Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska, Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, 57585-57587 [E8-23456]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Peer Review
The Office of Management and Budget
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review on December
16, 2004. The Bulletin went into effect
June 16, 2005, and generally requires
that all ‘‘influential scientific
information’’ and ‘‘highly influential
scientific information’’ disseminated on
or after that date be peer reviewed.
Because the information used to
evaluate this petition may be considered
‘‘influential scientific information,’’ we
solicit the names of recognized experts
in the field that could serve as peer
reviewers of such information we may
disseminate as we evaluate this petition.
Independent peer reviewers will be
selected from the academic and
scientific community, applicable tribal
and other Native American groups,
Federal and state agencies, the private
sector, and public interest groups.
References Cited
Baker, J.D. 2006. The Hawaiian Monk
Seal: Abundance Estimation, Patterns in
Survival, and Habitat Issues.
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University
of Aberdeen, UK. 182 p.
Baker, J.D., and T.C. Johanos. 2004.
Abundance of the Hawaiian Monk Seal
in the Main Hawaiian Islands.
Biological Conservation 116: 103–110.
Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W.
Johnston. 2006. Potential Effects of Sea
Level Rise on the Terrestrial Habitats of
Endangered and Endemic Megafauna in
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Endangered Species Research 2:21–30.
Baker, J.D., J.J. Polovina, and E.A.
Howell. 2007. Effect of Variable Oceanic
Productivity on the Survival of an
Upper Trophic Predator, the Hawaiian
Monk Seal Monachus schauinslandi.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 346:
277–283.
Center for Biological Diversity, Kahea,
and Ocean Conservancy. 2008. Petition
to Revise Critical Habitat for the
Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus
schauinslandi) Under the Endangered
Species Act. 41 pp. https://
www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/
mammals/Hawaiianlmonklseal/pdfs/
Petition-Monk-Seal-CH–07–02–08.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service
(‘‘NMFS’’). 2007. Recovery Plan for the
Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus
schauinslandi). Second Revision.
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD. 165 pp.
Parrish, F.A. and C.L. Littnan. 2007.
Changing Perspectives in Hawaiian
Monk Seal Research Using AnimalBorne Imaging. Marine Technology
Society Journal 41:30–34.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Oct 02, 2008
Jkt 217001
Dated: September 29, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8–23467 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 080721859–81206–01]
RIN 0648–AX01
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska, Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulatory
amendment to exempt fishermen using
dinglebar fishing gear in federal waters
of the Gulf of Alaska from the
requirement to carry a vessel monitoring
system (VMS). This action is necessary
because the risk of damage posed to
protected corals in the Gulf of Alaska by
the dinglebar gear fishery is minor and
insufficient to justify the costs of VMS.
This action is intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the Magnuson–
Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska, and other applicable
law.
Comments must be received no
later than November 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit
comments, identified by RIN 0648–
AX01, by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
• Fax: 907–586–7557.
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK.
All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57585
posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
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 (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
portable document file (pdf) formats
only.
Copies of the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action
may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska
Region at the address above or from the
Alaska Region website at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Scheurer, 907–586–7356.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA) are managed under the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).
The North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) prepared the FMP
under the authority of the Magnuson–
Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson–Stevens
Act). Regulations implementing the
FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also
appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The FMP designates essential fish
habitat and habitat areas of particular
concern (HAPCs) in the Gulf of Alaska.
HAPCs are areas within essential fish
habitat that are of particular ecological
importance to the long–term
sustainability of managed species, are of
a rare type, or are especially susceptible
to degradation or development. The
Council may designate specific sites as
HAPCs and may develop management
measures to protect habitat features
within them. In order to protect HAPCs,
certain habitat protection areas and
habitat conservation zones have been
designated. A habitat protection area is
an area of special, rare habitat features
where fishing activities that may
adversely affect the habitat are
restricted.
Two HAPCs are designated in the
Fairweather Grounds and one HAPC is
designated near Cape Ommaney in the
Gulf of Alaska. Within these HAPCs,
five Coral Habitat Protection Areas were
identified where high concentrations of
sensitive corals occur. Fishing is
restricted only in the Coral Habitat
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
57586
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Protection Areas, not the entire HAPC.
