Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Scoping Meetings, 37981-37986 [E9-18162]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
notice of public scoping meetings;
requests for comments.
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council)
announces its intention to prepare, in
cooperation with NFS, and EIS in
accordance with the national
Environmental Policy Act to assess
potential effects on the human
environment of alternative measures to
address several issues regarding the
Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management
Plan.
This notice announces a public
process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed, and for
identifying the significant issues related
to amendment the plan. This notice is
to alert the interested public of the
scooping process, the development of
the Draft EIS, and to provide for public
participation in that process.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on
September 4, 2009. Four public scoping
meetings will be held during this
comment period. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for dates, times, and
locations.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
sent by any of the following methods:
E-mail to the following address:
dogfish3@noaa.gov. Please note on your
correspondence and in the subject line
of e-mail comments the following
identifier: ‘‘Spiny Dogfish Amendment
3 Scoping Comments.’’;
Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T.
Furlong, Executive Director, MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council,
Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South
New Street, Dover, Delaware 19904–
6790. Mark the outside of the envelope
‘‘Spiny Dogfish Amendment 3 Scoping
Comments.’’;
Fax to: (302) 674–5399.
The scoping document may also be
obtained from the Council office at the
previously provided address, or by
request to the Council by telephone
(302) 674–2331, or via the Internet at
https://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/
comments/comments.htm.
Comments may also be provided
verbally at any of the three public
scoping meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for dates, times, and
locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, 300 S. New Street, Room 2115,
Dover, DE 19904; telephone: (302) 674–
2331, extension 19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Meetings
Four scoping meetings to facilitate
public comment will be held on the
following dates and locations:
1. August 10, 2009, 7 p.m., Virginia
Marine Fisheries Commission, 2600
Building Meeting Room, 2600
Washington Ave., Newport News, VA
23607;
2. August 11, 2009, 7 p.m., Ocean
County Administration Building, Public
Hearing Room ι119, 101 Hooper Ave,
Toms River, NJ 08754;
3. August 12, 2009, 6:30 p.m., New
Hampshire Urban Forestry Center, 45
Elwyn Rd, Portsmouth, NH 03801;
4. August 13, 2009, 7 p.m., Radisson
Plymouth, 180 Water Street, Plymouth,
MA 02360.
Issues Identified for Discussion under
this Amendment
(1) Research-Set-Aside (RSA) provision
Currently there is no option for
allocating a portion of the spiny dogfish
quota for research. The Council is
considering adding an RSA provision to
the FMP.
(2) Commercial Quota Allocation
Alternatives
Currently, the commercial quota for
spiny dogfish is allocated seasonally
into two periods in the fishing year.
Period 1 (May 1 - Oct 31) is allocated
57.9% of the quota and Period 2 (Nov
1 - Apr 30) is allocated 42.1% of the
quota. The Council is considering
alternative allocation (i.e., geographic)
schemes for the Federal quota.
(3) Specifying the spiny dogfish quota
and/or trip limits by sex
The Council is considering
modifications to the FMP that would
allow for sex-specific annual
specification of spiny dogfish quota
and/or trip limits.
(4) Limited Access Spiny Dogfish Permit
Federal spiny dogfish permits are
currently available to all vessels. The
Council is considering modifying the
Federal permit to make it a limited
access permit. It is possible that an
incidental catch permit would also be
established that would be open access.
(5) Recreational Spiny Dogfish Fishery
To the extent that recreationallycaught spiny dogfish are retained, that
component of the overall fishery is not
acknowledged in the FMP. The Council
is considering adding the recreational
fishery to the FMP.
The Council may deviate from these
examples and develop additional
approaches, consistent with their
description in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, NS1, and the NS 1 Guidelines. The
above issues under consideration are
described in greater detail in the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37981
scoping document itself; copies may be
obtained from the Council (see
ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at https://
www.mafmc.org.mid-atlantic/
comments/comments.htm.
Special Accommodations
These meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aid
should be directed to M. Jan Bryan,
(302) 674–2331, ext. 18, at least 5 days
prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 27, 2009.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–18189 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XQ53
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council; Scoping Meetings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Scoping Meetings.
SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery
Management Council will hold scoping
meetings to obtain input from fishers,
the general public, and the local
agencies representatives on the
Document for Amendment 2 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Queen
Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands and Amendment X
to the Reef Fish Fishery Management
Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands (Including the Final
Environmental Impact Statement,
Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis).
DATES AND ADDRESSES: The scoping
meetings will be held on the following
dates and locations:
For Puerto Rico,
August 18, 2009, Mayaguez Resort
and Casino, Rd. 104, Km. 0.3,
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
August 19, 2009, DoubleTree by
Hilton San Juan, De Diego Avenue, San
Juan, Puerto Rico
For the U.S. Virgin Islands,
August 18, 2009, Holiday Inn
(Windward Passage Hotel) Charlotte
Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
37982
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
August 19, 2009, The Buccaneer
Hotel, Estate Shoys, Christiansted, St.
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
All meetings will be held from 7:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caribbean Fishery Management Council,
˜
268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108,
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1920,
telephone (787) 766–5926.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Caribbean Fishery Management Council
will holdScoping meetings to receive
public input on the following
management alternatives:
4.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Management Alternatives Section
contains actions for setting ACLs for 4
species and species groups. One species
not discussed in the actions is Nassau
grouper, which is undergoing
overfishing and therefore, would require
an ACL by 2010. No action is discussed
for Nassau grouper because current
regulations exist which prohibit the take
of Nassau grouper in the U.S. Caribbean
(both from the EEZ and state waters).
Because of this prohibition on take, no
further action is required to end or
prevent overfishing. Similar to Nassau
grouper, queen conch management
alternatives are only discussed for the
fishery in St. Croix. This is a result of
current regulations in the U.S Caribbean
which prohibit the take of queen conch
in the EEZ off Puerto Rico and St
Thomas/St John.
Other actions in the Management
Alternatives Section include methods
for modifying the reef fish FMU, setting
recreational ACLs, methods for
accounting for uncertainty, alternative
methods for setting ACLs based on
proxies for reducing fishing mortality,
accountability measures, monitoring
and enforcement, permits, and
allowable fishing gear.
4.1 Action 1: Amending the Stock
Complexes in the Reef Fish Fishery
Management Unit
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not
change the stock complexes in the Reef
Fish FMU
Alternative 2. Modify the FMU by:
Sub alternative A. Separating the
Parrotfish Unit into 2 complexes.
