Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 9, 18483-18489 [E8-7025]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 66 (Friday, April 4, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18483-18489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7025]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 071219865-7563-01]
RIN 0648-AP60


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, 
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 9

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in Amendment 9 
to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 9 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council (Council) to remedy deficiencies in the FMP 
and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the 
FMP became effective in 1999. Amendment 9 would establish multi-year 
specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, 
butterfish, Illex squid (Illex), and Loligo squid (Loligo)) for up to 3 
years; extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a 
sunset provision; adopt biological reference points recommended by the 
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) for Loligo; designate 
essential fish habitat (EFH) for Loligo eggs based on best available 
scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted 
vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons.

DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 
standard time, on May 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) 
was prepared for Amendment 9 that describes the proposed action and 
other

[[Page 18484]]

considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts 
of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 9, 
including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: 
Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 
19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http:/
/www.nero.nmfs.gov.
    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AP60, by any one of 
the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal https://
www.regulations.gov;
     Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
     Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 
Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 
Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on MSB Amendment 9.''
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, 
etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept 
anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted 
in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, 978- 281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This amendment is needed to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to 
address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP (64 
FR 57587, October 26, 1999) became effective in 1999. Amendment 8 was 
only partially approved by NMFS because the amendment inadequately 
addressed some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements for Federal FMPs. Specifically, the 
amendment was considered deficient with respect to: Consideration of 
fishing gear impacts on EFH as they relate to MSB fisheries; 
designation of EFH for Loligo eggs; and the reduction of bycatch and 
discarding of target and non-target species in the MSB fisheries.
    An earlier draft of Amendment 9, adopted by the Council on February 
15, 2007, contained several management measures intended to address 
deficiencies in the MSB FMP that relate to discarding, especially as 
they affect butterfish. Specifically, these management measures would 
have attempted to reduce finfish discards by MSB small-mesh fisheries 
through mesh size increases in the directed Loligo fishery, removal of 
mesh size exemptions for the directed Illex fishery, and establishment 
of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, these specific 
management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish 
stock being declared overfished.
    In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish 
stock was overfished and this triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In 
response, Amendment 10 to the FMP was initiated by the Council in 
October 2005. Amendment 10 contains a rebuilding program for butterfish 
with management measures designed to reduce the fishing mortality on 
butterfish that occurs through discarding. Management measures that 
reduce the discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the 
bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries. On June 13, 2007, 
the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part 
of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of 
finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. 
Accordingly, no action is proposed in Amendment 9 to address these 
issues. Through the development and implementation of Amendment 10, 
each of the measures to reduce the bycatch of finfish will be given 
full consideration. Additionally, Amendment 10 will include updated 
analyses on the effects of the alternatives and, as Amendment 10 is 
expected to be implemented soon after Amendment 9, no meaningful delay 
in addressing the bycatch deficiencies in the FMP should occur.
    The final version of Amendment 9 contains alternatives that 
consider allowing for multi-year specifications and management 
measures, extending or eliminating the moratorium on entry to the 
directed Illex fishery, revising the biological reference points for 
Loligo, designating EFH for Loligo eggs, implementing area closures to 
reduce gear impacts from MSB fisheries on EFH of other federally-
managed species, increasing the incidental possession limit for Illex 
vessels during a closure of the Loligo fishery, and requiring real-time 
electronic reporting via vessel monitoring systems in the Illex 
fishery. The Council held four public meetings on Amendment 9 during 
May 2007. Following the public comment period that ended on May 21, 
2007, the Council adopted Amendment 9 on August 6, 2007.
    This rule proposes management measures that were recommended by the 
Council as part of Amendment 9. Specifically, this rule proposes 
measures that would: Allow for multi-year specifications for all four 
species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, Illex, and Loligo) 
for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex 
fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points 
for Loligo recommended by the SARC; designate EFH for Loligo eggs based 
on best available science information; and prohibit bottom trawling by 
MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons.
    A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 9 was published on 
March 25, 2008. The comment period on the NOA ends on May 27, 2008.

