Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish, Crab, Salmon, and Scallop Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, 14470-14492 [06-2706]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14470-14492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 060223050-6050-01; I.D. 013006I]
RIN 0648-AT09


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish, 
Crab, Salmon, and Scallop Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendments 78 
and 65 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI), Amendments 73 
and 65 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), 
Amendments 16 and 12 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King 
and Tanner Crabs, Amendments 7 and 9 to the FMP for the Scallop Fishery 
Off Alaska, and Amendments 7 and 8 to the FMP for Salmon Fisheries in 
the Exclusive Economic Zone off the Coast of Alaska. These amendments, 
if approved, would revise the FMPs by identifying and describing 
essential fish habitat (EFH), designating habitat areas of particular 
concern (HAPCs), and including measures to minimize to the extent 
practicable adverse effects on EFH. This action is necessary to update 
the descriptions of EFH in the FMPs based on the best available 
scientific information and to protect those areas that have important 
habitat features for the sustainability of managed fish stocks.

DATES: Written comments must be received by May 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
Attn: Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
     Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
     Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
     Fax: 907-586-7557.
     E-mail: EFH-HAPC-PR-0648-AT09@noaa.gov. Include in the 
subject line the following document identifier: EFH-HAPC PR. E-mail 
comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
     Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.
    Copies of the maps of EFH and HAPC management areas, the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EFH, and the Environmental 
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for HAPCs may be obtained from the addresses 
stated above or from the Alaska Region NMFS Web site at https://
www.fakr.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska Region, and to the 
Office of Management and Budget by e-mail to David--
Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or e-mail 
at melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish, crab, scallop, and salmon 
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are managed 
under their respective FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing 
the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680. General regulations 
governing

[[Page 14471]]

U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
    The Council has submitted the amendments for EFH and HAPC 
provisions for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of 
Availability of the amendments was published in the Federal Register on 
February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6031), with comments on the amendments invited 
through April 7, 2006. Comments may address the FMP amendments, the 
proposed rule, or both, but must be received by April 7, 2006, to be 
considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendments. 
All comments received by that time, whether specifically directed to 
the FMP amendments or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the 
approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendments.

Background

    Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each 
FMP describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the 
adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other measures to 
promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. The Council amended 
its five FMPs in 1998 to address the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, approved 
the Council's EFH FMP amendments in January 1999. In the spring of 
1999, a coalition of seven environmental groups and two fishermen's 
associations filed suit in the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia challenging NMFS' approval of EFH FMP amendments 
prepared by the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, New England, North Pacific, 
and Pacific Fishery Management Councils (American Oceans Campaign (AOC) 
et al. v. Daley et al., Civil Action No. 99-982-GK). The focus of the 
AOC v. Daley litigation was whether NMFS and the Councils had 
adequately evaluated the effects of fishing on EFH and taken 
appropriate measures to mitigate adverse effects. In September 2000, 
the court upheld NMFS' approval of the EFH FMP amendments under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, but ruled that the EAs prepared for the 
amendments violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 
court ordered NMFS to complete new and thorough NEPA analyses for each 
EFH FMP amendment in question.
    NMFS, Alaska Region, and the Council completed an EIS pursuant to 
the court order. Under the terms of a joint stipulation and court 
order, the Record of Decision for the EIS had to be completed by August 
13, 2005, and any implementing regulations must be approved by August 
13, 2006. The final EFH EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency on April 25, 2005, and a notice of availability was 
published on May 6, 2005, (70 FR 24037). The Record of Decision was 
approved on August 8, 2005. The joint stipulation and court order also 
require NMFS and the Council to consider the identification of specific 
HAPCs and associated management measures, with any regulations 
promulgated by August 13, 2006.
    The Council adopted the new EFH and HAPC amendments in February 
2005 and provided further recommendations in June 2005. If approved by 
NMFS, these amendments would revise the FMPs by updating the 
description and identification of EFH, changing the identification of 
HAPCs, and authorizing protection measures for EFH and HAPCs. Councils 
must act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from 
fishing, to the extent practicable, if evidence suggests that a fishing 
activity adversely affects EFH in a manner that is more than minimal 
and not temporary in nature. The EIS determined that the effects of 
fishing activities on EFH are minimal, although some effects are 
persistent rather than temporary. Therefore, protection measures for 
the fisheries to reduce the adverse effects on EFH are not required by 
Sec.  600.815. Regardless, the Council recommended precautionary 
measures to provide protection to EFH and HAPCs from the effects of 
fishing activities. This action would continue the Council's policy of 
implementing precautionary conservation measures for the Alaska 
fisheries, as described in the management policies and objectives added 
to the groundfish FMPs in 2004 (69 FR 31091, June 2, 2004).
    The Council developed alternatives for the EIS analysis using an 
extensive public process that involved guidance from NMFS, a formal 
public scoping period, 15 EFH Committee meetings and work sessions, and 
numerous meetings of the Council and its Advisory Panel and its 
Scientific and Statistical Committee. HAPCs were identified through a 
Council process that included members of the Council's FMP Plan Teams, 
NMFS, fishing industry representatives, State of Alaska, university 
representatives, and environmental organizations. The proposals were 
reviewed and ranked by the review teams against criteria established by 
the Council for the consideration of HAPC proposals. The Council's 
identification and description of EFH, selection of HAPCs, and adoption 
of new management measures, as proposed under this action, resulted 
from this public process, including consideration of the best available 
science. A detailed description of the process for developing the EFH 
alternatives is in section 2.2.3 of the EIS (see ADDRESSES). Details of 
the HAPC selection process are in Appendix B of the EA/RIR/IRFA for 
HAPC (see ADDRESSES).
    Several gear types used in the Alaska fisheries have been 
identified as likely to disturb bottom habitat (although not at a level 
that was determined to be more than minimal) and would be restricted by 
this action to protect EFH and HAPCs. These gear types include pot, 
hook-and-line, dredge, dinglebar troll, and nonpelagic trawl gears. 
Detailed descriptions of fishing gear and the impacts on bottom habitat 
are in the EFH EIS and in the EA/RIR/IRFA for HAPCs (see ADDRESSES).
    Dinglebar troll gear is used in the State of Alaska lingcod troll 
fishery in the GOA. Dinglebar troll gear consists of a single line that 
is retrieved and set with a power or hand-troll gurdy, with a 
terminally attached weight (dinglebar), from which one or more leaders 
with one or more lures or baited hooks are pulled through the water 
while a vessel is underway. The dinglebar, usually made of a heavy 
metal such as iron, is used in nearly continuous contact with the 
bottom, and therefore, is likely to disturb bottom habitat.
    Pot gear is used in the crab and groundfish fisheries that occur on 
the ocean bottom. Pots may be from 6 feet to 8 feet (1.8 m to 2.4 m) 
square and can weigh several hundred pounds. Hook-and-line gear also is 
used in the groundfish fisheries for species that occur on the ocean 
bottom. This gear consists of a groundline employed with gangions 
spaced several feet apart with hooks and may be up to several miles 
long. Sets are weighted to minimize movement of the groundline on the 
sea floor. Sets are anchored at each end with an anchor weighing 30 
pounds to 60 pounds (13.6 kilograms to 27.3 kilograms). Gear components 
that contact the bottom include the anchors, groundlines, intermediate 
weights, gangions, and hooks. Pot and hook-and-line gear may disturb 
bottom habitat during deployment and retrieval of the gear.
    Dredge gear is used to harvest scallops and consists of a heavy-
framed device with an attached holding bag which is towed along the 
surface of the seabed. When fishing properly, the dredge shoes, ring 
bag, and club stick maintain contact with the seabed. Nonpelagic trawl 
gear is used in the groundfish