The Coral Habitat Protection Areas
cover a total area of 13.5 square nautical
miles and were established to protect
sensitive and slow–growing corals
(Primnoa species) that provide a rare
and important habitat type for rockfish
and other species.
Management measures restrict fishing
activity within the five GOA Coral
Habitat Protection Areas. Anchoring and
the use of bottom contact gear by any
federally permitted fishing vessel in
these five areas are prohibited.
Anchoring and fishing with bottom
contact gear adversely affect coral
habitat by breaking and injuring the
coral and disturbing the substrates to
which corals attach. Colonies of
Primnoa species are easily damaged or
dislodged from the seafloor if contacted
by fishing gear and recovery after
disturbance is likely to take decades.
NOAA Fisheries Office for Law
Enforcement uses vessel monitoring
systems (VMS) to enforce the anchoring
and fishing with bottom contact gear
prohibitions in the Coral Habitat
Protection Areas.
Bottom contact fishing gear includes
nonpelagic trawl, dredge, dinglebar, pot,
and hook–and–line gear. Nonpelagic
trawl, dredge, and dinglebar gear are
considered mobile bottom contact
fishing gear. Dinglebar gear is similar to
salmon troll gear with the addition of a
heavy metal bar that keeps the hooks
close to the seafloor. Of the types of
mobile bottom contact fishing gear, only
dinglebar gear is used off the coast of
Southeast Alaska in the State of Alaska–
managed fishery for lingcod.
Although lingcod is not managed
under the FMP, if a vessel catches and
retains any groundfish managed under
the FMP in the exclusive economic zone
off Alaska (EEZ), it also is considered to
be fishing for groundfish, and therefore
must carry a Federal Fishing Permit.
Certain species of rockfish are required
to be retained (demersal shelf rockfish
and dark rockfish) under the FMP.
Rockfish are common bycatch in the
state–managed dinglebar fishery for
lingcod, and therefore these vessels are
subject to the requirements of the FMP
and must carry a Federal Fishing
Permit. All federally permitted vessels
with mobile bottom contact gear
onboard are subject to VMS
requirements (50 CFR 679.7(a)(22)).
Consequently, vessels fishing for
lingcod with dinglebar gear also must
carry a transmitting VMS onboard.
Vessel monitoring systems allow
NMFS to enforce regulations over a
large area. VMS requirements went into
effect June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36694), for
all vessels fishing in the GOA and using
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Oct 02, 2008
Jkt 217001
mobile bottom contact fishing gear.
Vessels participating in the dinglebar
fishery for lingcod in federal waters of
Southeast Alaska first used VMS units
in 2007.
Information about the GOA dinglebar
fishery for lingcod is available from two
sources: VMS data from 2007, and
logbook data submitted to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG).
Logbook data are self–reported by
fishermen and estimate the area, average
depth, and other characteristics of the
fishing operation. These reports are
subjective and are not routinely cross–
checked with VMS or other data.
Logbook data indicate that fishing
depths may have limited overlap with
the depths where sensitive corals occur.
In general, Primnoa species in the
HAPCs are found deeper than 70
fathoms. Most of the area within the
Coral Habitat Protection Areas is deeper
than 80 fathoms (86.1 to 100 percent
across the five areas). Ninety–six
percent of the logbook reports from
1998–2002 indicate fishing at average
depths of less than 80 fathoms, and 80
percent at depths less than 50 fathoms,
whereas only four percent reported
fishing at an average depth deeper than
80 fathoms. Between 2003 and 2007, all
fishing was reported at depths averaging
less than 80 fathoms, and only two
percent of the observations fished
between 70 and 80 fathoms. During this
same period, 93 percent of the logbook
reports indicated fishing at depths
shallower than 50 fathoms. These data
suggest that fishing in recent years has
occurred at shallower depths. On the
assumption that the reported depths are
averages, some fishing took place at
depths greater than these reported
values. Precise fishing depth data are
unavailable.