Proposed Measures

    The proposed regulations are based on the description of the 
measures in Amendment 9; NMFS seeks comments on all of the measures in 
Amendment 9.

Multi-Year Specifications and Management Measures for MSB

    Regulations at Sec.  648.21 specify that specifications for 
mackerel, Illex, and butterfish are recommended to the Council on an 
annual basis, and that specifications for Loligo may be specified for 
up to 3 years, subject to annual review. To streamline the 
administrative and regulatory process involved in setting 
specifications and management measures, Amendment 9 considered multi-
year specifications for all four species: Mackerel, Illex, Loligo, and 
butterfish. Amendment 9 would not establish any specifications 
measures; rather it would affect the periodocity for specifying such 
regulatory measures through future Council actions. If the Council 
chose to propose multi-year specifications, Amendment 9 would require 
an annual review of updated information on the fishery by the MSB 
Monitoring Committee, as is the current practice, during the period of 
the multi-year specifications. The MSB Monitoring Committee would 
examine data collected from the fishery and resource surveys and would 
alert the Council of any changes, including those of stock status, that 
might require a revision to the specifications before the multi-year 
period elapses.

[[Page 18485]]

    The proposed measure would allow for specifications and management 
measures for any or all of the four species in the FMP to be set for up 
to 3 years, subject to annual review. In the past, the specifications 
and management measures for MSB fisheries have remained fairly constant 
across years. This proposed measure would still enable the Council to 
respond to changes in stock status, in any given year, by modifying 
quotas or management measures. However, if changes were not necessary, 
the Council and NMFS would not have to recommend and implement annual 
specifications and management measures. Because this proposed measure 
is largely administrative, it is not anticipated that there will be 
effects on the environment. This proposed measure does have the 
potential to provide MSB fishery participants with an expanded planning 
horizon for harvesting and processing activities; therefore, it may 
have positive economic effects for MSB fishery participants.

Moratorium on Entry into the Illex Fishery

    A fishery is considered overcapitalized when the harvest potential 
of the fishing fleet exceeds the harvest at optimum yield (OY). 
Amendment 9 considers the Illex fishery overcapitalized; therefore, 
this amendment considered alternatives that would limit the potential 
for increases in the harvest capacity of the large-scale, directed 
Illex fishery.
    In order to prevent excess harvest capacity from developing in the 
large-scale, directed Illex fishery, a moratorium on new entry into 
this fishery was established in 1997. In the directed fishery, 
moratorium-permitted vessels are not subject to any daily Illex 
possession limit. As such, the maximum potential Illex landings for 
moratorium-permitted vessels are unlimited until 95 percent of the 
annual harvest quota has been achieved in any given year. Once 95 
percent of the annual quota has been harvested, the possession limit 
for vessels with Illex moratorium permits becomes 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). 
The moratorium on new entry was initially scheduled to expire in 2002, 
but has been extended several times through framework actions. 
Currently, the moratorium is scheduled to expire in July 2009.
    Throughout the year, a small-scale, incidental catch fishery for 
Illex is currently provided for through an open-access Federal permit 
that allows possession of up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of Illex on a 
single trip. In addition to the 10,000-lb (4.54-mt) trip allowance for 
Illex, vessels in possession of this permit are also allowed to land 
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo squid and 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish 
in a single trip. The Council has not proposed any modifications to 
this permit in Amendment 9.
    Under the proposed Illex measure, the scheduled expiration of the 
moratorium would be eliminated. As such, new entry into the directed 
commercial fishery for Illex would be prohibited indefinitely. The 
transfer of moratorium permits from one participant to another would 
only be allowed through the transfer of ownership of a permitted 
vessel. Since its implementation in 1997, there has been a slight 
decline in the number of vessels issued an Illex moratorium permit in 
any given year, from a maximum of 77 in 1998, to 72 in 2003. Under the 
proposed action, the size of the directed Illex fleet could not expand 
beyond the number of permitted vessels in the year in which Amendment 9 
is implemented, thereby preventing expansion in a fishery that is 
already overcapitalized and offering the greatest degree of protection 
to historic participants in the directed Illex fishery.
    The proposed measure is anticipated to have economic benefits for 
historical participants already possessing Illex moratorium permits and 
the potential to negatively affect those wanting to become an Illex 
fishery participant in the future.