Parrotfish Unit 1 would include
princess, queen, redfin, redtail,
stoplight, redband, and striped
parrotfishes and Parrotfish Unit 2 would
include blue, midnight, and rainbow
parrotfishes.
Sub alternative B. Separate Grouper
Unit 4 into Grouper Unit 4 (yellowfin,
red, tiger, and black grouper) and
Grouper Unit 5 (yellowedge and misty
grouper). Add black grouper to Grouper
Unit 4.
Sub alternative C. Add cardinal
snapper (Pristipomoides
macrophthalmus) to Snapper Unit 2 and
move wenchman (Pristopomoides
aquilonaris) into Snapper Unit 1.
Alternative 3. Examine reef fish FMU
and reassign species not targeted,
retained, sold, or used for personal
consumption as ecosystem component
species.
Complex
Current
Proposed
Snapper Unit 1
Silk (chillo)
Black (pargo prieto)
Blackfin (alinegra)
Vermilion (besugo)
Silk (chillo)
Black (pargo prieto)
Blackfin (alinegra)
Vermilion (besugo)
Wenchman (Pristopomoides aquilonaris)
(limosnera)
Snapper Unit 2
Queen (cartucho)
Wenchman (Pristopomoides
aquilonaris) (limosnera)
Snapper Unit 3
Queen (cartucho)
Cardinal (Pristopomoides macrophthalmus) (muniama de
afuera)
Gray (pargo gris)
Lane (arrayao)
Mutton (sama)
Dog (pargo colorao)
Schoolmaster (pargo amarillo)
Mahogany (rayao de yerba)
Yellowtail Snapper (colirubia)
Red hind
Coney
Rock hind
Graysby
Creole-fish
Yellowfin
Red
Tiger
Black
Snapper Unit 4
Grouper Unit 3
Grouper Unit 4
Yellowfin
Red
Tiger
Yellowedge
Misty
Grouper Unit 5
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Parrotfish
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
Gray (pargo gris)
Lane (arrayao)
Mutton (sama)
Dog (pargo colorao)
Schoolmaster (pargo amarillo)
Mahogany (rayao de yerba)
Yellowtail Snapper (colirubia)
Red hind
Coney
Rock hind
Graysby
Yellowedge
Misty
Princess
Queen
Redfin
Redtail
Stoplight
Redband
Striped
Blue
Midnight
Princess
Queen
Rainbow
Redfin
Redtail
Stoplight
Redband
Striped
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
Complex
Current
Proposed
Parrotfish Unit 2
Blue
Midnight
Rainbow
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Discussion
The original stock complexes were
developed in the SFA and are in need
of change due to fishermen’s input,
reexamination of the biological
characteristics of species within the
complexes, exploitation levels, and
omissions from the SFA. See Appendix
3 for the Reef Fish FMU.
If the Council chooses to separate
Grouper Unit 4 into Grouper Unit 4 and
Grouper Unit 5, a memo on the status
of Grouper Unit 5 will be required
indicating an unknown status so an ACL
would not be required until 2011.
4.2 Action 2: Annual Catch Limits for
queen conch (Strombus gigas) off St.
Croix
Alternative 1. Do not set an ACL for
queen conch off St. Croix
Alternative 2. Set the ACL for queen
conch off St. Croix equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters.
Sub alternative B. Establish ACL of
90,000 pounds, based on the average
landings from 1994–2006. The ACL
would include both state and federal
water landings.
Sub alternative C. Establish ACL of
50,000 pounds which is the current
allowable catch level established by the
U.S.V.I. government for St. Croix. The
ACL would include both state and
federal water landings. Under this
alternative, the season for queen conch
would run from November 1 - June 30,
or until such time the ACL is met;
additionally, there would be a 200
conch per boat limit.
Sub alternative D. Establish an ACL of
Zero in the EEZ. The ACL for state
waters would be set at 50,000 pounds
which is the current allowable catch
level established by the U.S.V.I.
government for St. Croix.
Discussion
4.3 Action 3: Annual Catch Limits for
Parrotfish Unit 1 and Parrotfish Unit 2
Alternative 1. No Action.
Sub Alternative A. Do not set an ACL
for Parrotfish Unit 1 or Parrotfish Unit
2.
Sub Alternative B. Do not establish an
ACL for Parrotfish Unit 2, but include
Parrotfish Unit 2 in the ACL for
Parrotfish Unit 1.
Alternative 2. For Parrotfish Unit 2:
Sub alternative A. Set the ACL equal
to zero in the EEZ and do not establish
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
37983
Jkt 217001
an ACL for state waters but rely on the
data collection program (as described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish
5 years after implementation of data
collection program.
Sub alternative B. Set the ACL equal
to zero in the EEZ and recommend to
Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I. that the
ACL be set equal to zero in state waters.
Alternative 3. Set the ACL for
Parrotfish Unit 1 off Puerto Rico equal
to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters, but rely on the data collection
program (as described in Action 10) and
revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection
program.
Sub alternative B. Establish an ACL of
80,000 pounds based on the average
landings during 1999–2006. (ACLG
February 2009 recommendation)
Sub alternative C. Establish an ACL
based on the average landings from
1994–2006, multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative D. Create equal ACLs
for the commercial and recreational
sectors based on commercial landings
data.
Alternative 4. Set the ACL for
Parrotfish Unit 1 off St. Thomas/St. John
equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and
revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection
program.
Sub alternative B. 50,000 pounds
based on the average landings during
1999–2006 (ACLG February 2009
recommendation)
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994–2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7
for uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 5. Set the ACL for
Parrotfish Unit1 off St. Croix equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL in state
waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and
revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection
program.
Sub alternative B. 250,000 pounds,
based on the average landings during
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1999–2006 = (ACLG February 2009
recommendation)
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994–2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7
for uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative D. 82,000 pounds
based on the average landings during
1976–1990 = (discussed at the ACLG
and SSC February 2009 meeting).
Sub alternative E. 82,000 pounds
based on the average landings during
1983–1990 (SEFSC recommended time
frame for pre-gillnet fishery).
Sub alternative F: Set ACL for
Parrotfish Unit 1 off St. Croix equal to
250,000 pounds for the EEZ and do not
establish a state water ACL, but rely on
the data collection program (as
described in Action 10) and revisit ACL
for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection
program.
Alternative 6. Set the ACL for
Parrotfish Unit 1 in the U.S. Caribbean
equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and
revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection
program.
Sub alternative B. 380,000 pounds
based on the average landings during
1999–2006.