VMS units were required for the first
time in this fishery in 2007. Landings
records and VMS data indicate that only
eight vessels participated in the
dinglebar fishery for lingcod in federal
waters off Southeast Alaska in 2007 and
participation in the fishery has been
declining over the past 10 years. All
these vessels carried VMS units as a
requirement for participation in the
fishery. The VMS data show that in
2007 fishery participants did not fish in
the GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas
and very little fishing activity occurred
at all in the Cape Ommaney area. The
VMS requirement was likely a deterrent
to fishing in protected areas.
NMFS also correlated VMS data with
information about bottom substrates in
the HAPCs. This analysis revealed that
the dinglebar fishery for lingcod targets
a different substrate type (folded
sandstone) than the substrates that
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
typically support Primnoa species
corals (bedrock and boulders). Small
pinnacles in the areas of high coral
concentrations are also a likely deterrent
to fishing in those areas with dinglebar
gear.
In June 2008, the Council adopted its
preferred alternative to exempt
fishermen using dinglebar gear from the
VMS requirement. After reviewing the
analysis, the Council concluded that
any risk of illegal fishing and damage to
corals in the restricted areas of the Cape
Ommaney and Fairweather Grounds
HAPCs were insufficient to justify
monitoring by VMS, given the cost
imposed on lingcod fishermen, the
small scale of the fishery (in terms of
number of participants, duration, size of
vessels, and revenues generated), and
the limited spatial overlap of the fishery
with restricted areas of the HAPCs.
The total cost for acquisition and
installation of a VMS unit is estimated
at $2,068 per vessel. The Pacific States
Marine Fish Commission reimburses a
portion of the initial cost to the vessel
owner, but this still represents a cost to
society. Annual maintenance and
operation costs are estimated at $630. A
full discussion of the costs of VMS is
provided in the RIR for this proposed
action (see ADDRESSES). The Council
reiterated its previous decision that the
need for VMS monitoring should be
evaluated on a case–by–case basis for
individual fisheries. Consequently, the
VMS exemption proposed in this action
applies specifically to dinglebar gear
with respect to the five Coral Habitat
Protection Areas currently identified in
the GOA. Should the Council identify
new GOA HAPCs in the future, the need
for VMS monitoring for all gear types
will be examined with respect to those
areas. This proposed action would not
exempt vessels using dinglebar gear for
other fisheries from VMS requirements.
Likewise, the proposed action would
not exempt vessels fishing for lingcod
with other gear types from the VMS
requirement.
This action proposes to exempt
vessels that use dinglebar gear from the
VMS requirements at §§ 679.7(a)(22)
and 679.28(f)(6)(iii) by revising the text
in these paragraphs to specify that the
VMS requirement only applies to two
types of mobile bottom contact gear,
non–pelagic trawl gear and dredge gear,
not dinglebar gear. This change would
not remove dinglebar gear from the
definition of mobile bottom contact
gear.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and
305(d) of the Magnuson–Stevens Act,
the NMFS Assistant Administrator has
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
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.
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) was prepared, 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 this action are
contained at the beginning of this
section in the preamble and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble. A
copy of this analysis is available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of
the analysis follows.
The objective of this proposed action
is to prevent damage to corals from the
use of dinglebar gear while ensuring
that regulations are applied without
imposing undue costs on the fishermen
using dinglebar gear. Evidence suggests
that the dinglebar fishery for lingcod
does not overlap with areas where
sensitive coral species occur, so the
VMS requirements are an unnecessary
burden to a small fleet. This action
would directly regulate all vessels with
Federal Fishing Permits carrying
dinglebar gear in the EEZ. All such
vessels are considered ‘‘small entities’’
for purposes of the RFA. NMFS has
identified eight to twelve small entities
that would be affected by this proposed
rule. All of the directly regulated
individuals would be expected to
benefit from this action relative to the
status quo alternative because they
would not be required to purchase and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Oct 02, 2008
Jkt 217001
maintain VMS units in order to
participate in the lingcod fishery.