[[Page 14472]]

fisheries for species occurring at or near the ocean bottom. This gear 
is designed to be used in contact with the bottom. Contact with the 
seafloor may occur by several parts of the trawl, including doors, 
sweeps, and footropes. Because dredge and nonpelagic trawl are mobile 
gear used in contact with the bottom, these gear types are most likely 
to disturb larger areas of bottom habitat compared to other gear types 
used in Alaska fisheries.
    Pelagic trawl gear also has been known to contact the bottom and 
may have impacts on bottom habitat. This gear type is primarily used 
for the harvest of pollock and typically does not contact the bottom as 
aggressively as a bottom trawl. Contact with the seafloor, when it 
occurs, is typically from the footrope as well as from the weight 
chains attached to portions of the trawl. The use of pelagic trawl gear 
for directed fishing for pollock in the GOA and BSAI must meet the 
trawl performance standard which states that no more than 20 crabs of 
1.5 inches (38 mm) or larger may be on the vessel at any time (Sec.  
679.7(a)(14)). This standard was intended to reduce halibut and crab 
incidental catch in the pollock fishery by ensuring the pelagic trawl 
gear is operated in a manner that is less likely to contact the bottom 
(58 FR 17196, April 1, 1993). In the GOA, the footrope of a pelagic 
trawl may not contact the seabed for more than 10 percent of the period 
of any tow (Sec.  679.24(b)(3)). This gear limitation reduces the 
potential impact of pelagic trawl gear on the seabed in the GOA. Under 
this proposed rule, pelagic trawl gear used for directed fishing for 
pollock would be allowed in the EFH and HAPC management areas described 
below only in an off-bottom mode based on the trawl performance 
standard and within the gear limitation in the GOA.

Summary of Proposed Management Measures

    The amendments specify EFH and HAPC provisions for each FMP. These 
provisions include management measures that close areas to certain 
fishing gear activities. The closures would apply to all federally 
permitted vessels with the specified gear type. Federally permitted 
vessels are those named on either a Federal fisheries permit (FFP) or a 
Federal crab vessel permit (FCVP) that operate within the EEZ or State 
of Alaska waters. NMFS is concerned that vessels licensed by the State 
of Alaska that are participating in fisheries for non-FMP managed 
species within the EEZ (e.g., the lingcod fishery managed by the State 
of Alaska) may impact these closed areas. Under the current proposed 
rule, vessels licensed by the State of Alaska would not be subject to 
the closures unless they were also federally permitted vessels. 
Existing federal regulations for fishing within the EEZ off Alaska do 
not require vessels to be federally permitted unless such vessels 
retain FMP managed species. The preferred solution to this concern is 
for the State of Alaska to adopt similar restrictions to those found in 
this proposed rule that would apply to vessels licensed by the State of 
Alaska. In 2006, the Council is scheduled to work with the State of 
Alaska Board of Fisheries to develop state protection measures for EFH. 
If the preferred solution does not fully address the concern, NMFS will 
explore other options with the Council and the State of Alaska.
    The following discussion summarizes the amendments for EFH and HAPC 
provisions of the FMPs and the regulatory amendments that would be 
needed to implement the FMP amendments. Maps of the proposed EFH and 
HAPC management areas described below are available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    The Council recommended three actions for EFH. The first two 
actions do not require the promulgation of implementing regulations. 
Action 1 would revise the description and identification of EFH in the 
FMPs using new information and improved mapping. This action would 
ensure that the best scientific information available is used to 
describe and identify EFH in the FMPs, as required by Sec.  
600.815(a)(1)(ii)(B). Action 2 would adopt an approach for identifying 
HAPCs. The FMP amendments would rescind existing HAPCs and add a 
procedure for identifying HAPCs based on specific sites within EFH that 
are necessary to address particular habitat concerns.
    Action 3 would require a regulatory amendment to establish several 
types of management areas to provide protection from the adverse 
effects of fishing on EFH. These management areas are located in the 
Aleutian Islands subarea and in the GOA. Many of these areas include 
State waters. NMFS and the Council intend to coordinate with the State 
to encourage complementary protection of sensitive habitat in near 
shore waters.
    The Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area (AIHCA) encompasses 
the entire Aleutian Islands subarea except for specified areas that 
have supported the highest groundfish catches in the past. This area 
would encompass 279,454 nm\2\ and would be closed to fishing for all 
federally permitted vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear. The closures 
would prevent the expansion of nonpelagic trawling into relatively 
undisturbed habitats while allowing most major fishing areas to remain 
open. Areas with historically high catches of target species would be 
designated as areas open to nonpelagic trawl gear fishing. The shapes 
of these areas are based on fisheries observer data, fishing industry 
catch data, the average duration and distance during a single 
deployment of nonpelagic trawl gear, and the needs for clear boundaries 
to be delineated using straight lines and oriented to latitude and 
longitude where possible. Some boundaries include locations between 
coordinate points at the low mean tide level along the shoreline, which 
are further explained in a new Table 24 to 50 CFR part 679 in the 
proposed rule. The proposed coordinates and connecting lines can be 
applied to NOAA nautical charts to ensure fishermen and enforcement 
personnel can easily identify restriction areas.
    The Council determined that the AIHCA would provide a balance 
between continued fishing in the Aleutian Islands subarea and 
protection of sensitive habitats, such as cold water corals. This 
closure also would include habitat areas that are not identified as EFH 
at this time. Specifically, the AIHCA includes habitat areas that 
extend beyond the limits of EFH for groundfish, crabs, and scallops. 
The Council has identified the water column in all of these areas as 
EFH for marine salmon, but the bottom habitats have not been well 
surveyed and therefore are not considered EFH. The Council developed 
the AIHCA primarily to address potential effects on EFH, but the 
analysis also indicated a potential for adverse effects to habitats 
that support managed species in areas outside of EFH. The Council had 
incomplete information regarding habitat functions in these areas, but 
based on the best scientific information available, these areas include 
corals and other sensitive habitat types that may be important to 
managed species. Such habitats are susceptible to harm from nonpelagic 
trawl gear and may take a long time to recover following disturbance. 
The Council therefore decided that the AIHCA should include areas 
outside of EFH. The Council recommended the AIHCA and the other new 
closures in this proposed rule as precautionary measures to preclude 
damage to habitats that may be important for Council managed species.
    The EFH amendments also would establish six Aleutian Islands Coral 
Habitat Protection Areas (AICHPAs) that