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994–2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7
for uncertainty scalar).
Discussion
Parrotfish landings for Puerto Rico
may be underestimated if they are
reported as first class, second class, or
third class species. Daniel Matos may be
able to provide input about how
frequently parrotfish are reported in one
of those categories.
4.4 Action 4: Annual Catch Limits for
Grouper Unit 4
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set
an ACL for Grouper Unit 4
Alternative 2. Set the ACL for Grouper
Unit 4 off Puerto Rico equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero in the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters , but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and
revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4 five years
after implementation of the data
collection program.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
37984
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
Sub alternative B. 10,000 pounds,
based on the average corrected landings
for identified Grouper Unit 4 species
during 1994–2006. The ACL would
include both state and federal water
landings.
Sub alternative C. 15,000 pounds,
based on the average corrected landings
for identified Grouper Unit 4 species
during 1994–2006 plus the average
proportional corrected landings estimate
for Grouper Unit 4 species landed in the
generic ‘‘Sea Basses’’ category during
1994–2006.
Sub alternative D. A sufficient level of
catch for collecting data on the fishery.
This catch level would be established by
SEFSC, in cooperation with Puerto Rico,
for purposes of scientific data
collection.
Alternative 3. Set the ACL for Grouper
off St. Thomas/St. John at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off
St Thomas/St John and do not establish
an ACL for state waters, but rely on the
data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for Grouper
Unit 4 five years after implementation of
the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species = 61,000 pounds as part
of a Grouper ACL
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative 4. Set the ACL for Grouper
off St. Croix at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off
St. Croix and do not establish an ACL
for state waters, but rely on the data
collection program (described in Action
10) and revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4
five years after implementation of data
collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species = 32,000 pounds as part
of a Grouper ACL
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 5. Set the ACL for Grouper
in the U.S. Caribbean equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and
revisit the ACL for grouper five years
after implementation of the data
collection program.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Sub alternative B. 203,000 pounds,
based on the average landings during
1999–2006.
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994–2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7
for uncertainty scalar).
Discussion
Note Alternative 2 sub alternative C
does not include proportional
readjustments in ‘‘First class’’, ‘‘Second
class’’, and ‘‘Third class’’ landings
estimates. Alternatives 3–5 examine an
ACL for all grouper species due to the
lack of species specific information in
the USVI. Alternative 5 uses the
‘‘grouper’’ category landings in the USVI
and a summation of identified and
redistributed grouper species in Puerto
Rico that are in the reef fish FMU.
4.5 Action 5: Annual Catch Limits for
Snapper Unit 1
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set
an ACL for Snapper Unit 1
Alternative 2. Set the ACL for
Snapper Unit 1 off Puerto Rico equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ
and do not establish an ACL for state
waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and
revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1 five
years after implementation of the data
collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average
corrected landings for identified
Snapper Unit 1 species during 1999–
2006 = 300,000 pounds multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative C. The average
corrected landings for identified silk
snapper during 1999–2006 = 200,000
pounds for silk snapper multiplied by
an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar). Silk snapper would
be the indicator species for Snapper
Unit 1.
Sub alternative D. Level in pounds to
be determined (SEFSC), based on the
average landings for 1994–2006 for the
current Snapper Unit 1 multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative E. 316,000 pounds,
based on the average landings from
1999–2006 identified for Snapper Unit 1
species, plus the average proportional
corrected landings estimate for Snapper
Unit 1 species landed in the generic
‘‘‘‘Snapper’’ category during 1999–2006,
multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see
Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative G. 374,000 pounds,
based on the average 1994–2006
landings for identified Snapper Unit 1
species, plus the average proportional
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
corrected landings estimate for Snapper
Unit 1 species landed in the generic
‘‘Snapper’’ category during 1994–2006,
multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see
Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative H. 500,000 pounds
ACL in the EEZ and do not establish an
ACL for state waters, but rely on the
data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper
Unit 1 five years after implementation of
the data collection program.
Sub alternative J. 374,000 pounds
each for both the commercial and
recreational sectors.
Alternative 3. Set the ACL for
Snapper off St. Thomas/St. John at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off
St. Thomas/St. John and do not
establish an ACL for state waters, but
rely on the data collection program
(described in Action 10) and revisit ACL
for Snapper Unit 1 five years after
implementation of the data collection
program.
Sub alternative B. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species =160,000 pounds as
part of a Snapper ACL.
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 4. Set the ACL for
Snapper off St. Croix at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off
St. Croix and do not establish an ACL
for state waters, but rely on the data
collection program (described in Action
10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1
five years after implementation of data
collection program.
Sub alternative B. 112,000 pounds
based on average landings during 1994
- 2006 for all Snapper species.
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 5. Set the ACL for
Snapper in the U.S. Caribbean equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off
the U.S. Caribbean and do not establish
an ACL for state waters, but rely on the
data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper
Unit 1 five years after implementation of
the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 1,529,000 pounds,
based on the average landings during
1994 - 2006 for all Snapper species.
Sub alternative C. The average
landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species multiplied by an
uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
Discussion
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Note Alternative 2 sub alternative C
does not include proportional
readjustments in ‘‘First class’’, ‘‘Second
class’’, and ‘‘Third class’’ landings
estimates. Alternatives 3–5 examine an
ACL for all snapper species due to the
lack of species specific information in
the USVI. Alternative 5 uses the
‘‘snapper’’ category landings in the
USVI and a summation of identified and
redistributed snapper species in Puerto
Rico that are in the reef fish FMU.
Alternative 2 for Puerto Rico: Need to
eliminate wenchman (P.
macrophthalmus) from the alternatives
in which it is included for SU1 —
therefore need to correct the poundage
also. This affects sub-alternatives D, E,
F, and G of Alternative 2 from Action
5.
4.6 Action 6: Annual Catch Limits for
the Recreational Sector
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set
ACLs for the recreational sector.
Alternative 2. Use Puerto Rico
recreational average landings data from
MRFSS during 2000–2007 to set
recreational ACLs in the EEZ and state
waters of Puerto Rico for Snapper Unit
1, Grouper Unit 4, and Parrotfishes. Use
the proportion of Puerto Rican
recreational landings relative to the total
of recreational and commercial Puerto
Rican landings to set an ACL proxy in
the EEZ and state waters for the USVI
Recreational Fishery. For the USVI,
proportions would be assigned to fish
family (e.g., groupers, snappers,
parrotfishes), until sufficient landings
data are available to specify ACLs by
unit. ACLs would equal zero for queen
conch in the EEZ off St. Thomas/St.
