Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat Amendment, 76216-76220 [05-24416]
Download as PDF
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
76216
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 246 / Friday, December 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the Commission shall certify, by Public
Notice, that the VRS or IP Relay
provider is eligible for compensation
from the Interstate TRS Fund if the
Commission determines that the
certification documentation:
(i) Establishes that the provision of
VRS and/or IP Relay will meet or exceed
all non-waived operational, technical,
and functional minimum standards
contained in § 64.604;
(ii) Establishes that the VRS and/or IP
Relay provider makes available
adequate procedures and remedies for
ensuring compliance with the
requirements of this section and the
mandatory minimum standards
contained in § 64.604, including that it
makes available for TRS users
informational materials on complaint
procedures sufficient for users to know
the proper procedures for filing
complaints; and
(iii) Where the TRS service differs
from the mandatory minimum standards
contained in § 64.604, the VRS and/or IP
Relay provider establishes that its
service does not violate applicable
mandatory minimum standards.
(c)(1) State certification period. State
certification shall remain in effect for
five years. One year prior to expiration
of certification, a state may apply for
renewal of its certification by filing
documentation as prescribed by
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(2) VRS and IP Relay Provider FCC
certification period. Certification
granted under this section shall remain
in effect for five years. A VRS or IP
Relay provider may apply for renewal of
its certification by filing documentation
with the Commission, at least 90 days
prior to expiration of certification,
containing the information described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Method of funding. Except as
provided in § 64.604, the Commission
shall not refuse to certify a state
program based solely on the method
such state will implement for funding
intrastate TRS, but funding
mechanisms, if labeled, shall be labeled
in a manner that promote national
understanding of TRS and do not offend
the public.
(e)(1) Suspension or revocation of
state certification. The Commission may
suspend or revoke such certification if,
after notice and opportunity for hearing,
the Commission determines that such
certification is no longer warranted. In
a state whose program has been
suspended or revoked, the Commission
shall take such steps as may be
necessary, consistent with this subpart,
to ensure continuity of TRS. The
Commission may, on its own motion,
require a certified state program to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
submit documentation demonstrating
ongoing compliance with the
Commission’s minimum standards if,
for example, the Commission receives
evidence that a state program may not
be in compliance with the minimum
standards.
(2) Suspension or revocation of VRS
and IP Relay Provider FCC certification.
The Commission may suspend or revoke
the certification of a VRS or IP Relay
provider if, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, the Commission determines
that such certification is no longer
warranted. The Commission may, on its
own motion, require a certified VRS or
IP Relay provider to submit
documentation demonstrating ongoing
compliance with the Commission’s
minimum standards if, for example, the
Commission receives evidence that a
certified VRS or IP Relay provider may
not be in compliance with the minimum
standards.
(f) Notification of substantive change.
(1) States must notify the Commission of
substantive changes in their TRS
programs within 60 days of when they
occur, and must certify that the state
TRS program continues to meet federal
minimum standards after implementing
the substantive change.
(2) VRS and IP Relay providers
certified under this section must notify
the Commission of substantive changes
in their TRS programs, services, and
features within 60 days of when such
changes occur, and must certify that the
interstate TRS provider continues to
meet federal minimum standards after
implementing the substantive change.
(g) VRS and IP Relay providers
certified under this section shall file
with the Commission, on an annual
basis, a report providing evidence that
they are in compliance with § 64.604.
[FR Doc. 05–24419 Filed 12–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 050915240–5332–02; I.D.
090905A]
RIN 0648–AS66
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of
Mexico Essential Fish Habitat
Amendment
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to
implement Generic Amendment 3 to the
Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of
the Gulf of Mexico (EFH Amendment 3),
which was prepared by the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Council). EFH Amendment 3 amends
each of the seven Council FMPs
-shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal
migratory pelagic resources, coral and
coral reefs, stone crab, and spiny
lobster- to describe and identify
essential fish habitat (EFH); minimize to
the extent practicable the adverse effects
of fishing on EFH; and encourage
conservation and management of EFH.
This final rule establishes additional
habitat areas of particular concern
(HAPCs), restricts fishing activities
within HAPCs to protect EFH, and
requires a weak link in bottom trawl
gear to protect EFH. The intended effect
of this final rule is to facilitate long-term
protection of EFH and, thus, better
conserve and manage fishery resources
in the Gulf of Mexico.
DATES: This final rule is effective
January 23, 2006, except for § 622.34(q),
which is effective January 24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
are available from Peter Hood, NMFS,
Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
telephone: 727–824–5305; fax: 727–
824–5308; e-mail:
Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Hood, telephone: 727–551–5728;
fax: 727–824–5308; e-mail:
Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EFH
Amendment 3 addresses fisheries under
the FMPs for coral and coral reef
resources, coastal migratory pelagics,
red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny
lobster, and stone crab. The FMPs were
prepared by the Council, except for the
FMPs for coastal migratory pelagics and
spiny lobster that were prepared jointly
by the South Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Councils.
All of these FMPs, except the spiny
lobster and stone crab FMPs, are
implemented under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622. The Fishery
Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic is implemented by regulations
at 50 CFR part 640. The Fishery
Management Plan for the Stone Crab
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 246 / Friday, December 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR
part 654.
NMFS published a notice of
availability for EFH Amendment 3 on
September 15, 2005, and requested
public comment on the amendment (70
FR 54518). On September 26, 2005,
NMFS published the proposed rule to
implement EFH Amendment 3 and
requested public comment on the
proposed rule (70 FR 56157). NMFS
approved EFH Amendment 3 on
December 12, 2005. The rationale for the
measures in EFH Amendment 3 is
provided in the amendment and in the
preamble to the proposed rule and is not
repeated here.
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Comments and Responses
Following is a summary of the
comments received on EFH Amendment
3 and the proposed rule along with
NMFS′ responses.