Biological Reference Points for Loligo

    Regulations at Sec.  600.315 state that conservation and management 
measures should be based upon the best scientific information 
available, and that FMPs should be amended on a timely basis, as new 
information indicates the necessity for change in objectives or 
management measures. Therefore, Amendment 9 considered revising the 
proxies for target and threshold fishing mortality rates, FTarget 
and FThreshold, respectively, for Loligo to reflect the 
analytical advice provided by the most recent Loligo stock assessment 
review committee (SARC 34). While Amendment 9 considered revising the 
formulas and values for these reference points, the function of the 
reference points remains unchanged. FTarget is the basis for 
determining OY and FThreshold determines whether overfishing 
is occurring.
    Because Loligo is a sub-annual species (i.e., has a lifespan of 
less than 1 year), the stock is solely dependent on sufficient 
recruitment year to year to prevent stock collapse. The status quo 
proxies for FTarget (75 percent of the fishing morality rate 
supporting maximum sustainable yield (FMax)) and 
FThreshold (FMax) may be too liberal and subject 
the Loligo stock to overfishing. The revised proxies for FTarget 
and FThreshold proposed in this rule are fixed values based 
on average fishing mortality rates achieved during a time period when 
the stock biomass was fairly resilient (1987 - 2000). The revised 
proxies are calculated as follows: FTarget is the 75th 
percentile of fishing mortality rates during 1987 - 2000 and 
FThreshold is the average fishing mortality rates during the 
same period. The revised proxy for FTarget (0.32 or 0.24 for 
trimesters and quarters, respectively) would be used as the basis for 
establishing Loligo OY. However, it should be noted that it is 
currently not possible to accurately predict Loligo stock biomass 
because recruitment, which occurs throughout the year, is highly 
variable inter-annually and influenced by changing environmental 
conditions.
    Biological reference points that ensure an adequate number of 
spawners produce adequate recruitment in the subsequent year are 
considered most appropriate for squid species. However, until such 
reference points can be reliably estimated for the Loligo stock, the 
revised reference points in Amendment 9 and proposed in this rule would 
serve as an intermediate step for calculating harvest levels that are 
more robust, with respect to stock sustainability, than status quo 
reference points.

Designation of EFH for Loligo Eggs

    Amendment 9 considered designating EFH for Loligo eggs in order to 
bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement 
that FMPs describe and identify EFH for each life history stage of a 
managed species. The MSB FMP currently identifies and describes EFH for 
all life stages of MSB species for which information is available, with 
the exception of Loligo eggs. Loligo eggs are found attached to rocks 
and boulders on sand or mud bottom, as well as attached to aquatic 
vegetation in coastal and offshore bottom habitats from Georges Bank 
southward to Cape Hatteras. Generally, the following conditions exist 
where Loligo egg EFH is found: Bottom water temperatures between 
10[deg] C and 23[deg] C; salinities of 30 to 32 ppt; and depths less 
than 50 m. Locations of fishery interactions with Loligo eggs are 
reported in Hatfield, E. M. C. and S. X. Cadrin. 2002. Geographic and 
temporal patterns in size and maturity of the longfin inshore squid 
(Loligo pealeii) off the northeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 100 
(2): 200-213.
    This action proposes to add the above description of EFH for Loligo 
eggs to the

[[Page 18486]]