John and Puerto Rico; the recreational
ACL for queen conch in the EEZ off St.
Croix will be determined by the
Council’s recommendation on Action 2.
All island based recreational ACLs for
Nassau grouper would equal zero.
Alternative 3. Use Puerto Rico
recreational average landings data from
MRFSS during 2000–2007 to set
recreational ACLs in the EEZ and state
waters for Snapper Unit 1, Grouper Unit
4, and Parrotfishes. Use the proportion
of Puerto Rican recreational landings
relative to the total of recreational and
commercial Puerto Rican landings to set
an ACL proxy in the EEZ.
Alternative 4. Do not establish a
recreational ACL in the USVI EEZ and
state waters, but use the Commercial
ACL for each unit or family as a proxy
for the ACL for all sectors in the fishery.
Alternative 5. Set the recreational
ACL in the USVI equal to 10% of each
islands commercial ACL.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Alternative 6. Establish a separate
charter boat sector ACL based on
MRFSS data for Puerto Rico.
Alternative 7. Establish recreational
ACL equal to half of the commercial
ACL in Puerto Rico
Sub alternative A. Allow recreational
fishers to harvest all species managed by
the Council in the EEZ and state waters.
Sub alternative B. Allow recreational
fishers to harvest only fish species
managed by the Council that are not
listed as overfished or under going
overfishing in the EEZ and state waters.
Discussion
Need to calculate proportions for
setting ACLs on a unit by unit basis.
4.7 Action 7: Accounting for
Uncertainty
Alternative 1. No Action. Set the ACL
at the level specified in the previous
actions.
Alternative 2. In setting ACLs based
on average catch, use:
Sub alternative A. 75% of the
specified level in the previous actions to
adjust for uncertainty
Sub alternative B. 50% of the
specified level in the previous actions to
adjust for uncertainty
Sub alternative C. 25% of the
specified level in the previous actions to
adjust for uncertainty.
Discussion
A major aspect of the revised NS1
guidelines is the concept of
incorporating management and
scientific uncertainty in using ACLs and
AMs. Management uncertainty occurs
because of the lack of sufficient
information about catch (e.g., late
reporting, underreporting, and
misreporting of landings or bycatch).
Management uncertainty also exists
because of the lack of management
precision in many fisheries due to lack
of inseason fisheries landings data, lack
of inseason closure authority, or the lack
of sufficient inseason management in
some FMPs when inseason fisheries
data are available. Scientific uncertainty
includes uncertainty around the
estimate of a stock’s biomass and its
Maximum fishing mortality threshold
(MFMT); therefore, any estimate of OFL
has uncertainty (74 FR 3181). For these
reasons, the Council may choose to take
a more precautionary approach to
prevent overfishing by reducing the
ACL to account for such uncertainty.
4.8 Action 8: Alternative Methods for
Reducing Fishing Mortality and
Establishing ACL Proxies
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not
implement alternative methods for
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37985
reducing fishing mortality by
establishing proxies for ACLs.
Alternative 2. Work with fishermen to
develop measures to reduce fishing
effort (i.e., permits, data collection).
Alternative 3. Establish ACL by sector
for St. Thomas/St. John
Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by
net sector
Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by
trap/pot sector
Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by
hook-and-line sector
Alternative 4. Establish ACL by sector
for St. Croix
Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by
net sector
Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by
trap/pot sector
Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by
hook-and-line sector
Alternative 5. Establish ACL by sector
for Puerto Rico
Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by
net sector
Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by
trap/pot sector
Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by
hook-and-line sector
Discussion
There are limited circumstances that
may not fit the standard approaches to
specification of referenced points and
management measures set forth in these
guidelines.‘‘These include, among other
things, conservation and management of
ESA listed species, harvests from
aquaculture operations, and stocks with
unusual life history characteristics.’’ In
these circumstances, Councils may
propose alternative approaches for
satisfying the NS1 requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (prevent
overfishing) than those set forth in these
guidelines.’’ Councils must document
their rationale for any alternative
approaches to these limited
circumstances in an FMP or an FMP
amendment, which will be reviewed for
consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (50 CFR 600.310 (h)(3)).
4.9 Action 9: Permits
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not
establish a permit system for fishing in
the EEZ
Alternative 2. Require a federal permit
for fishing in the EEZ.
Sub Alternative A. Require a federal
permit for recreational fishing in the
EEZ.
Sub Alternative B. Require a federal
permit for commercial fishing in the
EEZ.
Sub Alternative C. Require the use of
trap tags for all (lobster and fish) trap
fisheries in the EEZ.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
37986
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
Sub Alternative D. Require a federal
permit for charter boats fishing in the
EEZ.
Alternative 3. Require a federal permit
to sell Council managed species.
Alternative 4. Require a federal permit
to purchase Council managed species.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Discussion
The Council moved to establish an Ad
Hoc Advisory Panel to consist of
fishermen and local and federal
managers and scientists to develop a
permitting and potentially a limited
access system; these recommendations
will be incorporated into this Action.
4.10 Action 10: Monitoring and
Enforcement of Annual Catch Limits
Alternative 1. No Action. Set the ACL
at the level specified in the previous
actions.
Alternative 2. Require any person
landing Council managed species to
submit an appropriate data collection
form, as developed by the SEFSC or the
Council’s SSC, after every trip with
enough detail such that CPUE per
species can be calculated for each gear.
Alternative 3. Require any federal
permit holder to submit an appropriate
data collection form, as developed by
the SEFSC or the Council’s SSC, after
every trip with enough detail such that
CPUE per species can be calculated for
each gear.
Alternative 4. Develop an updated
catch report form in coordination with
the SEFSC, local and territorial
governments, fishermen, and the
Council’s SSC with enough detail such
that CPUE per species can be calculated
for each gear.
Discussion
In their FMPs, or associated public
documents such as SAFE reports as
appropriate, Councils must describe
general data collection methods, as well
as any specific data collection methods
used for all stocks in the fishery, and
ecosystem component (EC) species,
including: (1) Sources of fishing
mortality (both landed and discarded),
including commercial and recreational
catch and bycatch in other fisheries; (2)
Description of the data collection and
estimation methods used to quantify
total catch mortality in each fishery,
including information on the
management tools used (i.e., logbooks,
vessel monitoring systems, observer
programs, landings reports, fish tickets,
processor reports, dealer reports,
recreational angler surveys, or other
methods); the frequency with which
data are collected and updated; and the
scope of sampling coverage for each
fishery; and (3) Description of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
methods used to compile catch data
from various catch data collection
methods and how those data are used to
determine the relationship between total
catch at a given point in time and the
ACL for stocks and stock complexes that
are part of a fishery (50 CFR 600.310 (i)).