Comment 1: Restrictions on anchoring
in the Stetson, East Flower Garden,
West Flower Garden, and McGrail
Banks HAPCs should be constrained to
only those areas where coral reefs are
present, and not areas within the HAPCs
where corals are not present.
Response: As stated in the
amendment, the restrictions on the
majority of the areas encompassed
within East Flower Garden, West Flower
Garden, and Stetson Banks HAPCs are
consistent with restrictions already
imposed by the statutes governing the
Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary (Sanctuary), which has
jurisdiction for these areas. The
rationale for slightly larger HAPC
boundaries is based on recent
bathymetric and biological surveys that
incorporate the entire physical area of
these geological features and that serve
as the basis for new boundaries for the
Sanctuary that will be proposed in the
near future.
McGrail Bank, although not managed
by the Sanctuary, has extensive growth
of reef-building corals. This bank runs
linearly from the southeast to the
northwest. To maximize the protection
of these corals, north-south and eastwest boundaries capturing the southeast
and northwest extent of the bank were
selected by the Council and NMFS to
aid in enforcement of the area
restrictions, simplify boundaries for the
vessel operators to whom the
restrictions apply, and maintain
consistency with the boundary
orientation of other northern Gulf of
Mexico HAPCs.
Comment 2: Longline gear and bottom
trawls should be restricted because they
damage other fisheries.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
Response: NMFS recognizes that these
gears can damage habitats of some
federally managed fishery species.
Accordingly, the regulations
implemented through this final rule will
further restrict where and how these
gear types can be used. NMFS believes
these regulations restrict these gear
types to the extent justified by the
supporting analyses.
Comment 3: Longline fishing and
anchoring restrictions in the entire
Pulley Ridge HAPC would be harmful to
many commercial fishermen dependent
on this area.
Response: As described in the
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for this amendment, although coral reefs
are not common in the Gulf of Mexico,
they support a wide array of finfish and
invertebrate species. Many of these
species, such as groupers and snappers,
are important to Gulf of Mexico
fisheries. As stated in the amendment
and in the EIS, fishermen target these
areas because of the abundance of these
species. However, fishing activities such
as the use of longlines and anchoring
can damage coral reefs. Longlines,
particularly during retrieval, can snag
corals, thus breaking or upending them.
Dragging and pulling anchors and
anchor chains through corals has been
documented to break and crush coral
formations. Therefore, limiting these
activities is necessary to protect this
important habitat.
The deepest hermatypic coral reef
known in American waters is located in
the southern portion of the Pulley Ridge
HAPC. The northern area of the HAPC
does not contain living corals, but does
show a unique mixed hard bottom
habitat. Because the fishing restrictions
outlined in this rule are designed to
protect corals, only part of the southern
half of this HAPC where the corals are
abundant was designated for gear and
anchoring restrictions. The Council
selected this area because it provided
the best balance between protecting
corals while not resulting in substantial
economic hardship to any particular
fishery or fishing community.
Classification
The Administrator, Southeast Region,
NMFS, determined that EFH
Amendment 3 is necessary for the
conservation and management of the
shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal
migratory pelagic resources, coral and
coral reefs, stone crab, and spiny lobster
fisheries and that it is consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
76217
NMFS prepared a FRFA that
incorporates the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
summary of the analyses completed to
support the action. No significant issues
were raised by public comments
regarding the IRFA or the economic
impacts of the rule. A summary of the
FRFA follows.
This action will identify EFH, identify
HAPC, and establish gear and fishing
restrictions to protect this habitat. The
purpose of this action is to prevent,
minimize, or mitigate adverse fishing
impacts to EFH and HAPC. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended,
provides the statutory basis for the rule.
No significant issues were raised by
public comments in response to the
IRFA or the economic impacts of the
rule. Therefore, no changes were made
in the final rule as a result of such
comments.
No duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting Federal rules have been
identified.
All commercial and for-hire fishing
operations in the Gulf of Mexico could
be affected by the final rule either
directly by altering their gear usage or
fishing locations, or indirectly by
affecting fishery-wide harvest patterns.
These commercial fishing operations
include the shrimp, reef fish, spiny
lobster, and stone crab fisheries.
Participation in multiple fisheries by
individual entities is common. The
mobile and shallow depth-related
nature of fishing for pelagic species
should exclude those operations that
exclusively fish for these species from
the effects of the final rule. However,
operations that fish for both pelagic and
bottom species will be captured in the
following discussion.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) defines a small business as one
that is independently owned and
operated and not dominant in its field
of operation, and has annual receipts
not in excess of $3.5 million in the case
of commercial harvesting entities or
$6.0 million in the case of for-hire
entities, or has fewer than 500
employees in the case of fish processors,
or fewer than 100 employees in the case
of fish dealers.
The number of shrimp vessels
operating in the Gulf of Mexico in the
federal shrimp fishery is estimated to be
approximately 2,951 vessels, while the
number of smaller shrimp boats
operating in state waters is estimated at
less than 10,000. However, many of
these shrimp fishing operations are not
currently fishing due to a combination
of poor economic conditions in the
fishery and the destruction of vessels
and infrastructure by hurricanes.
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
76218
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 246 / Friday, December 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Detailed economic and social
information has not been collected from
Gulf shrimp fishermen for over 10 years,
although a socioeconomic survey of the
shrimp fishery is presently underway.
The historical estimate of average gross
revenues for shrimp vessels is
approximately $82,000. Given the
economic conditions currently
experienced by the fishery, present
average revenues are likely substantially
less. Although there are several
individuals or corporations that own
and operate more than one vessel in the
shrimp fishery, their actual number and
size is not known.