FMP. Some Council members expressed concern that the proposed Loligo 
egg EFH areas are based on anecdotal information (i.e., interviews with 
fishermen). Also, they considered it likely that the proposed EFH areas 
are not constant, but instead shift from year to year. Nevertheless, 
the information on the locations of Loligo eggs provided in Hatfield 
and Cadrin (2002) is the best scientific information that is currently 
available. Additionally, EFH designations are meant to include habitat 
areas used in different years. Failure to designate EFH for Loligo eggs 
in Amendment 9 would be inconsistent with the EFH requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    To the degree that EFH is vulnerable to damage by fishing and/or 
non-fishing activities, management oversight of these activities in 
areas designated as EFH for a given life stage of any managed resource 
will allow for direct and indirect benefits for that resource. That 
oversight cannot occur, however, without first identifying the 
geographical locations of EFH. Amendment 9 identifies EFH for Loligo 
eggs based upon documented observations. By implementing this action, 
fishing and/or non-fishing activities would not be restricted. However, 
a requirement would be established whereby NMFS must be consulted to 
determine whether future Federal non-fishing activities would adversely 
impact Loligo egg EFH. Also, potential adverse impacts of MSB fisheries 
on Loligo egg EFH would have to be evaluated in a future management 
action. A range of habitat protection measures exist that could be 
implemented if protection of Loligo egg EFH is determined to be 
necessary. The common feature of these measures is that they conserve 
or enhance EFH. This could be accomplished by preventing or mitigating 
non-fishing activities in EFH areas or by reducing fishing effort, or 
restricting the use of certain gear types or configurations in those 
areas. Habitat protection provided by these actions would also be 
extended to other species and ecosystem functions that utilize or are 
affected by Loligo egg EFH.

Prohibition on Bottom Trawling to Reduce Gear Impacts on EFH by MSB 
Fisheries

    Amendment 9 considered reducing gear impacts on EFH by MSB 
fisheries in order to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements. The FMP currently lacks adequate analysis of 
the effects of MSB fisheries on EFH for federally managed species 
within the geographic scope of the MSB fisheries. Such an analysis has 
been conducted as part of Amendment 9, and the results indicate that 
actions could be taken that would reduce impacts to EFH for federally 
managed species related to the activities of the MSB fisheries by 
prohibiting bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels. The proposed 
action is not intended to minimize adverse impacts to EFH for Loligo, 
Illex, mackerel, or butterfish, since EFH for the pelagic life stages 
of these species was determined to be not vulnerable to the effects of 
fishing.
    This action proposes to prohibit bottom trawling in Lydonia and 
Oceanographer Canyons by MSB-permitted vessels. MSB-permitted vessels 
transiting these canyons would need to stow all bottom trawl gear. 
While Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons are only minimally used by 
vessels with bottom trawl gear, this action will prevent future 
expansion of MSB fisheries into these canyons. This prohibition was 
determined to be practicable by the Council and is similar to 
regulations associated with the New England Fishery Management 
Council's Monkfish FMP (i.e., vessels on a monkfish day-at-sea are 
prohibited from entering these canyons). Even though this action does 
not prohibit bottom trawling by other federally permitted vessels in 
Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons, this prohibition would benefit 
habitat in these canyons by deceasing localized damage from bottom 
trawling. Decreased fishery interactions with the managed stocks, non-
target species, and protected and endangered species in Lydonia and 
Oceanographer Canyons are also expected, and this would correspond to 
localized benefits to these resources. The areas affected by the 
proposed measure represent 3 percent of the total EFH for juvenile 
tilefish, but not more than 2 percent for any other species.
    Short-term costs to fishery participants are related to the size of 
the area where bottom trawling would be prohibited and how frequently 
those areas are utilized by fishery participants (see IRFA for complete 
economic analysis). The prohibition of bottom trawling by MSB-permitted 
vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons is likely to have a 
minimal impact on revenues both for vessel owners and ports. Other 
restricted area alternatives considered by the Council would have 
provided greater habitat protection, but were not practicable because 
their potential economic impact would be higher.
    Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 9 and its 
incorporated documents through the end of the comment period, May 27, 
2008, stated in the NOA for Amendment 9 (73 FR 15716, March 25, 2008). 
Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 27, 2008, 
the end of the comment period specified in the NOA for Amendment 9, to 
be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. 
All comments received by May 27, 2008, whether specifically directed to 
Amendment 9 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on Amendment 9. Comments received after that date 
will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove 
Amendment 9. To be considered, comments must be received by 5 pm, 
eastern standard time, on the last day of the comment period.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS 
has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, 
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, 
subject to further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 9; a notice of 
availability was published on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16672). The FSEIS 
describes the impacts of the proposed Amendment 9 measures on the 
environment. The proposed measures that would allow for multi-year 
specifications and revised biological reference points for Loligo are 
largely administrative. However, they will provide for an expanded 
planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities and a fixed 
constant as a basis for the fishing target definition, respectively. 
The measure to designate EFH for Loligo eggs will not directly affect 
the environment, but it will allow future impacts to EFH for Loligo 
eggs to be identified and mitigated. Extending the moratorium on entry 
into the Illex fishery without a sunset provision and prohibiting 
bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer 
Canyons will have short-term, negative economic impacts, but are 
expected to have long-term benefits on the biological and physical 
environment.
    The IRFA for this action is summarized below, as required by 
section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes 
the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and 
the legal basis for