The SSC and ACLG continuously
recommended implementing better data
collection methodologies throughout
their respective discussions. Currently,
information of this type is limited or
non-existent; therefore, better data
collection methods are necessary.
4.11 Action 11: Accountability
Measures
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not
establish Accountability Measures.
Alternative 2. Implement
accountability measures for exceeding
an ACL based on:
Sub alternative A. A single year of
landings/catch.
Sub alternative B. A 2-year average of
landings/catch.
Sub alternative C. A 3-year average of
landings/catch.
Alternative 3. Reduce the fishing
season in the following year by a length
determined to be appropriate to account
for exceeding the ACL.
Alternative 4. For queen conch
exceedences in St Croix, close the EEZ
to queen conch harvest.
Alternative 5. Reduce the ACL in the
subsequent fishing year by an amount
equal to an overage in the previous year.
Discussion
The Council may choose to use
different sub alternatives from
alternative 2 for different species or
species groups depending on the
reliability and timeliness for the
different fisheries. If this is the case,
additional alternatives would be
developed so the Council can indicate
that desire. There may be some
difficulty in implementing Alternative 6
in the year directly following the
overage due to the timeliness of the
availability of the data; therefore, the
reduction may take place up to two
years after the overage of the ACL.
4.12 Action 12: Allowable Gear for
Reef Fish
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not alter
allowable gear in the U.S. Caribbean
Alternative 2. Review the list of
allowable gear under 50 CFR 600.725
including the definition (powerheads
use explosives so look at definition in
Section 600). This is a simple process of
rule making. A letter had been sent to
the RA requesting that spear be allowed
for the commercial fisheries. Trawls
should not be allowed in the US
Caribbean. Need to revise all the
allowable gears.
4.13 Action 13: Establish Framework
Measures for ACLs and AMs in the Reef
Fish FMP.
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not
establish a framework for ACLs and
AMs
Alternative 2. Establish a framework
procedure for setting and adjusting
ACLs and AMs
Discussion
Action 13 will require modification of
the existing framework procedure so
that ACLs and AMs may be quickly
altered as necessary through a
regulatory action.
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS
These meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
For more information or request for sign
language interpretation and other
auxiliary aids, please contact Mr.
Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director,
Caribbean Fishery Management Council,
˜
268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918–1920,
telephone (787) 766–5926, at least five
days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: July 27, 2009.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–18162 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
External Advisory Panel for NOAA’s
Oceans and Human Health Initiative
Discussion
AGENCY: National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of
Members for an External Advisory Panel
for the NOAA Oceans and Human
Health Initiative.
The Council voted to request the
Secretary of Commerce to list spear as
an allowable gear in the reef fish fishery.
A request to remove powerheads as an
allowable gear was made by the CFMC
(need to send a letter) with the rationale
SUMMARY: This notice responds to the
Oceans and Human Health Act of 2005,
Public Law 108–447, which authorizes
the Secretary of Commerce to establish
an Oceans and Human Health Advisory
Panel (the Panel). This Panel assists in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37981-37986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18162]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XQ53
Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Scoping Meetings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Scoping Meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will hold scoping
meetings to obtain input from fishers, the general public, and the
local agencies representatives on the Document for Amendment 2 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Amendment X to the Reef Fish Fishery
Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Including
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis).
DATES AND ADDRESSES: The scoping meetings will be held on the following
dates and locations:
For Puerto Rico,
August 18, 2009, Mayaguez Resort and Casino, Rd. 104, Km. 0.3,
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
August 19, 2009, DoubleTree by Hilton San Juan, De Diego Avenue,
San Juan, Puerto Rico
For the U.S. Virgin Islands,
August 18, 2009, Holiday Inn (Windward Passage Hotel) Charlotte
Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
[[Page 37982]]
August 19, 2009, The Buccaneer Hotel, Estate Shoys, Christiansted,
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
All meetings will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council,
268 Mu[ntilde]oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico
00918-1920, telephone (787) 766-5926.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council
will holdScoping meetings to receive public input on the following
management alternatives:
4.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Management Alternatives Section contains actions for setting
ACLs for 4 species and species groups. One species not discussed in the
actions is Nassau grouper, which is undergoing overfishing and
therefore, would require an ACL by 2010. No action is discussed for
Nassau grouper because current regulations exist which prohibit the
take of Nassau grouper in the U.S. Caribbean (both from the EEZ and
state waters). Because of this prohibition on take, no further action
is required to end or prevent overfishing. Similar to Nassau grouper,
queen conch management alternatives are only discussed for the fishery
in St. Croix. This is a result of current regulations in the U.S
Caribbean which prohibit the take of queen conch in the EEZ off Puerto
Rico and St Thomas/St John.
Other actions in the Management Alternatives Section include
methods for modifying the reef fish FMU, setting recreational ACLs,
methods for accounting for uncertainty, alternative methods for setting
ACLs based on proxies for reducing fishing mortality, accountability
measures, monitoring and enforcement, permits, and allowable fishing
gear.
4.1 Action 1: Amending the Stock Complexes in the Reef Fish Fishery
Management Unit
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not change the stock complexes in the
Reef Fish FMU
Alternative 2. Modify the FMU by:
Sub alternative A. Separating the Parrotfish Unit into 2 complexes.
Parrotfish Unit 1 would include princess, queen, redfin, redtail,
stoplight, redband, and striped parrotfishes and Parrotfish Unit 2
would include blue, midnight, and rainbow parrotfishes.
Sub alternative B. Separate Grouper Unit 4 into Grouper Unit 4
(yellowfin, red, tiger, and black grouper) and Grouper Unit 5
(yellowedge and misty grouper). Add black grouper to Grouper Unit 4.
Sub alternative C. Add cardinal snapper (Pristipomoides
macrophthalmus) to Snapper Unit 2 and move wenchman (Pristopomoides
aquilonaris) into Snapper Unit 1.