[[Page 14473]]

would be closed to anchoring by all federally permitted vessels and 
closed to fishing with bottom contact gear by federally permitted 
vessels. Bottom contact gear includes nonpelagic trawl, hook-and-line, 
pot, dredge, and dinglebar. The definition for each of these gear 
types, except dredge, is located in Sec.  679.2 under authorized gear. 
The AICHPAs are located off Semispochnoi Island, Bobrof Island, Cape 
Moffet, Great Sitkin Island, Ulak Island, and Adak Canyon, totaling 110 
nm\2\. These areas were recommended for this level of protection by 
NMFS, industry, and environmental organizations during the HAPC 
identification process. The delineation of each specific area was 
adopted by the Council to provide protection to discrete coral garden 
habitat areas. The boundaries are straight lines oriented to latitude 
and longitude for easy location on NOAA nautical charts and to 
facilitate compliance, monitoring, and enforcement. Bottom contact gear 
and anchoring restrictions for these areas are needed because they 
contain especially diverse and fragile living habitat structures that 
are particularly sensitive to the impacts of bottom contact gear and 
anchoring, and have long recovery times once damaged. The Council 
determined that a higher level of protection is appropriate for these 
unique habitats.
    In the GOA, the EFH amendments would establish ten GOA Slope 
Habitat Conservation Areas (GOASHCAs) where fishing for groundfish by 
federally permitted vessels with nonpelagic trawl gear would be 
prohibited. These areas, encompassing 2,112 nm\2\ on the upper to 
intermediate slope where depths are from 200 m to 1,000 m, were 
identified based on the likely occurrence of high relief corals and 
rockfish in lightly fished areas. The EIS analysis indicated that 
nonpelagic trawl gear has the largest impact on this habitat. 
Therefore, nonpelagic trawls would be restricted in these areas. The 
shapes of the areas were developed in the same manner as described 
above for AICHPA. The proposed restriction on the use of nonpelagic 
trawl gear in these areas would provide refuge for rockfish and other 
managed species and long term protection for corals.
    The Council also recommended three actions to identify and manage 
HAPCs within EFH that require regulatory amendments. Action 1 would 
identify fifteen Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas (ASHPAs) 
where anchoring by all federally permitted vessels would be prohibited 
and fishing with bottom contact gear by a federally permitted vessel 
would be prohibited. Fourteen of these areas are located in the GOA and 
one is located in the Aleutian Islands subarea at Bowers Seamount. In 
total, they encompass 5,329 nm\2\. These areas were identified for this 
level of protection by NMFS, industry, and environmental organizations 
during the HAPC identification process. The specific areas delineated 
would protect the seamount habitat features. The boundaries are 
straight lines oriented to latitude and longitude to facilitate 
locating them on NOAA nautical charts. Bottom contact gear and 
anchoring restrictions for these areas are needed because the areas 
contain especially diverse and fragile living habitat structures that 
are particularly sensitive to the impacts of bottom contact gear and 
anchoring, and have long recovery times once damaged. Seamounts provide 
unique oceanographic and living habitat features that are important 
habitat for fish.
    HAPC Action 2 would establish the GOA Coral Habitat Protection 
Areas (GOACHPAs) where all federally permitted vessels would be 
prohibited from anchoring and from fishing with bottom contact gear. 
Four of these areas are located on the Fairweather Grounds and one is 
located off Cape Ommaney, totaling 13.5 nm\2\. Dense thickets of 
Primnoa sp. coral have been identified in these areas by NMFS and the 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game during survey work using submersible 
dives. These living habitat structures grow very slowly, are sensitive 
to disturbance by any bottom contact gear and anchoring, and have long 
recovery times. Restricting bottom contact gear and anchoring would 
ensure the living structures would be protected from fishing activities 
that may adversely impact the habitat.
    Action 3 would designate the Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone 
(BRHCZ) as a HAPC located in the BSAI. This zone would contain two 
areas enclosing Bowers Ridge and Ulm Plateau, totaling 5,286 nm\2\. The 
BRHCZ would be located primarily in the Aleutian Islands subarea with 
the northern edge of each area overlapping into the Bering Sea subarea. 
The boundaries of these areas are based on industry and environmental 
group proposals for protection of these areas. The areas encompass most 
of the waters of Bowers Ridge where fishing may occur. The proposed 
rule would prohibit all federally permitted vessels from fishing with 
mobile bottom contact gear (nonpelagic trawl, dredge, and dinglebar 
troll gears) in this area. The Council recommended limiting the fishing 
prohibition for the BRHCZ to mobile bottom contact gear until more 
research can be done in this zone to determine if additional 
restrictions would be appropriate for fixed gear fisheries. The mobile 
bottom contact gear prohibition would provide precautionary management 
for Bowers Ridge and the Ulm Plateau based on the limited information 
available for the zone.
    Tracking the location of fishing vessels by vessel monitoring 
systems (VMSs) would facilitate enforcement of the EFH and HAPC 
management measures. Many of the proposed fishing restrictions involve 
relatively small areas dispersed over a large section of the EEZ, 
making surveillance by enforcement vessels or aviation patrols 
difficult with existing resources. In February 2005, the Council 
recommended that all federally permitted fishing vessels operating in 
the Aleutian Islands subarea be required to operate a VMS. In June 
2005, the Council expanded this requirement to all federally permitted 
vessels operating in the GOA with mobile bottom contact gear on board. 
The Council further requested NMFS to develop a separate comprehensive 
analysis on broader application of VMS requirements to all vessels 
under federal jurisdiction to address safety, management, and 
enforcement objectives.
    NMFS received comments on the final EIS from the Alaska Longline 
Fishermen's Association (representing approximately 65 members, most of 
whom fish from vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) in length overall 
(LOA)) strongly opposing a VMS requirement for fixed gear vessels due 
to the cost and the perceived lack of need for VMS to protect sensitive 
habitat features. Mobile bottom contact fishing gears have the greatest 
potential for adverse effects on sensitive sea floor habitat features 
such as those contained in the GOASHCA, ASHPA, and GOACHPA. Although 
trawling is currently prohibited in the eastern GOA, including all of 
the proposed GOACHPA (Sec.  679.7(b)(1)), trawling is currently allowed 
in most areas that would be the ASHPA and the GOASHCA. VMS operation 
would facilitate enforcement for bottom trawl vessels in these proposed 
areas. In response to the EIS comments and the Council's June 2005 
recommendation, the proposed rule would exempt fixed gear vessels from 
the VMS requirements in the GOA. NMFS agrees with the Council that a 
separate comprehensive analysis of options for broader application of 
VMS to meet multiple objectives would be an appropriate means to 
evaluate associated costs and benefits. Many vessels operating in the