There are approximately 1,145 vessels
permitted to fish in the commercial reef
fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. An
average reef fish vessel is estimated to
generate revenues of approximately
$65,000. Average revenue performance
within the fleet varies, however,
depending upon the gear utilized and
the area fished, ranging from a low of
approximately $24,000 for vertical line
vessels fishing in the eastern Gulf to
$117,000 for bottom longline vessels
fishing Gulf-wide.
In 2001, 2,235 fishermen possessed a
spiny lobster trap certificate. Total
revenues in the 2001 fishery were
approximately $15 million, or an
average of less than $7,000 per
fisherman. Landings in 2001 were
markedly lower than historical
performance. Using peak revenues of
approximately $30 million in 1999 and
the same number of fisherman results in
average revenues of still less than
$14,000 per participant.
From 1985 to 1994, an average of 720
fishing craft operated in the stone crab
fishery. Of these craft, an average of 234
were vessels greater than 5.0 net tons
(4.5 net metric tons), and 486 were
smaller boats. More recent estimates are
not available. The highest annual total
ex-vessel revenues from stone crab
landings were registered in 1997 at
$31.9 million, or an average of
approximately $44,000 per vessel. On
the assumption that the majority of
harvests are made by the larger vessels,
if all landings are attributed to the
average of 234 participating larger
vessels, then the average gross revenue
would amount to about $136,427.
There are approximately 1,857 vessels
with for-hire moratorium permits in the
Gulf of Mexico, encompassing both
charter and headboat operations. On
average, charter boats are estimated to
generate gross revenues ranging from
$58,000 in the eastern Gulf to $81,000
in the western Gulf, or an overall
average of $64,000. Headboats are
estimated to generate gross revenues
ranging from $281,000 in the eastern
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
Gulf to $550,000 in the western Gulf, or
an overall average of $400,000.
Fish dealers may also be affected by
the measures in this final rule to the
extent that the measures affect harvests.
There are 227 Federally permitted reef
fish dealers in the Gulf region. Average
employment information per reef fish
dealer is not known. Although dealers
and processors are not synonymous
entities, total employment in 1997 for
reef fish processors in the entire
Southeast was estimated at
approximately 700 individuals, both
part- and full-time. It is assumed all
processors must be dealers, yet a dealer
need not be a processor. Further,
processing is a much more laborintensive exercise than dealing.
Therefore, given the employment
estimate for the processing sector, it is
assumed that all reef fish dealers are
small businesses.
In 2002, 626 dealers were identified
in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery.
This figure was a substantial increase
from 1999–2001 when 310 to 320
dealers typically operated in the fishery.
The increase, however, is believed to
represent an attempt by more shrimp
fishermen to market their product
directly in response to depressed market
conditions. Similar to the reef fish
sector, employment data on shrimp
dealers are not available. Total
employment in the shrimp processing
sector in 2002, however, was
approximately 4,300 individuals across
74 firms, with the largest processor
employing less than 500 individuals.
Thus, as in the reef fish sector, all
shrimp dealers are assumed to be small
business entities.
Based on the SBA benchmark
standards and the gross revenue and
employment profiles presented above
for the various fisheries, all commercial
and for-hire fishing vessels and reef fish
and shrimp dealers potentially affected
by the final rule are considered small
entities.
None of the measures considered in
this rule will alter existing reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. None of
the compliance requirements will
require additional professional skills.
The final rule could directly or
indirectly affect all commercial and forhire entities that operate in the Gulf of
Mexico. All of these entities are
considered small business entities. The
final rule will, therefore, affect a
substantial number of small entities.
The outcome of ‘‘significant economic
impact″ can be ascertained by
examining two issues:
disproportionality and profitability. The
disproportionality question is, do the
regulations place a substantial number
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of small entities at a significant
competitive disadvantage to large
entities? All the business operations
affected by the rule are considered small
business entities, so the issue of
disproportionality does not arise in the
present case.
The profitability question is, do the
regulations significantly reduce profit
for a substantial number of small
entities? The designation of EFH or
HAPC will not have any direct effect on
fishing activity or profits because
designation does not impose fishing
restrictions. The anchoring prohibition
will primarily affect vessels using
vertical lines over the live coral areas of
Pulley Ridge, the East and West Flower
Gardens, and the McGrail Bank.
Landings data do not provide precise
harvest or fishing locations, and the
proposed restricted areas generally lie
within larger geographical statistical
grids. Total harvests from the grid
within which Pulley Ridge lies (NMFS
Statistical Area 2) accounted for only
3.1 percent of average annual total reef
fish harvests from 2000–2002 and,
although not quantified, similar results
are expected for the other protected
areas. Because Pulley Ridge and other
protected areas do not encompass the
entirety of the statistical areas within
which they lie, any harvest reduction
attributed to the anchoring restriction is
expected to be less than the total area
contribution.
The prohibition on the use of bottom
trawls, bottom longlines, and buoy gear
will primarily affect fishermen using
these gears in the coral areas of Pulley
Ridge. As previously stated, the coral
areas within Pulley Ridge lie completely
within NMFS Statistical Area 2.
Logbook data for the entire area show
that the value of all longline reef fish
and shark landings from 2000 through
2003 averaged $662,000, or 4.1 percent
of the Gulf-wide total for these species.
However, it is not anticipated that these
landings and revenues will be removed
from the fishery because it is expected
that most, if not all, of this fishing effort
will relocate to adjacent areas where
fishing activity already exceeds that of
Statistical Area 2. This relocation may
have some minor, but unquantifiable,
effect on fishing costs. Relocation of
buoy gear fishing will similarly be
expected to affect fishing costs.
However, it is unknown how much, if
any, buoy gear fishing occurs in the
proposed protected areas.