Alternative 3. Examine reef fish FMU and reassign species not
targeted, retained, sold, or used for personal consumption as ecosystem
component species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complex Current Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snapper Unit 1 Silk (chillo) Silk (chillo)
Black (pargo prieto) Black (pargo prieto)
Blackfin (alinegra) Blackfin (alinegra)
Vermilion (besugo) Vermilion (besugo)
Wenchman (Pristopomoides
aquilonaris) (limosnera)
Snapper Unit 2 Queen (cartucho)
Queen Cardinal (Pristopomoides
(cartucho) macrophthalmus) (muniama de
Wenchman afuera)
(Pristopomoide
s aquilonaris)
(limosnera)
Snapper Unit 3 Gray (pargo gris) Gray (pargo gris)
Lane (arrayao) Lane (arrayao)
Mutton (sama) Mutton (sama)
Dog (pargo colorao) Dog (pargo colorao)
Schoolmaster (pargo Schoolmaster (pargo
amarillo) amarillo)
Mahogany (rayao de yerba) Mahogany (rayao de
yerba)
Snapper Unit 4 Yellowtail Snapper Yellowtail Snapper
(colirubia) (colirubia)
Grouper Unit 3 Red hind Red hind
Coney Coney
Rock hind Rock hind
Graysby Graysby
Creole-fish
Grouper Unit 4 Yellowfin
Yellowfin Red
Red Tiger
Tiger Black
Yellowedge
Misty
Grouper Unit 5 ............................. Yellowedge
Misty
Parrotfish Blue Princess
Midnight Queen
Princess Redfin
Queen Redtail
Rainbow Stoplight
Redfin Redband
Redtail Striped
Stoplight
Redband
Striped
[[Page 37983]]
Parrotfish Unit ............................. Blue
2 Midnight
Rainbow
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The original stock complexes were developed in the SFA and are in
need of change due to fishermen's input, reexamination of the
biological characteristics of species within the complexes,
exploitation levels, and omissions from the SFA. See Appendix 3 for the
Reef Fish FMU.
If the Council chooses to separate Grouper Unit 4 into Grouper Unit
4 and Grouper Unit 5, a memo on the status of Grouper Unit 5 will be
required indicating an unknown status so an ACL would not be required
until 2011.
4.2 Action 2: Annual Catch Limits for queen conch (Strombus gigas)
off St. Croix
Alternative 1. Do not set an ACL for queen conch off St. Croix
Alternative 2. Set the ACL for queen conch off St. Croix equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters.
Sub alternative B. Establish ACL of 90,000 pounds, based on the
average landings from 1994-2006. The ACL would include both state and
federal water landings.
Sub alternative C. Establish ACL of 50,000 pounds which is the
current allowable catch level established by the U.S.V.I. government
for St. Croix. The ACL would include both state and federal water
landings. Under this alternative, the season for queen conch would run
from November 1 - June 30, or until such time the ACL is met;
additionally, there would be a 200 conch per boat limit.
Sub alternative D. Establish an ACL of Zero in the EEZ. The ACL for
state waters would be set at 50,000 pounds which is the current
allowable catch level established by the U.S.V.I. government for St.
Croix.
Discussion
4.3 Action 3: Annual Catch Limits for Parrotfish Unit 1 and
Parrotfish Unit 2
Alternative 1. No Action.
Sub Alternative A. Do not set an ACL for Parrotfish Unit 1 or
Parrotfish Unit 2.
Sub Alternative B. Do not establish an ACL for Parrotfish Unit 2,
but include Parrotfish Unit 2 in the ACL for Parrotfish Unit 1.
Alternative 2. For Parrotfish Unit 2:
Sub alternative A. Set the ACL equal to zero in the EEZ and do not
establish an ACL for state waters but rely on the data collection
program (as described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish 5
years after implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. Set the ACL equal to zero in the EEZ and
recommend to Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I. that the ACL be set equal to
zero in state waters.
Alternative 3. Set the ACL for Parrotfish Unit 1 off Puerto Rico
equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters, but rely on the data collection program (as described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. Establish an ACL of 80,000 pounds based on the
average landings during 1999-2006. (ACLG February 2009 recommendation)
Sub alternative C. Establish an ACL based on the average landings
from 1994-2006, multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative D. Create equal ACLs for the commercial and
recreational sectors based on commercial landings data.
Alternative 4. Set the ACL for Parrotfish Unit 1 off St. Thomas/St.
John equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters, but rely on the data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 50,000 pounds based on the average landings
during 1999-2006 (ACLG February 2009 recommendation)
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994-2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 5. Set the ACL for Parrotfish Unit1 off St. Croix equal
to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL in
state waters, but rely on the data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 250,000 pounds, based on the average landings
during 1999-2006 = (ACLG February 2009 recommendation)
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994-2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative D. 82,000 pounds based on the average landings
during 1976-1990 = (discussed at the ACLG and SSC February 2009
meeting).
Sub alternative E. 82,000 pounds based on the average landings
during 1983-1990 (SEFSC recommended time frame for pre-gillnet
fishery).
Sub alternative F: Set ACL for Parrotfish Unit 1 off St. Croix
equal to 250,000 pounds for the EEZ and do not establish a state water
ACL, but rely on the data collection program (as described in Action
10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after implementation of
data collection program.
Alternative 6. Set the ACL for Parrotfish Unit 1 in the U.S.
Caribbean equal to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters, but rely on the data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for parrotfish five years after
implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 380,000 pounds based on the average landings
during 1999-2006.
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994-2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Discussion
Parrotfish landings for Puerto Rico may be underestimated if they
are reported as first class, second class, or third class species.
Daniel Matos may be able to provide input about how frequently
parrotfish are reported in one of those categories.
4.4 Action 4: Annual Catch Limits for Grouper Unit 4
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set an ACL for Grouper Unit 4
Alternative 2. Set the ACL for Grouper Unit 4 off Puerto Rico equal
to:
Sub alternative A. Zero in the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters , but rely on the data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4 five years after
implementation of the data collection program.
[[Page 37984]]
Sub alternative B. 10,000 pounds, based on the average corrected
landings for identified Grouper Unit 4 species during 1994-2006. The
ACL would include both state and federal water landings.
Sub alternative C. 15,000 pounds, based on the average corrected
landings for identified Grouper Unit 4 species during 1994-2006 plus
the average proportional corrected landings estimate for Grouper Unit 4
species landed in the generic ``Sea Basses'' category during 1994-2006.
Sub alternative D. A sufficient level of catch for collecting data
on the fishery. This catch level would be established by SEFSC, in
cooperation with Puerto Rico, for purposes of scientific data
collection.