[[Page 14474]]

Aleutian Islands subarea and the GOA participate in crab, pollock, 
Pacific cod, or Atka mackerel fisheries that require the use of a VMS 
pursuant to the Steller sea lion protection measures (68 FR 204, 
January 2, 2003) and crab fishery regulations (70 FR 10174, March 2, 
2005). The provision that would require expanded use of VMS in the GOA 
and Aleutian Islands subarea would have associated costs. The EIS 
analysis of this provision does not indicate to NMFS that costs of VMS 
are prohibitive. However, the placement of a VMS on small vessels does 
impose costs because of the limited space, the potential need for 
upgrading the electrical system to allow for the VMS operation, the 
daily cost of operation, and the total cost of the VMS requirement in 
relation to the income generated by fishing with a very small vessel.
    NMFS specifically seeks public comment on the VMS requirements of 
this proposed rule. NMFS has analyzed alternatives for VMS requirements 
in the GOA that would further reduce costs for small vessels, as 
further explained in the Classification section of this preamble. 
Public comments are requested on (1) the need for VMSs for all vessels 
in the Aleutian Islands subarea, and (2) the need for VMSs for all 
vessels operating with mobile bottom contact gear in the GOA. Public 
comment could provide additional information to NMFS to decide if less 
comprehensive VMS coverage in the Aleutian Islands subarea and GOA 
could maintain management and enforcement capabilities while reducing 
burdens on fishery participants.
    The proposed rule would add a definition of ``operate a vessel'' 
for the purposes of the VMS requirement to include any time a vessel is 
offloading or processing fish; is in transit to, from, or between the 
fishing areas; or is fishing or conducting operations in support of 
fishing. This definition would allow the tracking of a vessel by its 
VMS transmission at those times when the vessel is conducting fishing 
activities in or near an EFH or HAPC management area, or is capable of 
conducting such activities in the near future.

Proposed Regulatory Amendments

    A description of the proposed regulatory amendments that would be 
required to implement provisions for EFH and HAPC management follows.

Section 679.2 Definitions

    The proposed rule would revise the definition of authorized fishing 
gear to add dredge gear. This definition would be necessary to 
establish restrictions on this gear type in HPAs and HCZs. To ensure 
consistency between the Federal and State of Alaska regulations for the 
management of the scallop fishery, the proposed rule would add a 
definition for dredge that is the same as the State's definition at 5 
Alaska Administrative Code 39.105(16).
    To identify groups of gear for the purposes of EFH and HAPC 
management measures, the categories of bottom contact gear and mobile 
bottom contact gear would be added to the authorized fishing gear 
definition. The definition for bottom contact gear would list dredge, 
hook-and-line, nonpelagic trawl, dinglebar, and pot gears. The 
definition for mobile bottom contact gear would list dredge, nonpelagic 
trawl, and dinglebar gears.
    The proposed rule would define each management area established to 
protect EFH and HAPC. The definitions for the HCAs, HPAs, and the HCZs 
would provide the name of the management area and refer to tables in 50 
CFR part 679 for the coordinates of each area to ensure accurate 
descriptions.
    The proposed rule would add a definition for ``federally 
permitted'' for purposes of the fishing restrictions in the HCAs, HPAs, 
and HCZ and for VMS. Federally permitted vessels would be those vessels 
named on either a FFP or a FCVP. These types of permits were identified 
for this purpose because they are required for anyone fishing for 
groundfish or crab species in the EEZ, are easily obtained compared to 
other types of federal fishing permits that require catch history, and 
can be easily relinquished and reissued. The ability to easily 
relinquish and reissue the FFPs and FCVPs would provide the fisher the 
flexibility to choose whether to participate in activities that require 
compliance with the EFH and HAPC restrictions and VMS requirements. 
This new definition would ensure that the EFH and HAPC provisions would 
not apply to vessels named only on other types of federal fishing 
permits.
    The proposed rule would add a definition of ``operate a vessel'' 
for the purpose of describing when a VMS is required to be 
transmitting. A vessel would be operating any time it is offloading or 
processing fish; is in transit to, from, or between the fishing areas; 
or is fishing or conducting operations in support of fishing.

Section 679.4 Permits

    Currently, license limitation permits (LLPs) are issued for fishing 
groundfish in the GOA with a trawl, non-trawl or both trawl and non-
trawl gear endorsement. The Council recommended that vessels named on a 
LLP with a trawl endorsement be allowed to use non-trawl gear to fish 
for slope rockfish within the GOASHCA. The proposed rule would revise 
paragraph (k)(3)(iv)(A) to allow vessels named on an LLP with a trawl 
endorsement to use non-trawl gear to fish for slope rockfish within the 
GOASHCA. This revision would provide some accommodation to vessels 
named on an LLP endorsed only for trawl gear if the operator is willing 
to use non-trawl gear for slope rockfish fishing within the GOASHCA.

Section 679.7 Prohibitions

    The current pelagic trawl performance standard does not apply to 
the Community Development Quota (CDQ) pollock fishery. To ensure all 
directed fishing for pollock follows the performance standard at Sec.  
679.7(a)(14), the proposed rule would revise the prohibition to make it 
applicable to all pollock directed fisheries. The current difference in 
the applicability of the pelagic trawl performance standard between the 
CDQ and non-CDQ pollock sectors stems from changes made to Sec.  
679.7(a)(14) during implementation of Amendment 57 to the BSAI FMP. 
Amendment 57 prohibited the use of nonpelagic trawl gear in the 
directed fishery for pollock in the BSAI, except for the CDQ pollock 
fishery and revised the pelagic trawl performance standard for this 
fishery (65 FR 31105, May 16, 2000). Amendment 57 exempted vessels 
fishing for pollock CDQ from the nonpelagic trawl gear prohibition for 
two reasons.
    First, the specific allocative structure of the CDQ Program 
provides an incentive for the CDQ groups to use pelagic trawl gear in 
the pollock CDQ fishery in order to minimize bycatch. With limited 
exceptions, groundfish catch in the pollock CDQ fishery is deducted 
from CDQ groups' applicable quota categories. The use of nonpelagic 
trawl gear in the pollock CDQ fishery could increase the catch rate of 
incidental catch species, which in turn could adversely impact the 
amount of quota available to account for such species in other target 
CDQ fisheries. Second, NMFS did not have a definition for directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ at the time Amendment 57 was approved. Such a 
definition was then under development as part of Amendment 66 to the 
BSAI FMP. Without a definition for pollock CDQ directed fishing, a 
prohibition against using nonpelagic trawl gear while directed fishing 
would have not been enforceable in the CDQ fisheries.
    Subsequent to the implementation of the changes to the trawl 
performance