[[Page 18487]]

this action are contained in the preamble of this rule. A summary of 
the IRFA follows:

Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule 
Would Apply

    There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as none 
grossed more than 4 million dollars annually, therefore, there are no 
disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. The proposed 
measures in Amendment 9 would affect all MSB-permitted vessels; 
however, many of the proposed measures (e.g., multi-year 
specifications, revised biological reference points for Loligo, 
designation of EFH for Loligo eggs) are not expected to have direct 
economic impacts. Section 6.5 (Human Communities) in Amendment 9 
describes the number of vessels, key ports, and revenue information for 
each of the MSB fisheries; therefore, that information is not repeated 
here.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-
Selected Alternatives

    As described previously, several of the proposed measures in 
Amendment 9 are not anticipated to have direct economic effects on MSB 
fisheries. Implementing multi-year specifications and management 
measures for all four managed species has the potential to provide MSB 
fishery participants with an expanded planning horizon for harvesting 
and processing activities. Therefore, it may have positive economic 
effects for MSB fishery participants when compared to the non-selected 
alternative of no action (annual specifications and management measures 
for mackerel, Illex, and butterfish; multi-year specifications and 
management measures for Loligo). This could lead to better business 
plans and ultimately greater economic benefits. Amendment 9 contained 
two alternatives that would have provided for multi-year specifications 
and management measures; the proposed action allows for multi-year 
specifications for up to 3 years, subject to annual review, and a non-
selected alternative would have provided for multi-year specifications 
for up to 5 years, subject to annual review. The 3-year alternative was 
selected as the proposed action because management based on 3-year 
stock projections, rather than 5-year stock projections, is likely more 
appropriate for MSB species, given their relatively brief life spans, 
but it is difficult to assign a dollar value to this effect.
    The proposed revisions to biological reference points (FTarget 
and FThreshold) for Loligo are primiarily administrative and 
are not expected to have direct economic effects on fishery 
participants. Revising the reference points is consistent with 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to use the best scientific 
information available, as compared to the non-selective alternative of 
no action (using status quo reference points for FTarget and 
FThreshold), but the economic impacts of the proposed action are 
difficult to predict. The revised reference points are not expected to 
result in an immediate change in the Loligo quota; the annual quota has 
been set at 17,000 mt each year since 2001. Consumer demand for Loligo 
will affect Loligo prices, which, in turn, will result in economic 
impacts on Loligo harvesters, processors, and consumers that are 
currently unquantifiable. To those consumers for whom Loligo is a 
desirable food item, increased availability of the resource, if it 
occurs, would be expected to provide a beneficial effect. If, on the 
other hand, the Loligo stock size decreases such that harvest costs 
increase, then Loligo prices would be expected to increase. Because the 
revised biological reference points are considered more robust, with 
respect to stock sustainability, than the status quo reference points, 
it is expected that there would be some long-term economic benefits 
associated with the revised reference points as compared to benefits 
associated with the status quo reference points.
    Additionally, the proposed measure of designating EFH for Loligo 
eggs is not anticipated to have any direct economic effects on MSB 
participants, when compared to the non-selected alternative of not 
designating EFH for Loligo eggs. Designating EFH for Loligo eggs does 
not result in an immediate action that would restrict fishing or non-
fishing activities. However, a requirement would be established whereby 
consultation with NMFS would be required for future Federal fishing and 
non-fishing activities that may adversely affect Loligo egg EFH. The 
proposed meaure has the potential to indirectly impact human 
communities if, at some point in the future, management actions are 
implemented in order to reduce fishing effort or decrease non-fishing 
impacts in those EFH areas. Because the specifics of any future actions 
are speculative at this point, it is unclear what the nature of the 
impacts on human communities, if any, would be. In the long term, 
however, protection of habitat needed by Loligo eggs is expected to 
improve the sustainability of the Loligo resource, and other managed 
resources that share those habitats, indirectly benefitting human 
communities dependent on those resources. An analysis of the likely 
impacts of specific future actions would be required prior to their 
implementation.