Alternative 3. Set the ACL for Grouper off St. Thomas/St. John at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off St Thomas/St John and do
not establish an ACL for state waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4
five years after implementation of the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species = 61,000 pounds as part of a Grouper ACL
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 4. Set the ACL for Grouper off St. Croix at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off St. Croix and do not
establish an ACL for state waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for Grouper Unit 4
five years after implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species = 32,000 pounds as part of a Grouper ACL
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Grouper species multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 5. Set the ACL for Grouper in the U.S. Caribbean equal
to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters, but rely on the data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit the ACL for grouper five years after
implementation of the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 203,000 pounds, based on the average landings
during 1999-2006.
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994-2006 multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Discussion
Note Alternative 2 sub alternative C does not include proportional
readjustments in ``First class'', ``Second class'', and ``Third class''
landings estimates. Alternatives 3-5 examine an ACL for all grouper
species due to the lack of species specific information in the USVI.
Alternative 5 uses the ``grouper'' category landings in the USVI and a
summation of identified and redistributed grouper species in Puerto
Rico that are in the reef fish FMU.
4.5 Action 5: Annual Catch Limits for Snapper Unit 1
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set an ACL for Snapper Unit 1
Alternative 2. Set the ACL for Snapper Unit 1 off Puerto Rico equal
to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ and do not establish an ACL for
state waters, but rely on the data collection program (described in
Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1 five years after
implementation of the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average corrected landings for identified
Snapper Unit 1 species during 1999-2006 = 300,000 pounds multiplied by
an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative C. The average corrected landings for identified
silk snapper during 1999-2006 = 200,000 pounds for silk snapper
multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty
scalar). Silk snapper would be the indicator species for Snapper Unit
1.
Sub alternative D. Level in pounds to be determined (SEFSC), based
on the average landings for 1994-2006 for the current Snapper Unit 1
multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty
scalar).
Sub alternative E. 316,000 pounds, based on the average landings
from 1999-2006 identified for Snapper Unit 1 species, plus the average
proportional corrected landings estimate for Snapper Unit 1 species
landed in the generic ````Snapper'' category during 1999-2006,
multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty
scalar).
Sub alternative G. 374,000 pounds, based on the average 1994-2006
landings for identified Snapper Unit 1 species, plus the average
proportional corrected landings estimate for Snapper Unit 1 species
landed in the generic ``Snapper'' category during 1994-2006, multiplied
by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for uncertainty scalar).
Sub alternative H. 500,000 pounds ACL in the EEZ and do not
establish an ACL for state waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1
five years after implementation of the data collection program.
Sub alternative J. 374,000 pounds each for both the commercial and
recreational sectors.
Alternative 3. Set the ACL for Snapper off St. Thomas/St. John at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off St. Thomas/St. John and do
not establish an ACL for state waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1
five years after implementation of the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species =160,000 pounds as part of a Snapper ACL.
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 4. Set the ACL for Snapper off St. Croix at:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off St. Croix and do not
establish an ACL for state waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1
five years after implementation of data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 112,000 pounds based on average landings during
1994 - 2006 for all Snapper species.
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
Alternative 5. Set the ACL for Snapper in the U.S. Caribbean equal
to:
Sub alternative A. Zero for the EEZ off the U.S. Caribbean and do
not establish an ACL for state waters, but rely on the data collection
program (described in Action 10) and revisit ACL for Snapper Unit 1
five years after implementation of the data collection program.
Sub alternative B. 1,529,000 pounds, based on the average landings
during 1994 - 2006 for all Snapper species.
Sub alternative C. The average landings during 1994 - 2006 for all
Snapper species multiplied by an uncertainty scalar (see Action 7 for
uncertainty scalar).
[[Page 37985]]
Discussion
Note Alternative 2 sub alternative C does not include proportional
readjustments in ``First class'', ``Second class'', and ``Third class''
landings estimates. Alternatives 3-5 examine an ACL for all snapper
species due to the lack of species specific information in the USVI.
Alternative 5 uses the ``snapper'' category landings in the USVI and a
summation of identified and redistributed snapper species in Puerto
Rico that are in the reef fish FMU.
Alternative 2 for Puerto Rico: Need to eliminate wenchman (P.
macrophthalmus) from the alternatives in which it is included for SU1
-- therefore need to correct the poundage also. This affects sub-
alternatives D, E, F, and G of Alternative 2 from Action 5.
4.6 Action 6: Annual Catch Limits for the Recreational Sector
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not set ACLs for the recreational
sector.
Alternative 2. Use Puerto Rico recreational average landings data
from MRFSS during 2000-2007 to set recreational ACLs in the EEZ and
state waters of Puerto Rico for Snapper Unit 1, Grouper Unit 4, and
Parrotfishes. Use the proportion of Puerto Rican recreational landings
relative to the total of recreational and commercial Puerto Rican
landings to set an ACL proxy in the EEZ and state waters for the USVI
Recreational Fishery. For the USVI, proportions would be assigned to
fish family (e.g., groupers, snappers, parrotfishes), until sufficient
landings data are available to specify ACLs by unit. ACLs would equal
zero for queen conch in the EEZ off St. Thomas/St. John and Puerto
Rico; the recreational ACL for queen conch in the EEZ off St. Croix
will be determined by the Council's recommendation on Action 2. All
island based recreational ACLs for Nassau grouper would equal zero.
Alternative 3. Use Puerto Rico recreational average landings data
from MRFSS during 2000-2007 to set recreational ACLs in the EEZ and
state waters for Snapper Unit 1, Grouper Unit 4, and Parrotfishes. Use
the proportion of Puerto Rican recreational landings relative to the
total of recreational and commercial Puerto Rican landings to set an
ACL proxy in the EEZ.
Alternative 4. Do not establish a recreational ACL in the USVI EEZ
and state waters, but use the Commercial ACL for each unit or family as
a proxy for the ACL for all sectors in the fishery.
Alternative 5. Set the recreational ACL in the USVI equal to 10% of
each islands commercial ACL.
Alternative 6. Establish a separate charter boat sector ACL based
on MRFSS data for Puerto Rico.
Alternative 7. Establish recreational ACL equal to half of the
commercial ACL in Puerto Rico
Sub alternative A. Allow recreational fishers to harvest all
species managed by the Council in the EEZ and state waters.
Sub alternative B. Allow recreational fishers to harvest only fish
species managed by the Council that are not listed as overfished or
under going overfishing in the EEZ and state waters.
Discussion
Need to calculate proportions for setting ACLs on a unit by unit
basis.
4.7 Action 7: Accounting for Uncertainty
Alternative 1. No Action. Set the ACL at the level specified in the
previous actions.