The prohibition on bottom trawls is
not expected to affect fishing behavior
because trawl fishermen are expected to
currently avoid these areas because
shrimp are generally not abundant over
coral, and the costs associated with gear
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 246 / Friday, December 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
entanglement and damage is not
consistent with efficient trawling
activity.
It is not anticipated that any trap
fishermen (fish, lobster, or stone crab)
will be impacted by the rule because
this gear is not believed to be utilized
to any significant degree in the
restricted areas.
The requirement for a weak link in
the tickler chain of bottom trawls used
over all habitats is expected to have
minor impacts on gear costs and may
reduce harvests and increase costs if
gear is lost due to entanglement and link
separation. Successful trawling
operation encourages the avoidance of
entanglements. A weak link may
increase this behavior, potentially
changing where trawling occurs, costs of
operation, and harvest rates. It is not
possible, however, to quantify these
effects.
Several alternatives were considered
to the gear restrictions intended to
prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse
fishing impacts on the essential fish
habitat. The no action alternative would
have eliminated the potential adverse
impacts of the rule but would not
achieve the Council’s objectives.
The second alternative to the gear
restrictions would have prohibited
bottom trawling over coral reefs,
required aluminum doors on trawls,
limited the length and deployment rate
(number of sets per day) of bottom
longline sets on hard bottom, required
circle hooks on vertical lines and
limited sinker weights, and required
buoys on anchors. This alternative
lacked the habitat protection afforded by
the anchoring and trap/pot prohibitions
of the final rule and would not,
therefore, have achieved the habitat
protection of the final rule. The Council
also concluded that the longline set and
sinker restrictions were impractical and
would have increased the adverse
economic impacts to fishery
participants over the final rule. In total,
this alternative would not have met the
Council’s objectives of providing
practical habitat protection while
minimizing adverse economic impacts.
The third alternative contained all the
provisions of the second alternative and
would have additionally limited tickler
chains, headropes, and vessel length for
trawl vessels, and prohibited trotlines
when using traps or pots. Although this
alternative would have increased the
habitat protection over the second
alternative, this alternative still would
not have included the full extent of the
habitat protection afforded by the
anchoring and trap/pot prohibitions fo
the final rule. Further, the adverse
economic impacts associated with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
impractical longline set and sinker
restrictions of the second alternative
would not be reduced. Thus, this
alternative would still not have met the
Council’s objectives of providing
practical habitat protection while
minimizing adverse economic impacts.
The fourth alternative would have
increased the headrope and vessel
length restrictions of the third
alternative and prohibited the use of
tickler chains on all bottoms; the use of
all traps, pots, bottom longline, and
buoy gear on coral reef; and the use of
anchors on coral. While this alternative
would have increased the protection of
habitat relative to the second and third
alternatives, this alternative would have
also unnecessarily reduced the
efficiency of trawl gear, thereby
increasing the adverse impacts of the
action on fishery participants.
The fifth alternative would have
prohibited the use of all gear and fishing
activities that have adverse impacts on
essential fish habitat in the EEZ. This
alternative would have resulted in the
greatest protection to the environment.
However, since virtually all fishing
methods except for surface trawling
have the potential to result in adverse
impacts on essential fish habitat, this
alternative would result in whole-scale
elimination of fisheries, with severe
adverse economic impacts. The Council
determined that such protection would
be greater than necessary to protect the
environment while maintaining
sustainable fisheries. This alternative,
therefore, exceeded the objectives of the
action and would impose an excessive
economic burden on fishery
participants.
The final alternative would have
established restrictions applicable to
fishing over live hard bottom and would
have limited the length and deployment
rate of bottom longline sets, prohibited
trotlines when using traps or pots,
prohibited all anchoring, and enacted a
seasonal closure for shrimp trawl
fishing. The longline and anchoring
provisions of this alternative are
impractical, and the longline provisions
could reduce the efficiency of vessels,
thereby increasing adverse economic
impacts without clearly demonstrable
benefits. Further, a seasonal shrimp
trawling closure is difficult to justify
given the inability to determine, absent
vessel monitoring systems, exactly
where fishing effort occurs and the
apparent low fishing pressure in the
areas that are the most likely candidates
for closure. Overall, this alternative
would not meet the Council′s objectives
as well as the final rule.
Copies of the FRFA are available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
76219
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: December 20, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended
as follows:
I
PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE
CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH
ATLANTIC
1. The authority citation for part 622
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 622.31, paragraph (m) is added
to read as follows:
I
§ 622.31
Prohibited gear and methods.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Weak link. A bottom trawl that
does not have a weak link in the tickler
chain may not be used to fish in the
Gulf EEZ. For the purposes of this
paragraph, a weak link is defined as a
length or section of the tickler chain that
has a breaking strength less than the
chain itself and is easily seen as such
when visually inspected.
I 3. In § 622.34, paragraph (d)
introductory text, and paragraphs (d)(1),
and (j) are revised; paragraph (q) is
reserved; and paragraphs (r), (s), and (t)
are added to read as follows:
§ 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area
closures.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Tortugas marine reserves HAPC.
The following activities are prohibited
within the Tortugas marine reserves
HAPC: Fishing for any species and
bottom anchoring by fishing vessels.
(1) EEZ portion of Tortugas North.
The area is bounded by rhumb lines
connecting the following points: From
point A at 24°40′00″ N. lat., 83°06′00″
W. long. to point B at 24°46′00″ N. lat.,
83°06′00″ W. long. to point C at
24°46′00″ N. lat., 83°00′00″ W. long.;
thence along the line denoting the
seaward limit of Florida′s waters, as
shown on the current edition of NOAA
chart 11434, to point A at 24°40′00″ N.
lat., 83°06′00″ W. long.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) West and East Flower Garden
Banks HAPC. The following activities
are prohibited year-round in the HAPC:
Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom
trawl, buoy gear, dredge, pot, or trap
and bottom anchoring by fishing
vessels.