[[Page 14475]]

standard under Amendment 57, NMFS implemented comprehensive changes to 
the management of the BSAI pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel 
fisheries to protect Steller sea lions from the potential adverse 
effects of these Alaska groundfish fisheries (68 FR 204, January 2, 
2003). As part of such measures, NMFS revised regulations to define 
directed fishing in the CDQ fisheries based on the same maximum 
retainable amount standards that apply to the non-CDQ groundfish 
fisheries. This revision was necessary to provide a means to ensure 
that Steller sea lion protection measures that apply to groundfish CDQ 
harvesting activities could be monitored effectively.
    To ensure all directed fishing for pollock is conducted using 
pelagic trawl gear that meets the performance standard at Sec.  
679.7(a)(14), the proposed rule would revise this prohibition to delete 
the word ``non-CDQ,'' thereby making the prohibition applicable to all 
pollock directed fisheries. This revision would ensure that all 
directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI is conducted with pelagic 
trawl gear in an off-bottom mode, resulting in less potential impact on 
bottom habitat.
    A new paragraph (a)(20) would be added to prohibit the anchoring of 
any federally permitted fishing vessel in a HPA. This prohibition would 
apply to any vessel named on a FFP or FCVP. Anchoring may disturb 
bottom habitat during deployment and retrieval of the anchor and should 
be included in those activities that are prohibited in these fragile 
and sensitive bottom habitat areas.
    The proposed rule would add two new subparagraphs to paragraph (a) 
to address the VMS requirements for EFH and HAPC management. Paragraph 
(a)(21) would prohibit all vessels named on a FFP or FCVP from 
operating in the Aleutian Islands subarea without an operable VMS and 
without complying with the requirements at Sec.  679.28. Paragraph 
(a)(22) would prohibit all vessels named on a FFP or FCVP from 
operating in the GOA with mobile bottom contact gear on board without 
an operable VMS and without complying with the requirements at Sec.  
679.28.

Section 679.22 Closures

    The proposed rule would add fishing closures in the BSAI and GOA. 
New paragraphs (a)(12), (a)(13), (a)(14), and (a)(15) would be added to 
the closures listed for the BSAI to include the AICHPA, AIHCA, BRHCZ, 
and ASHPA, respectively. It would add new paragraphs (b)(8), (b)(9), 
and (b)(10) to the closures listed for the GOA to include the GOACHPA, 
GOASHCA, and ASHPA, respectively. Portions of the ASHPA occur in both 
the BSAI and GOA. Therefore, the closures for this HPA are addressed 
under both management areas. Each new paragraph would refer to the 
respective new table in 50 CFR part 679 that contains the coordinates 
for that management area. The proposed rule would prohibit fishing with 
bottom contact gear by federally permitted vessels in the HPAs. It also 
would prohibit fishing with nonpelagic trawl gear in the HCAs and 
fishing in the HCZ with mobile bottom contact gear.

Section 679.24 Gear Limitations

    Existing gear limitations prohibit the use of nonpelagic trawl gear 
for the directed fishing of non-CDQ pollock in the BSAI. Directed 
fishing for CDQ pollock was not included in this prohibition for the 
same reasons stated above for the trawl performance standard pursuant 
to Sec.  679.7(a)(14)(i). To ensure all directed fishing for pollock is 
conducted with pelagic trawl gear that meets the trawl performance 
standard, the proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(4) to remove the 
term ``non-CDQ.'' This revision would prevent potential opportunistic 
use of nonpelagic trawl gear for pollock harvest in any CDQ trawl 
fishery, ensuring that all directed fishing for pollock would be 
conducted with pelagic trawl gear that must meet the trawl performance 
standard and that would be less likely to impact bottom habitat.

Section 679.28 Equipment and Operational Requirements

    The proposed rule would revise paragraph (f)(3)(iv) to clarify when 
a vessel operator must stop fishing because of VMS transmission 
problems. The paragraph currently specifies that fishing must stop if 
the vessel operator is informed by NMFS that the VMS is not 
transmitting properly. The proposed rule would further require that 
fishing must stop if the vessel operator determines that the VMS is not 
transmitting properly. This revision would ensure that fishing is 
stopped as soon as possible after either NMFS or the vessel operator 
determines that the VMS is not functioning properly.
    The proposed rule also would revise paragraph (f)(6) to clarify 
when a VMS must be transmitting for all vessels that are required to 
have a VMS. For purposes of EFH and HAPC management, the proposed rule 
would require VMS transmission while a vessel is operating in the 
Aleutian Islands subarea or while a vessel is operating in the GOA with 
mobile bottom contact gear on board.

Tables to 50 CFR Part 679

    The proposed rule would add six new tables to 50 CFR part 679 to 
identify and describe the EFH and HAPC management areas which are 
defined in Sec.  679.2 and closed to certain gear types in Sec.  679.22 
or anchoring under Sec.  679.7. Each table would list the individual 
sites by name and number within each management area and provide the 
coordinates needed to locate the boundaries of each site. These tables 
are necessary to ensure that the fishery participants and State and 
Federal enforcement staff are able to identify those areas that are 
restricted to fishing activities.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendments that 
this rule would implement are consistent with the national standards of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that 
determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and 
comments received during the comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared a final EIS for this proposed action; a notice of 
availability was published on May 6, 2005, (70 FR 24037) and the Record 
of Decision was completed on August 8, 2005. The analysis indicates 
that there are long-term effects of fishing on benthic habitat features 
off Alaska and acknowledges that considerable scientific uncertainty 
remains regarding the consequences of such habitat changes for the 
sustained productivity of managed species. Nevertheless, based on the 
best available scientific information, the EIS concludes that the 
effects on EFH are minimal because the analysis finds no indication 
that continued fishing activities at the current rate and intensity 
would alter the capacity of EFH to support healthy populations of 
managed species over the long term. The analysis concludes that no 
fishing activities under the Council's jurisdiction have more than 
minimal and temporary adverse effects on EFH, which is the regulatory 
standard requiring action to minimize adverse effects under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. A variety of practicable management actions could 
be taken as precautionary measures to provide additional habitat 
protection.
    NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
the EFH areas and HAPC proposals, as required

[[Page 14476]]

by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). NMFS determined 
that the use of VMS is required for certain classes of vessels for the 
effective enforcement of both the EFH and HAPC proposals based on the 
limited USCG and NMFS enforcement resources available. The IRFA 
prepared for the EFH EIS contains the small entity analysis of the VMS 
proposals. The IRFAs describe the economic impact this proposed rule 
would have on small entities, if approved. A description of the 
actions, why they are being considered, and their legal basis, is 
provided above. A summary of the analyses follows. Copies of these 
analyses are available from NMFS (see) ADDRESSES.
    The Council considered a suite of alternatives for the eastern 
Bering Sea management area (EBS) in the draft EFH EIS/RIR/IRFA. Based 
on that preliminary analysis, the Council decided not to adopt new 
management measures for EFH protection in the EBS at this time, but to 
initiate an expanded analysis to consider potential mitigation measures 
for the EBS. The Council determined that existing information was 
insufficient to justify immediate action to add new habitat protection 
measures in the EBS. By delaying implementation of EFH measures in the 
EBS, pending additional study, the Council effectively relieved 
potential adverse impacts on directly regulated small (and large) 
entities in the EBS fisheries.

Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area

    This proposed action would designate 279,454 nm\2\ of the Aleutian 
Islands subarea (AI), or about 96 percent, as the AIHCA and close the 
area within the AIHCA boundaries to fishing by nonpelagic trawl gear.
    Forty-six trawlers used nonpelagic trawl gear in the Aleutian 
Islands subarea in 2003. Their average gross revenues from all Federal 
and State of Alaska managed fisheries were $3.6 million. Of these 46 
operations, 13 qualify as small entities under Small Business 
Administration (SBA) criteria.\1\ Average gross revenues for these 13 
were about $626,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SBA criteria of $3.5 million in gross receipts for 
finfish and shellfish harvesters was used for the IRFAs. These 
analyses were approved by the NMFS Alaska Regional Economist in 
April 2005. Effective January 5, 2006, SBA increased the criteria to 
$4 million. Due to the imprecision of estimating gross receipts, the 
values in the approved analyses are not likely to change 
significantly based on the new criteria, and therefore, the analyses 
are not revised to reflect the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analyses summarized in the IRFAs characterized the revenues 
derived from catches made in areas to be closed or restricted by these 
measures as ``revenues at risk.'' These revenues are at risk, rather 
than foregone, because it is possible, and in many instances likely, 
that fishing operations may be able to offset some or all of these 
potential losses by changing their fishing activity (e.g., change gear 
or moving to alternative fishing grounds). Operations that change their 
activities to offset revenue-at-risk losses may incur higher 
operational costs in doing so. Revenues at risk are a key empirical 
measure of potential adverse economic impacts and are used as an index 
of expected gross receipt impacts on directly regulated small entities 
within the fleet. Other adverse economic and operational impacts that 
may accrue to small entities as a result of adopting the proposed 
action, but which are not amenable to empirical quantification, are 
included in the IRFAs, albeit largely in qualitative terms.
    The preferred alternative would have placed $1.23 million of the 
nonpelagic trawl fleet's gross revenues at risk, if it had been in 
effect in 2001. This represents about 2.2 percent of the $55.81 million 
of status quo revenue in the affected fisheries in 2001, for all 
nonpelagic trawl trawlers, large and small, fishing in the AIHCA. Most, 
if not all, of the revenue at risk could have been mitigated by 
redeploying fishing effort into adjacent areas that would remain open 
to nonpelagic trawl gear. Such changes in fishing behavior, however, 
may result in increased operational costs.
    Alternative 1 is the status quo/no action alternative. Alternatives 
2 and 3 would have no implications for the Aleutian Islands subarea 
nonpelagic trawl fleet. Alternative 4 would prohibit nonpelagic trawl 
use in four large areas of the Aleutian Islands subarea (near 
Semisopochnoi Island, Stalemate Bank, Bowers Ridge, and Seguam Pass). 
The areas that would be closed under this alternative are significantly 
smaller than under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5C). 
Alternative 5A would prohibit nonpelagic trawl gear use in five large 
areas of the Aleutian Islands subarea (Semisopochnoi Island, Seguam 
Pass, Yunaska Island, Stalemate Bank, and Bowers Ridge). Various 
combinations of areas would be closed to nonpelagic trawl gear in the 
Aleutian Islands subarea under each of three different Alternative 5B 
options (Options 1, 2, and 3). In addition, Options 1 and 2 would 
require reductions in total allowable catch amounts (TACs) for Pacific 
cod, Atka mackerel, and rockfish equivalent to the expected catch of 
each species that would have come from the closed areas. Alternative 5C 
is the preferred alternative, and potential adverse impacts were 
described above. Alternative 6 would prohibit the use of all bottom 
contact fishing gear within about 20 percent of all fishable waters in 
the Aleutian Islands subarea (i.e., 20 percent of the waters shallower 
than 1,000 m).

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas

    The preferred alternative would designate six AICHPAs as EFH, and 
prohibit the use of all bottom contact fishing gear (i.e., onpelagic 
trawl, hook-and-line, pot, dinglebar, and dredge) within these areas. 
This action has the potential to adversely impact small entities using 
bottom contact gear in these six areas. The small entities that would 
be directly regulated by this action would include those with an FFP or 
FCVP fishing in the Aleutian Islands subarea. The IRFA estimates that 
there were 124 such small entities in 2003. Average gross revenues for 
these small entities, from all fishing sources in Alaska, were about 
$950,000 based on 2003 fishing records.
    This alternative would place relatively small amounts of revenue at 
risk in the Aleutian Islands subarea groundfish, halibut, and crab 
fisheries. Given the relatively small, discrete areas encompassed by 
the designated coral habitat protection areas, it was difficult to 
ascertain the precise catch and revenue that would be placed at risk by 
the proposed restrictions in these areas. Using data from 2001, NMFS 
estimated that about $235,000 or less than 0.5 percent of the status 
quo groundfish revenue in the Aleutian Islands subarea would be at 
risk. The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) estimated 
using data from 1995 to 2002 that about 4.4 percent of the total IPHC 
Area 4B harvest over that period would have been at risk (insufficient 
data were available to derive a catch value for these halibut). Ex-
vessel revenue at risk in crab fisheries would have totaled 
approximately $313,000, or less than 0.1 percent of the status quo 
revenue of $121.9 million, over the 8-year period. Catch and revenue 
placed at risk in the Aleutian Islands subarea by prohibiting bottom 
contact gear in the six coral gardens would likely be mitigated by 
transferring fishing effort to adjacent areas open to bottom contact 
gear fishing. Changes in operating behavior may result in increases in 
operating costs and lower net returns. However, cost data needed to 
derive these net

[[Page 14477]]

revenue estimates are not available to NMFS.
    Four alternatives for protecting Aleutian Islands subarea corals 
were considered in the HAPC EA/RIR/IRFA. Alternative 1 was the status 
quo/no action alternative. Alternative 2 is the AICHPA and the 
preferred alternative discussed above. Alternative 3 would classify 
much of Bowers Ridge as HAPC, and prohibit the use of mobile bottom 
contact gear within it. This action also was adopted as part of the 
preferred alternative; see the analysis of the BRHCZ below. Alternative 
4 would designate four sites within the Aleutian Islands subarea as 
HAPCs (South Amlia/Atka, Kanaga Volcano, Kanaga Island, and Tanaga 
Islands), with two options for gear restrictions. Under Alternative 5, 
all the areas designated under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be 
adopted.

Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone

    This action would establish a BRHCZ as a HAPC. The action would 
prohibit mobile bottom contact gear (i.e., nonpelagic trawl, dredge, 
and dinglebar) within the area designated as HAPC. Small entities that 
use mobile bottom contact gear within the BRHCZ would be directly 
regulated, and thus adversely impacted by this action.
    The most consistent source of activity on Bowers Ridge, from the 
categories of gear that would be prohibited there, has been from head-
and-gut trawl catcher processors. Head-and-gut trawl catcher processors 
are almost all large entities, based on SBA criteria; possibly one out 
of a potential 23 entities may be characterized as a small entity.
    The potential adverse economic impacts on small vessels from this 
action would be attributable to placing at risk the revenues the 
vessels might have earned from fishing activity on Bowers Ridge. These 
revenues would be approximately 0.02 percent of gross wholesale 
groundfish revenue for vessels that have consistently fished in this 
area since 1995.

CDQ Pollock Vessels

    The proposed rule would prohibit CDQ vessels from directly fishing 
for pollock in such a way that the vessel would have more than 20 crabs 
of any species, with a carapace width greater than 1.5 inches, on board 
at any time (Sec.  697.7(a)(14)(i)). CDQ vessels directly fishing for 
pollock also would be prohibited from using nonpelagic trawl gear in 
Sec.  697.24. Because CDQ vessels currently use pelagic trawl gear for 
directed fishing for pollock, these proposed regulation changes are not 
likely to affect the revenue from this activity.

Aleutian Islands Subarea VMS Requirements

    Under this proposed action, certain federally permitted vessels 
operating in the Aleutian Islands subarea would be required to carry 
and operate a VMS. The small entities that would be directly regulated 
by this action are those with an FFP or FCVP fishing in Federal or 
State of Alaska waters in the Aleutian Islands subarea. The IRFA 
estimated that potentially 124 directly regulated small entities would 
be subject to this action, based on 2003 data. Average gross revenues 
for these small entities, from all fishing sources in Alaska, were 
about $950,000 in 2003.
    The IRFA estimates of small entities directly regulated by this 
action are based on the number of vessels that reportedly operated in 
Federal waters of the Aleutian Islands subarea in 2003. Vessels that 
operated solely within State of Alaska waters were not included in this 
count. Vessels fishing exclusively within State waters during a fishing 
year were assumed to be able to avoid the VMS requirement by 
surrendering their FFP or FCVP.
    Fifty-three of these vessels already carried VMS in 2003 to comply 
with other regulations. Based on these data, an estimated 71 operations 
would have to acquire and use VMS. Average VMS acquisition and 
installation costs for a vessel are $1,550; average annual transmission 
charges are $451 for vessels initially acquiring VMS, and $994 for 
vessels that already have VMS. Average annual repair costs are 
estimated to be $28. Because the VMS requirement would be permanent, 
all vessels using VMS would be expected to have to replace these units 
as they fail. This would create additional future costs. However, 
replacement costs are likely to decrease through time, as competition 
and technological advances reduce VMS costs.
    The analysis for the Aleutian Islands subarea VMS proposed action 
examined status quo and an alternative that would have exempted vessels 
less than or equal to 32 feet in length from the requirement. Because 
status quo had no requirement to add VMS to additional vessels and no 
additional VMS transmission requirements, no economic impacts were 
identified from the status quo. The exemption alternative paralleled a 
similar exemption to VMS requirements considered in the GOA VMS 
proposal. The exemption alternative was not adopted for the Aleutian 
Islands subarea because it would only have potentially affected three 
vessels. Revenue information for these three entities cannot be 
reported because of confidentiality restrictions. Nonetheless, NMFS 
determined that the potential for small vessels to employ bottom 
contact fishing gear in protected EFH and HAPC areas in the Aleutian 
Islands subarea makes it necessary for all vessels to carry VMS, if the 
closures are to be enforced effectively. Average installation costs for 
these three vessels were estimated to be $1,550. Average annual 
transmission costs were $428. Total installation costs for these three 
operations were about $5,000. Total annual transmission costs were 
about $1,000. With annual repair costs averaging about $93, total 
repair costs for these vessels would be about $300.

GOA Slope Habitat Conservation Areas

    Ten areas within the GOA, along the upper and intermediate slope 
(200 m to 1,000 m in depth), are classified as GOAHCA. The proposed 
action would prohibit fishing with nonpelagic trawl gear within these 
areas. The entities potentially directly regulated by this action are 
those trawlers fishing with nonpelagic trawl gear in the GOA. Ninety-
eight vessels used nonpelagic trawl gear in Federal waters in the GOA 
in 2003. Average gross revenues for these vessels from all Federal and 
State managed fisheries in Alaska were about $2.0 million. Fifty-eight 
of these 98 vessels were determined to be ``small businesses'' under 
SBA criteria. These 58 vessels had average gross receipts of $494,000 
from all sources.
    The preferred alternative would place $1.17 million of revenue at 
risk, or 4.2 percent of the total status quo revenue of $27.69 million 
in nonpelagic trawl groundfish fisheries in 2001. Within the entire 
GOA, substantial nonpelagic trawl fishing areas exist adjacent to the 
10 designated areas where the revenue at risk might be mitigated by a 
redeployment of fishing effort. Most, if not all, of the revenue at 
risk in the GOA would likely be recovered by redeployment of fishing 
effort to adjacent areas, or by switching to pelagic trawl gear or 
fixed gear. The proviso that nonpelagic trawl operators may switch gear 
type and continue to target slope rockfish in these protection areas 
using nontrawl gear represents a substantial accommodation. If adopted, 
this would effectively relieve the LLP trawl gear restriction. Thus, 
vessels named on a LLP with a trawl gear only endorsement could be used 
to fish for slope rockfish in the GOASHCA with hook-and-line gear. 
Larger trawlers that either already have pelagic trawl gear available, 
or have sufficient horsepower to convert to pelagic trawl gear to 
target