NMFS has not identified a significant
alternative to the proposed action that
would meet the objectives of the action
and would have a smaller adverse
impact on directly regulated small
entities. The objectives of the action
were to avoid damage to protected
habitat without imposing undue
burdens on fishermen using dinglebar
gear. The proposed rule completely
relieves the financial burden of the
VMS. No other significant alternative
would have a smaller impact on directly
regulated small entities. The Council
considered an alternative that would
have had the effect of lifting the
restriction on fishing by dinglebar
vessels within the protected habitat as
well as the VMS requirement. However,
the Council rejected this alternative
without further analysis because its
intent was not to lift restrictions on
fishing by a specific gear type that might
impact bottom habitat, but to lift an
enforcement measure if that measure
imposed costs disproportionate to its
efficacy.
There are no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements associated with this
proposed rule. No federal rules that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed action were identified in the
analysis.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: September 29, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 679 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57587
PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et
seq.; and 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447.
2. In § 679.7, paragraph (a)(22) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 679.7
Prohibitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(22) VMS for non–pelagic trawl and
dredge gear vessels in the GOA. Operate
a federally permitted vessel in the GOA
with non–pelagic trawl or dredge gear
onboard without an operable VMS and
without complying with the
requirements at § 679.28.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 679.28, paragraph (f)(6)(iii) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 679.28 Equipment and operational
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) You operate a vessel required to
be federally permitted with non–pelagic
trawl or dredge gear onboard in
reporting areas located in the GOA or
operate a federally permitted vessel
with non–pelagic trawl or dredge gear
onboard in adjacent State waters; or
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–23456 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57585-57587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23456]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 080721859-81206-01]
RIN 0648-AX01
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska, Groundfish
of the Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulatory amendment to exempt fishermen using
dinglebar fishing gear in federal waters of the Gulf of Alaska from the
requirement to carry a vessel monitoring system (VMS). This action is
necessary because the risk of damage posed to protected corals in the
Gulf of Alaska by the dinglebar gear fishery is minor and insufficient
to justify the costs of VMS. This action is intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf
of Alaska, and other applicable law.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than November 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-
AX01, by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Fax: 907-586-7557.
Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9\th\
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
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) 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 (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this
action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above
or from the Alaska Region website at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7356.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA) are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of
the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The FMP designates essential fish habitat and habitat areas of
particular concern (HAPCs) in the Gulf of Alaska. HAPCs are areas
within essential fish habitat that are of particular ecological
importance to the long-term sustainability of managed species, are of a
rare type, or are especially susceptible to degradation or development.
The Council may designate specific sites as HAPCs and may develop
management measures to protect habitat features within them. In order
to protect HAPCs, certain habitat protection areas and habitat
conservation zones have been designated. A habitat protection area is
an area of special, rare habitat features where fishing activities that
may adversely affect the habitat are restricted.
Two HAPCs are designated in the Fairweather Grounds and one HAPC is
designated near Cape Ommaney in the Gulf of Alaska. Within these HAPCs,
five Coral Habitat Protection Areas were identified where high
concentrations of sensitive corals occur. Fishing is restricted only in
the Coral Habitat
[[Page 57586]]
Protection Areas, not the entire HAPC. The Coral Habitat Protection
Areas cover a total area of 13.5 square nautical miles and were
established to protect sensitive and slow-growing corals (Primnoa
species) that provide a rare and important habitat type for rockfish
and other species.
Management measures restrict fishing activity within the five GOA
Coral Habitat Protection Areas. Anchoring and the use of bottom contact
gear by any federally permitted fishing vessel in these five areas are
prohibited. Anchoring and fishing with bottom contact gear adversely
affect coral habitat by breaking and injuring the coral and disturbing
the substrates to which corals attach. Colonies of Primnoa species are
easily damaged or dislodged from the seafloor if contacted by fishing
gear and recovery after disturbance is likely to take decades. NOAA
Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement uses vessel monitoring systems
(VMS) to enforce the anchoring and fishing with bottom contact gear
prohibitions in the Coral Habitat Protection Areas.