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
76220
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 246 / Friday, December 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
by fishing vessels are prohibited yearround in the area of the HAPC bounded
by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the
following points:
(1) West Flower Garden Bank. West
Flower Garden Bank is bounded by
rhumb lines connecting, in order, the
following points:
Point
Point
North lat.
A
B
C
D
A
27°55′22.8″
27°55′22.8″
27°49′03.0″
27°49′03.0″
27°55′22.8″
93°53′09.6″
93°46′46.0″
93°46′46.0″
93°53′09.6″
93°53′09.6″
North lat.
West long.
West long.
A
B
C
D
E
A
24°58′18″
24°58′18″
24°41′11″
24°40′00″
24°43′55″
24°58′18″
83°38′33″
83°37′00″
83°37′00″
83°41′22″
83°47′15″
83°38′33″
(2) East Flower Garden Bank. East
Flower Garden Bank is bounded by
rhumb lines connecting, in order, the
following points:
Point
North lat.
A
B
C
D
A
27°59′14.4″
27°59′14.4″
27°52′36.5″
27°52′36.5″
27°59′14.4″
(s) Stetson Bank HAPC. Fishing with
a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy
gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring
by fishing vessels are prohibited yearWest long.
round in the HAPC, which is bounded
by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the
93°38′58.2″ following points:
93°34′03.5″
93°34′03.5″
93°38′58.2″
93°38′58.2″
*
*
*
*
(r) Pulley Ridge HAPC. Fishing with a
bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy
gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Point
North lat.
28°10′38.3″
28°10′38.3″
28°09′18.6″
28°09′18.6″
28°10′38.3″
Point
North lat.
West long.
A
B
C
D
A
27°59′06.0″
27°59′06.0″
27°55′55.5″
27°55′55.5″
27°59′06.0″
92°37′19.2″
92°32′17.4″
92°32′17.4″
92°37′19.2″
92°37′19.2″
[FR Doc. 05–24416 Filed 12–20–05; 1:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
West long.
A
B
C
D
A
(t) McGrail Bank HAPC. Fishing with
a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy
gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring
by fishing vessels are prohibited yearround in the HAPC, which is bounded
by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the
following points:
94°18′36.5″
94°17′06.3″
94°17′06.3″
94°18′36.5″
94°18′36.5″
Frm 00092
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76216-76220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24416]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 050915240-5332-02; I.D. 090905A]
RIN 0648-AS66
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat Amendment
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Generic Amendment 3
to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico (EFH
Amendment 3), which was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (Council). EFH Amendment 3 amends each of the seven
Council FMPs -shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal migratory pelagic
resources, coral and coral reefs, stone crab, and spiny lobster- to
describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH); minimize to the
extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH; and encourage
conservation and management of EFH. This final rule establishes
additional habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), restricts
fishing activities within HAPCs to protect EFH, and requires a weak
link in bottom trawl gear to protect EFH. The intended effect of this
final rule is to facilitate long-term protection of EFH and, thus,
better conserve and manage fishery resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 23, 2006, except for Sec.
622.34(q), which is effective January 24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
are available from Peter Hood, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263
13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone: 727-824-5305;
fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Hood, telephone: 727-551-5728;
fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EFH Amendment 3 addresses fisheries under
the FMPs for coral and coral reef resources, coastal migratory
pelagics, red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab.
The FMPs were prepared by the Council, except for the FMPs for coastal
migratory pelagics and spiny lobster that were prepared jointly by the
South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. All of
these FMPs, except the spiny lobster and stone crab FMPs, are
implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622. The Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic is implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 640. The Fishery Management Plan for the
Stone Crab
[[Page 76217]]
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR
part 654.
NMFS published a notice of availability for EFH Amendment 3 on
September 15, 2005, and requested public comment on the amendment (70
FR 54518). On September 26, 2005, NMFS published the proposed rule to
implement EFH Amendment 3 and requested public comment on the proposed
rule (70 FR 56157). NMFS approved EFH Amendment 3 on December 12, 2005.
The rationale for the measures in EFH Amendment 3 is provided in the
amendment and in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated
here.
Comments and Responses
Following is a summary of the comments received on EFH Amendment 3
and the proposed rule along with NMFS' responses.
Comment 1: Restrictions on anchoring in the Stetson, East Flower
Garden, West Flower Garden, and McGrail Banks HAPCs should be
constrained to only those areas where coral reefs are present, and not
areas within the HAPCs where corals are not present.
Response: As stated in the amendment, the restrictions on the
majority of the areas encompassed within East Flower Garden, West
Flower Garden, and Stetson Banks HAPCs are consistent with restrictions
already imposed by the statutes governing the Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary), which has jurisdiction for these
areas. The rationale for slightly larger HAPC boundaries is based on
recent bathymetric and biological surveys that incorporate the entire
physical area of these geological features and that serve as the basis
for new boundaries for the Sanctuary that will be proposed in the near
future.
McGrail Bank, although not managed by the Sanctuary, has extensive
growth of reef-building corals. This bank runs linearly from the
southeast to the northwest. To maximize the protection of these corals,
north-south and east-west boundaries capturing the southeast and
northwest extent of the bank were selected by the Council and NMFS to
aid in enforcement of the area restrictions, simplify boundaries for
the vessel operators to whom the restrictions apply, and maintain
consistency with the boundary orientation of other northern Gulf of
Mexico HAPCs.
Comment 2: Longline gear and bottom trawls should be restricted
because they damage other fisheries.
Response: NMFS recognizes that these gears can damage habitats of
some federally managed fishery species. Accordingly, the regulations
implemented through this final rule will further restrict where and how
these gear types can be used. NMFS believes these regulations restrict
these gear types to the extent justified by the supporting analyses.