    Amendment 9 contains two proposed measures that may have economic 
effects on MSB fisheries. The first of these proposed measures is 
extending the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a 
sunset provision. Because the present fleet is capable of harvesting in 
excess of the recent Illex quota of 24,000 mt, there is a clear need 
for a moratorium on entry into the fishery. International market 
reports suggesting that the world supplies of squid will be tight for 
several years and, therefore, prices are expected to be high, coupled 
with the fact that resource productivity is low to moderate, supports 
making the moratorium permanent. Unfortunately, the benefits and costs 
of the moratorium options cannot be easily analyzed. The available 
information suggests that, if the moratorium were terminated (a non-
selected alternative) or were allowed to expire in 2009 (a non-selected 
alternative), and economic and resource conditions remain relatively 
unchanged from recent levels, there would not be any substantial 
increase in landings of Illex relative to the landings likely to occur, 
with or without a moratorium. If, however, economic conditions changed 
to promote increased activity on Illex as occurred in 2004, landings of 
Illex would increase. Moratorium alternatives offer protection against 
risk of an expanding fishery and risk of further depressing the 
resource. These options, however, do not appear to generate landings, 
revenue, or potential benefit streams any different that those levels 
most likely to occur with a removal of the moratorium (given current 
conditions). Moratorium alternatives (without a sunset provision 
(proposed action) or without a sunset provision, but allowing new entry 
through permit transfer (a non-selected alternative)) would impose some 
short-term costs in that they constrain expansion of the fishery, 
either until 2009 or permanently. That is, individuals desiring to 
enter the fishery would be

[[Page 18488]]

denied the potential revenues that might be realized if they could land 
more Illex, unless they purchased an Illex permitted vessel (proposed 
action) or an existing Illex permit (non-selected alternative). Failure 
to extend the moratorium could result in further overcapitalization of 
this sector of the fishing industry, which in turn could have negative 
economic consequences for the vessels and communities that depend upon 
the Illex resource. Extension of the Illex moratorium program would 
provide positive benefits to the communities that are dependent on the 
commercial Illex fishery. The primary ports and surrounding communities 
where Illex are landed would be the most affected by this action (see 
Section 6.5.1 of Amendment 9 for information on primary ports).
    The second proposed measure in Amendment 9 that may have economic 
effects on MSB fisheries is prohibiting bottom trawling in Lydonia and 
Oceanographer Canyons by MSB-permitted vessels. The proposed action and 
non-selected alternatives prohibiting bottom trawling (either at the 
head of Hudson Canyon or in the tilefish habitat area of particular 
concern (HAPC)) would benefit habitat in the closed areas by decreasing 
localized damage from bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels as 
compared to the no action, non-selected alternative (no new areas 
closed to bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels). Decreased fishery 
interactions with the managed stocks, non-target species, and protected 
and endangered species are also expected to be associated with action 
alternatives, and this would correspond to localized benefits to these 
resources.
    Short-term costs to fishery participants are related to the size of 
the closure area. Analyses of ex-vessel revenues from MSB-permitted 
bottom trawl vessels were conducted for 2001-2004. The results 
indicated that closing tilefish HAPC (non-selected alternative) to 
bottom otter trawling during that period would have reduced annual 
revenue from bottom otter trawling by 10 percent or more for about 162 
MSB-permitted vessels. With regard to port impacts, ex-vessel revenues 
from MSB-permitted bottom trawling in the tilefish HAPC area 
represented large percentages of total revenues (30 - 50 percent) from 
Point Judith, RI; Point Pleasant, NJ; Montauk, NY; Point Lookout, NY; 
and Hampton Bays, NY. Closing the Head of Hudson Canyon (non-selected 
alternative) to bottom otter trawling in 2001-2004 would have reduced 
ex-vessel revenues by 10 percent or more for about 64 MSB-permitted 
bottom trawl vessels. Ports that would experience the greatest 
percentage of revenue loss consist of Belford, NJ (13.9 percent); 
Elizabeth, NJ (16.5 percent); Point Pleasant, NJ (33.6 percent); and 
Point Lookout, NY (46.6 percent). Geographical analysis of fishing 
effort reveals minimal use of bottom trawl gear in Lydonia and 
Oceanographer Canyons; therefore, the closure of Lydonia and 
Oceanographer Canyons (proposed action) would likely have minimal 
impacts on revenues both for vessel owners and ports.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: March 28, 2008.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