Bottom contact fishing gear includes nonpelagic trawl, dredge,
dinglebar, pot, and hook-and-line gear. Nonpelagic trawl, dredge, and
dinglebar gear are considered mobile bottom contact fishing gear.
Dinglebar gear is similar to salmon troll gear with the addition of a
heavy metal bar that keeps the hooks close to the seafloor. Of the
types of mobile bottom contact fishing gear, only dinglebar gear is
used off the coast of Southeast Alaska in the State of Alaska-managed
fishery for lingcod.
Although lingcod is not managed under the FMP, if a vessel catches
and retains any groundfish managed under the FMP in the exclusive
economic zone off Alaska (EEZ), it also is considered to be fishing for
groundfish, and therefore must carry a Federal Fishing Permit. Certain
species of rockfish are required to be retained (demersal shelf
rockfish and dark rockfish) under the FMP. Rockfish are common bycatch
in the state-managed dinglebar fishery for lingcod, and therefore these
vessels are subject to the requirements of the FMP and must carry a
Federal Fishing Permit. All federally permitted vessels with mobile
bottom contact gear onboard are subject to VMS requirements (50 CFR
679.7(a)(22)). Consequently, vessels fishing for lingcod with dinglebar
gear also must carry a transmitting VMS onboard.
Vessel monitoring systems allow NMFS to enforce regulations over a
large area. VMS requirements went into effect June 28, 2006 (71 FR
36694), for all vessels fishing in the GOA and using mobile bottom
contact fishing gear. Vessels participating in the dinglebar fishery
for lingcod in federal waters of Southeast Alaska first used VMS units
in 2007.
Information about the GOA dinglebar fishery for lingcod is
available from two sources: VMS data from 2007, and logbook data
submitted to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). Logbook
data are self-reported by fishermen and estimate the area, average
depth, and other characteristics of the fishing operation. These
reports are subjective and are not routinely cross-checked with VMS or
other data.
Logbook data indicate that fishing depths may have limited overlap
with the depths where sensitive corals occur. In general, Primnoa
species in the HAPCs are found deeper than 70 fathoms. Most of the area
within the Coral Habitat Protection Areas is deeper than 80 fathoms
(86.1 to 100 percent across the five areas). Ninety-six percent of the
logbook reports from 1998-2002 indicate fishing at average depths of
less than 80 fathoms, and 80 percent at depths less than 50 fathoms,
whereas only four percent reported fishing at an average depth deeper
than 80 fathoms. Between 2003 and 2007, all fishing was reported at
depths averaging less than 80 fathoms, and only two percent of the
observations fished between 70 and 80 fathoms. During this same period,
93 percent of the logbook reports indicated fishing at depths shallower
than 50 fathoms. These data suggest that fishing in recent years has
occurred at shallower depths. On the assumption that the reported
depths are averages, some fishing took place at depths greater than
these reported values. Precise fishing depth data are unavailable.
VMS units were required for the first time in this fishery in 2007.
Landings records and VMS data indicate that only eight vessels
participated in the dinglebar fishery for lingcod in federal waters off
Southeast Alaska in 2007 and participation in the fishery has been
declining over the past 10 years. All these vessels carried VMS units
as a requirement for participation in the fishery. The VMS data show
that in 2007 fishery participants did not fish in the GOA Coral Habitat
Protection Areas and very little fishing activity occurred at all in
the Cape Ommaney area. The VMS requirement was likely a deterrent to
fishing in protected areas.
NMFS also correlated VMS data with information about bottom
substrates in the HAPCs. This analysis revealed that the dinglebar
fishery for lingcod targets a different substrate type (folded
sandstone) than the substrates that typically support Primnoa species
corals (bedrock and boulders). Small pinnacles in the areas of high
coral concentrations are also a likely deterrent to fishing in those
areas with dinglebar gear.
In June 2008, the Council adopted its preferred alternative to
exempt fishermen using dinglebar gear from the VMS requirement. After
reviewing the analysis, the Council concluded that any risk of illegal
fishing and damage to corals in the restricted areas of the Cape
Ommaney and Fairweather Grounds HAPCs were insufficient to justify
monitoring by VMS, given the cost imposed on lingcod fishermen, the
small scale of the fishery (in terms of number of participants,
duration, size of vessels, and revenues generated), and the limited
spatial overlap of the fishery with restricted areas of the HAPCs.