Comment 3: Longline fishing and anchoring restrictions in the
entire Pulley Ridge HAPC would be harmful to many commercial fishermen
dependent on this area.
Response: As described in the environmental impact statement (EIS)
for this amendment, although coral reefs are not common in the Gulf of
Mexico, they support a wide array of finfish and invertebrate species.
Many of these species, such as groupers and snappers, are important to
Gulf of Mexico fisheries. As stated in the amendment and in the EIS,
fishermen target these areas because of the abundance of these species.
However, fishing activities such as the use of longlines and anchoring
can damage coral reefs. Longlines, particularly during retrieval, can
snag corals, thus breaking or upending them. Dragging and pulling
anchors and anchor chains through corals has been documented to break
and crush coral formations. Therefore, limiting these activities is
necessary to protect this important habitat.
The deepest hermatypic coral reef known in American waters is
located in the southern portion of the Pulley Ridge HAPC. The northern
area of the HAPC does not contain living corals, but does show a unique
mixed hard bottom habitat. Because the fishing restrictions outlined in
this rule are designed to protect corals, only part of the southern
half of this HAPC where the corals are abundant was designated for gear
and anchoring restrictions. The Council selected this area because it
provided the best balance between protecting corals while not resulting
in substantial economic hardship to any particular fishery or fishing
community.
Classification
The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that EFH
Amendment 3 is necessary for the conservation and management of the
shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal migratory pelagic resources, coral
and coral reefs, stone crab, and spiny lobster fisheries and that it is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a FRFA that incorporates the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a summary of the analyses completed to
support the action. No significant issues were raised by public
comments regarding the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule. A
summary of the FRFA follows.
This action will identify EFH, identify HAPC, and establish gear
and fishing restrictions to protect this habitat. The purpose of this
action is to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse fishing impacts to
EFH and HAPC. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, provides the
statutory basis for the rule.
No significant issues were raised by public comments in response to
the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule. Therefore, no changes
were made in the final rule as a result of such comments.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been
identified.
All commercial and for-hire fishing operations in the Gulf of
Mexico could be affected by the final rule either directly by altering
their gear usage or fishing locations, or indirectly by affecting
fishery-wide harvest patterns. These commercial fishing operations
include the shrimp, reef fish, spiny lobster, and stone crab fisheries.
Participation in multiple fisheries by individual entities is common.
The mobile and shallow depth-related nature of fishing for pelagic
species should exclude those operations that exclusively fish for these
species from the effects of the final rule. However, operations that
fish for both pelagic and bottom species will be captured in the
following discussion.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as
one that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its
field of operation, and has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5
million in the case of commercial harvesting entities or $6.0 million
in the case of for-hire entities, or has fewer than 500 employees in
the case of fish processors, or fewer than 100 employees in the case of
fish dealers.
The number of shrimp vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico in the
federal shrimp fishery is estimated to be approximately 2,951 vessels,
while the number of smaller shrimp boats operating in state waters is
estimated at less than 10,000. However, many of these shrimp fishing
operations are not currently fishing due to a combination of poor
economic conditions in the fishery and the destruction of vessels and
infrastructure by hurricanes.
[[Page 76218]]
Detailed economic and social information has not been collected from
Gulf shrimp fishermen for over 10 years, although a socioeconomic
survey of the shrimp fishery is presently underway. The historical
estimate of average gross revenues for shrimp vessels is approximately
$82,000. Given the economic conditions currently experienced by the
fishery, present average revenues are likely substantially less.
Although there are several individuals or corporations that own and
operate more than one vessel in the shrimp fishery, their actual number
and size is not known.
There are approximately 1,145 vessels permitted to fish in the
commercial reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. An average reef
fish vessel is estimated to generate revenues of approximately $65,000.
Average revenue performance within the fleet varies, however, depending
upon the gear utilized and the area fished, ranging from a low of
approximately $24,000 for vertical line vessels fishing in the eastern
Gulf to $117,000 for bottom longline vessels fishing Gulf-wide.
In 2001, 2,235 fishermen possessed a spiny lobster trap
certificate. Total revenues in the 2001 fishery were approximately $15
million, or an average of less than $7,000 per fisherman. Landings in
2001 were markedly lower than historical performance. Using peak
revenues of approximately $30 million in 1999 and the same number of
fisherman results in average revenues of still less than $14,000 per
participant.
From 1985 to 1994, an average of 720 fishing craft operated in the
stone crab fishery. Of these craft, an average of 234 were vessels
greater than 5.0 net tons (4.5 net metric tons), and 486 were smaller
boats. More recent estimates are not available. The highest annual
total ex-vessel revenues from stone crab landings were registered in
1997 at $31.9 million, or an average of approximately $44,000 per
vessel. On the assumption that the majority of harvests are made by the
larger vessels, if all landings are attributed to the average of 234
participating larger vessels, then the average gross revenue would
amount to about $136,427.
There are approximately 1,857 vessels with for-hire moratorium
permits in the Gulf of Mexico, encompassing both charter and headboat
operations. On average, charter boats are estimated to generate gross
revenues ranging from $58,000 in the eastern Gulf to $81,000 in the
western Gulf, or an overall average of $64,000. Headboats are estimated
to generate gross revenues ranging from $281,000 in the eastern Gulf to
$550,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $400,000.
Fish dealers may also be affected by the measures in this final
rule to the extent that the measures affect harvests. There are 227
Federally permitted reef fish dealers in the Gulf region. Average
employment information per reef fish dealer is not known. Although
dealers and processors are not synonymous entities, total employment in
1997 for reef fish processors in the entire Southeast was estimated at
approximately 700 individuals, both part- and full-time. It is assumed
all processors must be dealers, yet a dealer need not be a processor.
