent via facsimile (fax) to (907) 586-7557. Comments will not be 
accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet. Courier or hand delivery 
of comments may be made to NMFS in the Federal Building, Room 453, 709 
West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Hartmann at (907) 586-7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2001, NMFS published a notice of 
intent to prepare an SEIS for the EFH components of the following 
management plans: Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Area; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands King and Tanner Crabs; Scallop Fishery off Alaska; and Salmon 
Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (66 FR 30396). NMFS 
requested written comments and gave notice of scoping meetings.
    The proposed action to be addressed in the SEIS is the development 
of the mandatory EFH provisions of the affected FMPs as described in 
section 303 (a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and based on the guidance in the 
EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600 Subpart J. The following three types of 
actions will be specifically analyzed: (1) identify and describe EFH 
for managed species; (2) identify HAPCs within EFH; and (3) minimize, 
to the extent practicable, adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing. 
The scope of the new SEIS will cover all of the required EFH components 
of FMPs. The SEIS will supersede the environmental assessment (EA) 
previously prepared in support of the EFH amendments to the FMPs listed 
above.
    In June 2001, NMFS held public scoping meetings in six communities. 
Written comments were accepted through July 21, 2001. A preliminary 
draft scoping report was available at the October 2001 Council meeting. 
NMFS held a technical workshop from November 6 through 8, 2001, to 
develop alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPC. 
Alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPC were 
developed based on significant issues raised during the scoping 
process. Recommendations for EFH and HAPC alternative approaches 
developed at the workshop were given to the Council's EFH Committee. 
NMFS, Council staff, and the EFH Committee presented potential draft 
alternative approaches for EFH and HAPC to the Council at its December 
10, 2001, meeting. The Council adopted the EFH Committee's preliminary 
EFH and HAPC alternative approaches and will further develop EFH and 
HAPC alternative approaches and criteria at the February Council 
meeting. Other EFH and HAPC issues and questions will be discussed, 
such as HAPC site specific proposals and how to proceed with 
identifying fishing gear effects and possible measures to minimize 
those effects. The EFH and HAPC alternative approaches contained in the 
SEIS will then be analyzed further using the best available data to 
identify areas under the various approaches.

Alternative Approaches for Designation of EFH

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as ``those waters and 
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 
to maturity.'' For purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: 
``Waters'' include aquatic areas and their associated physical, 
chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may 
include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; 
``substrate'' includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the 
waters, and associated biological communities; ``necessary'' means the 
habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed 
species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and ``spawning, breeding, 
feeding, or growth to maturity'' covers a species full life cycle. Four 
levels were identified to organize information necessary to describe 
and identify EFH. These four levels are: (1) Level 1: only distribution 
data are available to describe the geographic range of a species or 
life stage; (2) Level 2: quantitative data (i.e., density or relative 
abundance) are available for the habitats occupied by a species of life 
stage; (3) Level 3: data are available on habitat-related growth, 
reproduction, and/or survival by life stage; (4) Level 4: data are 
available that directly relate the production rates of a species of 
life stage to habitat type, quantity, quality, and location.
    The Council is considering the following preliminary alternative 
approaches for the designation of EFH:
    Alternative 1: no action, no EFH designation. The Council's action 
resulting from this alternative approach would be to change the FMPs 
from the current EFH amendment measures. This alternative approach is 
included to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
    Alternative 2: status quo. EFH is defined on a species by species 
basis based on the general distribution of individual species and their 
life stages. Level 0 to 2 information levels are used in this 
alternative.
    Alternative 3: species-based approach. EFH for each species or 
species group and life stage is separately designated. This alternative 
approach dictates that EFH be designated on the basis of the highest 
level of information available.
    Alternative 4: ecosystem/habitat-based approach. This alternative 
approach specifies EFH designations relative to classification of 
habitat types occurring in the region and the assemblages of species 
and lifestages associated with them. Habitat types

[[Page 1326]]

would be defined into stages by the relevant physical and biotic data, 
including depth, substrate, and structure forming biota.
    Alternative 5: core area-based approach. Designation of EFH for 
this alternative approach is limited to those core areas known to be 
critical to the production of species or species groups.
    Alternative 6: exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters approach. Under 
this alternative approach, EFH for FMP species is not designated in 
freshwater, estuarine or nearshore marine waters, and is designated 
only in waters of the EEZ.

Alternative Approaches for Designation of HAPC

    HAPC are subsets of EFH. HAPC are those areas of special importance 
that may require additional protection from adverse effects. HAPC are 
defined on the basis of the ecological importance, sensitivity to 
human-induced environmental degradation, stress to the habitat from 
development activities, and rarity of the habitat.
    The EFH Steering Committee recommends the following nomenclature be 
used for HAPC's: HAPC Category - Classification of HAPC type or site 
using established criteria; HAPC Area - can refer to either habitat 
``type'' or ``site''; HAPC Type - general habitat description (e.g., 
corals, pinnacles); HAPC Site - can be stand-alone geographic location 
selected from HAPC criteria.
    The Council is considering the following preliminary alternative 
approaches for the designation of HAPC:
    Alternative 1: no action, no HAPC designation.
    Alternative 2: status quo. The EFH amendments to the five Council 
FMPs listed above identified 3 types of habitat as HAPC (living 
substrates in shallow water, living substrates in deep waters, and 
freshwater areas used by anadromous fish) but did not map or designate 
specific areas as HAPC.
    Alternative 3: species distribution, core-based approach. This 
alternative approach assumes that the distribution and abundance of 
species are indicators of critically important habitat types or sites 
that require special protection. As information between habitat and FMP 
species or ecosystem productivity becomes available, HAPC could be 
refined to a core habitat.
    Alternative 4: habitat-eco-region/ecological based approach. HAPC 
alternative approach 4 identifies habitat types or sites of ecological 
significance within eco-regions tiering down from EFH alternative 
approach 4. This alternative approach incorporates both habitat types 
and site specific designations and allows for different management 
actions among types and sites within regions.
    Alternative 5: site-specific based approach. HAPC alternative 
approach 5 assumes that individual sites meeting one or more of the 
HAPC criteria may be designated as HAPC sites, which would require 
specific management objectives.
    Alternative 6: type-site based approach. HAPC alternative approach 
6 establishes HAPCs as individual sites selected from a sub-set of HAPC 
types.
    More detailed information on these alternatives can be found on the 
Council and NMFS, Alaska Region, web sites. Links to these sites can be 
found at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Exit E.P.A.

Public Involvement

    NMFS will work with the Council throughout the development of the 
SEIS. The Council has formed an EFH Committee to act as a steering 
committee for the EFH SEIS process and to facilitate public and Council 
input to the SEIS process. The public will be able to provide oral and 
written comments on EFH at Council meetings.
    A principal objective of the public involvement process is to 
identify a reasonable range of management alternatives that, with 
adequate analysis, will sharply define critical issues and provide a 
clear basis for defining those alternatives and choosing the preferred 
alternative. NMFS invites specific public comment on the preliminary 
alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPCs for 
Council-managed species, on possible combinations of EFH and HAPC 
alternative approaches, and on the scientific basis for EFH and HAPC 
designations. NMFS also solicits any new information related to the 
impacts of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH and HAPCs for 
fishery resources managed under the Council's FMPs and possible 
management measures designed to minimize adverse effects of fishing and 
non-fishing activities on EFH.

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

    Dated: January 4, 2002.
John M. Kurland
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 02-644 Filed 1-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.