[[Page 14478]]

slope rockfish, may have an advantage over smaller trawlers that might 
not have the physical capability or the economic incentive to acquire 
and use pelagic trawl. Thus, under this alternative there could be a 
transfer of revenue (and associated catch share) in the fishery from 
the smaller trawlers to the larger trawlers using pelagic trawl gear. 
NMFS cannot estimate the magnitude of any transfer without specific 
knowledge of the strategies that would be followed by different fleet 
segments. Vessels that shift from their preferred gear type (e.g., from 
nonpelagic trawl to pelagic trawl or fixed gear) or from their 
preferred fishing area may incur higher operating costs, even if they 
were able to earn the same levels of gross revenues, thus reducing any 
net revenues that might accrue.
    The Council considered alternatives to the proposed action (the 
Council's Alternative 5C). Alternative 1 is the status quo and no 
action alternative, and no economic impacts were identified with this 
alternative. Alternative 2 would close 11 areas on the GOA slope 
(between depths of 200 m and 1,000 m) to directed rockfish fishing 
conducted with nonpelagic trawl gear. Economic costs of Alternative 2 
would have been limited to the nonpelagic trawl slope rockfish fishery 
in the GOA. The total revenue at risk in this fishery under Alternative 
2 would have been $900,000 or 9.6 percent of the 2001 status quo 
revenue. Alternative 3 would close the entire GOA slope between 200 m 
and 1,000 m in depth to directed rockfish fishing using nonpelagic 
trawl gear. Based on 2001 data, Alternative 3 would have placed a total 
of $2.65 million of gross revenue at risk in the GOA nonpelagic trawl 
slope rockfish target fisheries, including the value of retained 
bycatch. This was equal to 28.3 percent of the reported 2001 status quo 
total revenue. In the GOA, Alternative 4 would duplicate the closures 
under Alternative 2 and would have the same economic impact. 
Alternative 5A would close 10 areas on the GOA slope between 200 m and 
1,000 m in depth to vessels targeting rockfish with nonpelagic trawl 
gear. Alternative 5A would have affected a number of nonpelagic trawl 
fisheries, but primarily fisheries targeting rockfish and Pacific cod. 
Under Alternative 5A, the total revenue at risk in the nonpelagic trawl 
rockfish fishery would have been $2.82 million, or 30.1 percent of the 
2001 status quo revenue. The total revenue at risk in the GOA 
nonpelagic trawl Pacific cod fishery would have been $380,000 or 4.9 
percent of the 2001 status quo revenue. Alternative 5B would prohibit 
the use of nonpelagic trawl gear for all groundfish fisheries within 
designated sites of the GOA slope between 200 m and 1,000 m in depth 
and would prohibit the use of nonpelagic trawl gear for targeting slope 
rockfish anywhere on the GOA slope at depths between 200 m and 1,000 m. 
Alternative 5B would affect a number of nonpelagic trawl fisheries, but 
primarily fisheries targeting rockfish and Pacific cod. The total 
revenue at risk in the nonpelagic trawl rockfish fishery under 
Alternative 5B would have equaled $2.82 million or 30.1 percent of the 
2001 status quo revenue. The total revenue at risk in the GOA 
nonpelagic trawl Pacific cod fishery would have been $380,000, or 4.9 
percent of the 2001 status quo revenue. Alternative 5C is the preferred 
alternative, and has been discussed above. Alternative 6 would close 20 
percent of the fishable waters in the Alaska EEZ to fishing with any 
bottom contact gear. In the GOA, Alternative 6 would have the largest 
effect on the halibut hook-and-line fishery, with $32.12 million in 
revenue at risk or 33.9 percent of the 2001 status quo revenue. 
Sablefish hook-and-line and nonpelagic trawl fisheries would have $6.66 
million in revenue at risk or 12.5 percent of the 2001 status quo 
revenue. Rockfish hook-and-line and nonpelagic trawl fisheries would 
have had $2.29 million of revenue at risk or 21.5 percent of the 2001 
status quo revenue. Based on 2001 data, $2.63 million of revenue would 
have been placed at risk in the GOA hook-and-line and nonpelagic trawl 
Pacific cod fisheries or 11.7 percent of the status quo revenue. 
Alternative 6 also would have placed $940,000 of revenue at risk or 
34.3 percent of the 2001 status quo revenue for the scallop dredge 
fishery. The GOA scallop revenue at risk almost certainly could not 
have been recovered by redeploying fishing effort to remaining open 
areas, because the permitting is not transferable between districts.

Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas

    The Council designated 15 seamount areas off Alaska as HAPCs, and 
recommended prohibiting all federally managed bottom contact fishing 
within these proposed protected areas. Under this action, directly 
regulated small entities would be those that would have fished on these 
seamount areas with bottom contact gear in the absence of the proposed 
closures.
    Little groundfish fishing took place within the seamount habitat 
protection areas during the 1995-2003 period. Fixed gear catcher 
vessels from 33 feet to 59 feet (10.1 m to 18.1 m) LOA, dominated what 
little fishing activity was reported on the seamounts. The numbers of 
these vessels annually ranged from one to seven, from 1995 to 2003. 
Other vessels fished on the seamounts only sporadically. The fishing 
activity that did occur generated approximately $20,000 in equivalent 
gross wholesale revenue annually in 1995, 1996, and 2000, and 
approximately $10,000 in annual equivalent gross wholesale revenue from 
2001-2003.
    The potential adverse economic impact of this action on these 
directly regulated small entities (that is, the revenue placed at risk 
by forcing them to fish in areas other than they would have voluntarily 
chosen to fish) appears to be very small. This impact would have 
accounted for 1/100th of 1 percent of the total groundfish revenue for 
fixed gear catcher vessels over the period 1995-2003. The revenue at 
risk for other operations is even smaller.
    The Council considered a no action alternative and an alternative 
that would have prohibited bottom contact fishing within five of the 15 
seamount areas included in the preferred alternative.

GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas

    Five GOACHPAs would be established; four of these are located on 
the Fairweather Grounds, and one is located off of Cape Ommaney. These 
areas encompass a total of 13.5 nm2. Federally permitted 
vessels would be prohibited from fishing with bottom contact gear in 
these GOACHPAs.
    The directly regulated small entities that may be adversely 
affected by this rule are vessels with FFPs or FCVPs that would fish 
with bottom contact gear in these areas in the absence of any gear 
restrictions.
    The number of vessels fishing with bottom contact gear in these 
areas likely includes nearly all federally permitted vessels, given 
that the use of pelagic trawl gear in these areas is either limited or 
prohibited. Between 80 and 103 fixed gear catcher vessels from 33 feet 
to 59 feet (10.1 m to 18.1 m) fished for groundfish within the greater 
statistical areas within which the HAPC sites are located, from 1995 to 
2003. In total, 274 separate vessels in this category appear to have 
operated in proximity to these HAPCs during these years. Eleven 
groundfish vessels of other categories also operated in the areas 
during these years. The logbook data of fewer than five halibut vessels 
show any fishing activity in the proposed HAPCs during this period. 
This number is small compared to the 1,820 halibut vessels

[[Page 14479]]

that appear to have harvested halibut in the area off of Southeast 
Alaska (IPHC area 2C) during this period.
    Potential groundfish revenue at risk was about $10,000 per year 
during the 1995-2003 period. In an average year, only 3/100th of 1 
percent of the total groundfish revenue for the affected vessels 
appears to be placed at risk by this alternative, which is probably an 
overestimate of the true revenues at risk. The small part of the 
halibut fleet operating in these areas and the availability of 
alternative halibut fishing areas (due to the small areas closed under 
these proposals) suggest that the impacts on affected halib