Further, processing is a much more labor-intensive exercise than
dealing. Therefore, given the employment estimate for the processing
sector, it is assumed that all reef fish dealers are small businesses.
In 2002, 626 dealers were identified in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp
fishery. This figure was a substantial increase from 1999-2001 when 310
to 320 dealers typically operated in the fishery. The increase,
however, is believed to represent an attempt by more shrimp fishermen
to market their product directly in response to depressed market
conditions. Similar to the reef fish sector, employment data on shrimp
dealers are not available. Total employment in the shrimp processing
sector in 2002, however, was approximately 4,300 individuals across 74
firms, with the largest processor employing less than 500 individuals.
Thus, as in the reef fish sector, all shrimp dealers are assumed to be
small business entities.
Based on the SBA benchmark standards and the gross revenue and
employment profiles presented above for the various fisheries, all
commercial and for-hire fishing vessels and reef fish and shrimp
dealers potentially affected by the final rule are considered small
entities.
None of the measures considered in this rule will alter existing
reporting and recordkeeping requirements. None of the compliance
requirements will require additional professional skills.
The final rule could directly or indirectly affect all commercial
and for-hire entities that operate in the Gulf of Mexico. All of these
entities are considered small business entities. The final rule will,
therefore, affect a substantial number of small entities.
The outcome of ``significant economic impact'' can be ascertained
by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The
disproportionality question is, do the regulations place a substantial
number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to
large entities? All the business operations affected by the rule are
considered small business entities, so the issue of disproportionality
does not arise in the present case.
The profitability question is, do the regulations significantly
reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? The
designation of EFH or HAPC will not have any direct effect on fishing
activity or profits because designation does not impose fishing
restrictions. The anchoring prohibition will primarily affect vessels
using vertical lines over the live coral areas of Pulley Ridge, the
East and West Flower Gardens, and the McGrail Bank. Landings data do
not provide precise harvest or fishing locations, and the proposed
restricted areas generally lie within larger geographical statistical
grids. Total harvests from the grid within which Pulley Ridge lies
(NMFS Statistical Area 2) accounted for only 3.1 percent of average
annual total reef fish harvests from 2000-2002 and, although not
quantified, similar results are expected for the other protected areas.
Because Pulley Ridge and other protected areas do not encompass the
entirety of the statistical areas within which they lie, any harvest
reduction attributed to the anchoring restriction is expected to be
less than the total area contribution.
The prohibition on the use of bottom trawls, bottom longlines, and
buoy gear will primarily affect fishermen using these gears in the
coral areas of Pulley Ridge. As previously stated, the coral areas
within Pulley Ridge lie completely within NMFS Statistical Area 2.
Logbook data for the entire area show that the value of all longline
reef fish and shark landings from 2000 through 2003 averaged $662,000,
or 4.1 percent of the Gulf-wide total for these species. However, it is
not anticipated that these landings and revenues will be removed from
the fishery because it is expected that most, if not all, of this
fishing effort will relocate to adjacent areas where fishing activity
already exceeds that of Statistical Area 2. This relocation may have
some minor, but unquantifiable, effect on fishing costs. Relocation of
buoy gear fishing will similarly be expected to affect fishing costs.
However, it is unknown how much, if any, buoy gear fishing occurs in
the proposed protected areas.
The prohibition on bottom trawls is not expected to affect fishing
behavior because trawl fishermen are expected to currently avoid these
areas because shrimp are generally not abundant over coral, and the
costs associated with gear
[[Page 76219]]
entanglement and damage is not consistent with efficient trawling
activity.
It is not anticipated that any trap fishermen (fish, lobster, or
stone crab) will be impacted by the rule because this gear is not
believed to be utilized to any significant degree in the restricted
areas.
The requirement for a weak link in the tickler chain of bottom
trawls used over all habitats is expected to have minor impacts on gear
costs and may reduce harvests and increase costs if gear is lost due to
entanglement and link separation. Successful trawling operation
encourages the avoidance of entanglements. A weak link may increase
this behavior, potentially changing where trawling occurs, costs of
operation, and harvest rates. It is not possible, however, to quantify
these effects.
Several alternatives were considered to the gear restrictions
intended to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse fishing impacts on
the essential fish habitat. The no action alternative would have
eliminated the potential adverse impacts of the rule but would not
achieve the Council's objectives.
The second alternative to the gear restrictions would have
prohibited bottom trawling over coral reefs, required aluminum doors on
trawls, limited the length and deployment rate (number of sets per day)
of bottom longline sets on hard bottom, required circle hooks on
vertical lines and limited sinker weights, and required buoys on
anchors. This alternative lacked the habitat protection afforded by the
anchoring and trap/pot prohibitions of the final rule and would not,
therefore, have achieved the habitat protection of the final rule. The
Council also concluded that the longline set and sinker restrictions
were impractical and would have increased the adverse economic impacts
to fishery participants over the final rule. In total, this alternative
would not have met the Council's objectives of providing practical
habitat protection while minimizing adverse economic impacts.
The third alternative contained all the provisions of the second
alternative and would have additionally limited tickler chains,
headropes, and vessel length for trawl vessels, and prohibited
trotlines when using traps or pots. Although this alternative would
have increased the habitat protection over the second alternative, this
alternative still would not have included the full extent of the
habitat protection afforded by the anchoring and trap/pot prohibitions
fo the final rule. Further, the adverse economic impacts associated
with the impractical longline set and sinker restrictions of the second
alternative would not be reduced. Thus, this alternative would still
not have met the Council's objectives of providing practical habitat
protection while minimizing adverse economic impacts.
The fourth alternative would have increased the headrope and vessel
length restrictions of the third alternative and prohibited the use of
tickler chains on all bottoms; the use of all traps, pots, bottom
longline, and buoy gear on coral reef; and the use of anchors on coral.