The total cost for acquisition and installation of a VMS unit is
estimated at $2,068 per vessel. The Pacific States Marine Fish
Commission reimburses a portion of the initial cost to the vessel
owner, but this still represents a cost to society. Annual maintenance
and operation costs are estimated at $630. A full discussion of the
costs of VMS is provided in the RIR for this proposed action (see
ADDRESSES). The Council reiterated its previous decision that the need
for VMS monitoring should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for
individual fisheries. Consequently, the VMS exemption proposed in this
action applies specifically to dinglebar gear with respect to the five
Coral Habitat Protection Areas currently identified in the GOA. Should
the Council identify new GOA HAPCs in the future, the need for VMS
monitoring for all gear types will be examined with respect to those
areas. This proposed action would not exempt vessels using dinglebar
gear for other fisheries from VMS requirements. Likewise, the proposed
action would not exempt vessels fishing for lingcod with other gear
types from the VMS requirement.
This action proposes to exempt vessels that use dinglebar gear from
the VMS requirements at Sec. Sec. 679.7(a)(22) and 679.28(f)(6)(iii)
by revising the text in these paragraphs to specify that the VMS
requirement only applies to two types of mobile bottom contact gear,
non-pelagic trawl gear and dredge gear, not dinglebar gear. This change
would not remove dinglebar gear from the definition of mobile bottom
contact gear.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has
[[Page 57587]]
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.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, 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 this action are contained at
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY
section of the preamble. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS
(see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.
The objective of this proposed action is to prevent damage to
corals from the use of dinglebar gear while ensuring that regulations
are applied without imposing undue costs on the fishermen using
dinglebar gear. Evidence suggests that the dinglebar fishery for
lingcod does not overlap with areas where sensitive coral species
occur, so the VMS requirements are an unnecessary burden to a small
fleet. This action would directly regulate all vessels with Federal
Fishing Permits carrying dinglebar gear in the EEZ. All such vessels
are considered ``small entities'' for purposes of the RFA. NMFS has
identified eight to twelve small entities that would be affected by
this proposed rule. All of the directly regulated individuals would be
expected to benefit from this action relative to the status quo
alternative because they would not be required to purchase and maintain
VMS units in order to participate in the lingcod fishery.
NMFS has not identified a significant alternative to the proposed
action that would meet the objectives of the action and would have a
smaller adverse impact on directly regulated small entities. The
objectives of the action were to avoid damage to protected habitat
without imposing undue burdens on fishermen using dinglebar gear. The
proposed rule completely relieves the financial burden of the VMS. No
other significant alternative would have a smaller impact on directly
regulated small entities. The Council considered an alternative that
would have had the effect of lifting the restriction on fishing by
dinglebar vessels within the protected habitat as well as the VMS
requirement. However, the Council rejected this alternative without
further analysis because its intent was not to lift restrictions on
fishing by a specific gear type that might impact bottom habitat, but
to lift an enforcement measure if that measure imposed costs
disproportionate to its efficacy.
There are no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements associated with this proposed rule. No federal rules that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action were
identified in the analysis.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: September 29, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 679 as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; and 3631 et
seq.; Pub. L. 108-447.
2. In Sec. 679.7, paragraph (a)(22) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(22) VMS for non-pelagic trawl and dredge gear vessels in the GOA.
Operate a federally permitted vessel in the GOA with non-pelagic trawl
or dredge gear onboard without an operable VMS and without complying
with the requirements at Sec. 679.28.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 679.28, paragraph (f)(6)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 679.28 Equipment and operational requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) You operate a vessel required to be federally permitted with
non-pelagic trawl or dredge gear onboard in reporting areas located in
the GOA or operate a federally permitted vessel with non-pelagic trawl
or dredge gear onboard in adjacent State waters; or
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-23456 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S