    1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    2. In Sec.  648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(i) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.4  Vessel permits.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  648.14, paragraph (p)(12) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (12) Enter or be in the areas described at Sec.  648.23(a)(5).
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  648.20, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.20  Maximum optimum yield.

* * * * *
    (b) Loligo - the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of 
FThreshold.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  648.21, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.21  Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.

* * * * *
    (a)* * *
    (1) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic 
annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Illex 
squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period 
of up to 3 years;
    (2) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, and bycatch level of the total 
allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), if any, for butterfish, 
which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 
3 years;
    (3) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, joint venture processing (JVP), if 
any, and TALFF, if any, for mackerel, which, subject to annual review, 
may be specified for a period of up to 3 years. The Monitoring 
Committee may also recommend that certain ratios of TALFF, if any, for 
mackerel to purchases of domestic harvested fish and/or domestic 
processed fish be established in relation to the initial annual 
amounts.
    (4) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic 
annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Loligo 
squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period 
of up to 3 years; and
* * * * *
    6. In Sec.  648.23, paragraph (a)(5) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  648.23  Gear restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Mackerel, squid, and butterfish bottom trawling restricted 
areas-(i) Oceanographer Canyon. No permitted mackerel, squid, or 
butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Oceanographer 
Canyon or be in the Oceanographer Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may 
transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. 
Oceanographer Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the 
following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this 
area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

                          Oceanographer Canyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Point                         N. Lat.        W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC1                                        40[deg]10.0'       68[deg]12.
                                                                     0'
OC2                                        40[deg]24.0'       68[deg]09.
                                                                     0'
OC3                                        40[deg]24.0'       68[deg]08.
                                                                     0'
OC4                                        40[deg]10.0'       67[deg]59.
                                                                     0'
OC1                                        40[deg]10.0'       68[deg]12.
                                                                     0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Lydonia Canyon. No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish 
vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Lydonia Canyon or be in 
the Lydonia Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area 
provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the 
provisions of paragraph (b) of this

[[Page 18489]]

section. Lydonia Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the 
following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this 
area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

                             Lydonia Canyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Point                         N. Lat.        W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC1                                        40[deg]16.0'       67[deg]34.
                                                                     0'
LC2                                        40[deg]16.0'       67[deg]42.
                                                                     0'
LC3                                        40[deg]20.0'       67[deg]43.
                                                                     0'
LC4                                        40[deg]27.0'       67[deg]40.
                                                                     0'
LC5                                        40[deg]27.0'       67[deg]38.
                                                                     0'
LC1                                        40[deg]16.0'       67[deg]34.
                                                                     0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-7025 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S