While this alternative would have increased the protection of habitat
relative to the second and third alternatives, this alternative would
have also unnecessarily reduced the efficiency of trawl gear, thereby
increasing the adverse impacts of the action on fishery participants.
The fifth alternative would have prohibited the use of all gear and
fishing activities that have adverse impacts on essential fish habitat
in the EEZ. This alternative would have resulted in the greatest
protection to the environment. However, since virtually all fishing
methods except for surface trawling have the potential to result in
adverse impacts on essential fish habitat, this alternative would
result in whole-scale elimination of fisheries, with severe adverse
economic impacts. The Council determined that such protection would be
greater than necessary to protect the environment while maintaining
sustainable fisheries. This alternative, therefore, exceeded the
objectives of the action and would impose an excessive economic burden
on fishery participants.
The final alternative would have established restrictions
applicable to fishing over live hard bottom and would have limited the
length and deployment rate of bottom longline sets, prohibited
trotlines when using traps or pots, prohibited all anchoring, and
enacted a seasonal closure for shrimp trawl fishing. The longline and
anchoring provisions of this alternative are impractical, and the
longline provisions could reduce the efficiency of vessels, thereby
increasing adverse economic impacts without clearly demonstrable
benefits. Further, a seasonal shrimp trawling closure is difficult to
justify given the inability to determine, absent vessel monitoring
systems, exactly where fishing effort occurs and the apparent low
fishing pressure in the areas that are the most likely candidates for
closure. Overall, this alternative would not meet the Council's
objectives as well as the final rule.
Copies of the FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: December 20, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as
follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 622.31, paragraph (m) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods.
* * * * *
(m) Weak link. A bottom trawl that does not have a weak link in the
tickler chain may not be used to fish in the Gulf EEZ. For the purposes
of this paragraph, a weak link is defined as a length or section of the
tickler chain that has a breaking strength less than the chain itself
and is easily seen as such when visually inspected.
0
3. In Sec. 622.34, paragraph (d) introductory text, and paragraphs
(d)(1), and (j) are revised; paragraph (q) is reserved; and paragraphs
(r), (s), and (t) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.
* * * * *
(d) Tortugas marine reserves HAPC. The following activities are
prohibited within the Tortugas marine reserves HAPC: Fishing for any
species and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels.
(1) EEZ portion of Tortugas North. The area is bounded by rhumb
lines connecting the following points: From point A at 24[deg]40'00''
N. lat., 83[deg]06'00'' W. long. to point B at 24[deg]46'00'' N. lat.,
83[deg]06'00'' W. long. to point C at 24[deg]46'00'' N. lat.,
83[deg]00'00'' W. long.; thence along the line denoting the seaward
limit of Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA
chart 11434, to point A at 24[deg]40'00'' N. lat., 83[deg]06'00'' W.
long.
* * * * *
(j) West and East Flower Garden Banks HAPC. The following
activities are prohibited year-round in the HAPC: Fishing with a bottom
longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, dredge, pot, or trap and bottom
anchoring by fishing vessels.
[[Page 76220]]
(1) West Flower Garden Bank. West Flower Garden Bank is bounded by
rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point North lat. West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 27[deg]55'2 93[deg]53'0
2.8'' 9.6''
B 27[deg]55'2 93[deg]46'4
2.8'' 6.0''
C 27[deg]49'0 93[deg]46'4
3.0'' 6.0''
D 27[deg]49'0 93[deg]53'0
3.0'' 9.6''
A 27[deg]55'2 93[deg]53'0
2.8'' 9.6''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) East Flower Garden Bank. East Flower Garden Bank is bounded by
rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point North lat. West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 27[deg]59'1 93[deg]38'5
4.4'' 8.2''
B 27[deg]59'1 93[deg]34'0
4.4'' 3.5''
C 27[deg]52'3 93[deg]34'0
6.5'' 3.5''
D 27[deg]52'3 93[deg]38'5
6.5'' 8.2''
A 27[deg]59'1 93[deg]38'5
4.4'' 8.2''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(r) Pulley Ridge HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom
trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels
are prohibited year-round in the area of the HAPC bounded by rhumb
lines connecting, in order, the following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point North lat. West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 24[deg]58'1 83[deg]38'3
8'' 3''
B 24[deg]58'1 83[deg]37'0
8'' 0''
C 24[deg]41'1 83[deg]37'0
1'' 0''
D 24[deg]40'0 83[deg]41'2
0'' 2''
E 24[deg]43'5 83[deg]47'1
5'' 5''
A 24[deg]58'1 83[deg]38'3
8'' 3''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(s) Stetson Bank HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom
trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels
are prohibited year-round in the HAPC, which is bounded by rhumb lines
connecting, in order, the following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point North lat. West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 28[deg]10'3 94[deg]18'3
8.3'' 6.5''
B 28[deg]10'3 94[deg]17'0
8.3'' 6.3''
C 28[deg]09'1 94[deg]17'0
8.6'' 6.3''
D 28[deg]09'1 94[deg]18'3
8.6'' 6.5''
A 28[deg]10'3 94[deg]18'3
8.3'' 6.5''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(t) McGrail Bank HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom
trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels
are prohibited year-round in the HAPC, which is bounded by rhumb lines
connecting, in order, the following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point North lat. West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 27[deg]59'0 92[deg]37'1
6.0'' 9.2''
B 27[deg]59'0 92[deg]32'1
6.0'' 7.4''
C 27[deg]55'5 92[deg]32'1
5.5'' 7.4''
D 27[deg]55'5 92[deg]37'1
5.5'' 9.2''
A 27[deg]59'0 92[deg]37'1
6.0'' 9.2''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-24416 Filed 12-20-05; 1:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S