Alternative 2. In setting ACLs based on average catch, use:
Sub alternative A. 75% of the specified level in the previous
actions to adjust for uncertainty
Sub alternative B. 50% of the specified level in the previous
actions to adjust for uncertainty
Sub alternative C. 25% of the specified level in the previous
actions to adjust for uncertainty.
Discussion
A major aspect of the revised NS1 guidelines is the concept of
incorporating management and scientific uncertainty in using ACLs and
AMs. Management uncertainty occurs because of the lack of sufficient
information about catch (e.g., late reporting, underreporting, and
misreporting of landings or bycatch). Management uncertainty also
exists because of the lack of management precision in many fisheries
due to lack of inseason fisheries landings data, lack of inseason
closure authority, or the lack of sufficient inseason management in
some FMPs when inseason fisheries data are available. Scientific
uncertainty includes uncertainty around the estimate of a stock's
biomass and its Maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT); therefore,
any estimate of OFL has uncertainty (74 FR 3181). For these reasons,
the Council may choose to take a more precautionary approach to prevent
overfishing by reducing the ACL to account for such uncertainty.
4.8 Action 8: Alternative Methods for Reducing Fishing Mortality and
Establishing ACL Proxies
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not implement alternative methods for
reducing fishing mortality by establishing proxies for ACLs.
Alternative 2. Work with fishermen to develop measures to reduce
fishing effort (i.e., permits, data collection).
Alternative 3. Establish ACL by sector for St. Thomas/St. John
Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by net sector
Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by trap/pot sector
Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by hook-and-line sector
Alternative 4. Establish ACL by sector for St. Croix
Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by net sector
Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by trap/pot sector
Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by hook-and-line sector
Alternative 5. Establish ACL by sector for Puerto Rico
Sub-alternative A. Establish ACL by net sector
Sub-alternative B. Establish ACL by trap/pot sector
Sub-alternative C. Establish ACL by hook-and-line sector
Discussion
There are limited circumstances that may not fit the standard
approaches to specification of referenced points and management
measures set forth in these guidelines.``These include, among other
things, conservation and management of ESA listed species, harvests
from aquaculture operations, and stocks with unusual life history
characteristics.'' In these circumstances, Councils may propose
alternative approaches for satisfying the NS1 requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (prevent overfishing) than those set forth in
these guidelines.'' Councils must document their rationale for any
alternative approaches to these limited circumstances in an FMP or an
FMP amendment, which will be reviewed for consistency with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (50 CFR 600.310 (h)(3)).
4.9 Action 9: Permits
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not establish a permit system for
fishing in the EEZ
Alternative 2. Require a federal permit for fishing in the EEZ.
Sub Alternative A. Require a federal permit for recreational
fishing in the EEZ.
Sub Alternative B. Require a federal permit for commercial fishing
in the EEZ.
Sub Alternative C. Require the use of trap tags for all (lobster
and fish) trap fisheries in the EEZ.
[[Page 37986]]
Sub Alternative D. Require a federal permit for charter boats
fishing in the EEZ.
Alternative 3. Require a federal permit to sell Council managed
species.
Alternative 4. Require a federal permit to purchase Council managed
species.
Discussion
The Council moved to establish an Ad Hoc Advisory Panel to consist
of fishermen and local and federal managers and scientists to develop a
permitting and potentially a limited access system; these
recommendations will be incorporated into this Action.
4.10 Action 10: Monitoring and Enforcement of Annual Catch Limits
Alternative 1. No Action. Set the ACL at the level specified in the
previous actions.
Alternative 2. Require any person landing Council managed species
to submit an appropriate data collection form, as developed by the
SEFSC or the Council's SSC, after every trip with enough detail such
that CPUE per species can be calculated for each gear.
Alternative 3. Require any federal permit holder to submit an
appropriate data collection form, as developed by the SEFSC or the
Council's SSC, after every trip with enough detail such that CPUE per
species can be calculated for each gear.
Alternative 4. Develop an updated catch report form in coordination
with the SEFSC, local and territorial governments, fishermen, and the
Council's SSC with enough detail such that CPUE per species can be
calculated for each gear.
Discussion
In their FMPs, or associated public documents such as SAFE reports
as appropriate, Councils must describe general data collection methods,
as well as any specific data collection methods used for all stocks in
the fishery, and ecosystem component (EC) species, including: (1)
Sources of fishing mortality (both landed and discarded), including
commercial and recreational catch and bycatch in other fisheries; (2)
Description of the data collection and estimation methods used to
quantify total catch mortality in each fishery, including information
on the management tools used (i.e., logbooks, vessel monitoring
systems, observer programs, landings reports, fish tickets, processor
reports, dealer reports, recreational angler surveys, or other
methods); the frequency with which data are collected and updated; and
the scope of sampling coverage for each fishery; and (3) Description of
the methods used to compile catch data from various catch data
collection methods and how those data are used to determine the
relationship between total catch at a given point in time and the ACL
for stocks and stock complexes that are part of a fishery (50 CFR
600.310 (i)).
The SSC and ACLG continuously recommended implementing better data
collection methodologies throughout their respective discussions.
Currently, information of this type is limited or non-existent;
therefore, better data collection methods are necessary.
4.11 Action 11: Accountability Measures
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not establish Accountability Measures.
Alternative 2. Implement accountability measures for exceeding an
ACL based on:
Sub alternative A. A single year of landings/catch.
Sub alternative B. A 2-year average of landings/catch.
Sub alternative C. A 3-year average of landings/catch.
Alternative 3. Reduce the fishing season in the following year by a
length determined to be appropriate to account for exceeding the ACL.
Alternative 4. For queen conch exceedences in St Croix, close the
EEZ to queen conch harvest.
Alternative 5. Reduce the ACL in the subsequent fishing year by an
amount equal to an overage in the previous year.
Discussion
The Council may choose to use different sub alternatives from
alternative 2 for different species or species groups depending on the
reliability and timeliness for the different fisheries. If this is the
case, additional alternatives would be developed so the Council can
indicate that desire. There may be some difficulty in implementing
Alternative 6 in the year directly following the overage due to the
timeliness of the availability of the data; therefore, the reduction
may take place up to two years after the overage of the ACL.
4.12 Action 12: Allowable Gear for Reef Fish
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not alter allowable gear in the U.S.
Caribbean
Alternative 2. Review the list of allowable gear under 50 CFR
600.725
Discussion
The Council voted to request the Secretary of Commerce to list
spear as an allowable gear in the reef fish fishery. A request to
remove powerheads as an allowable gear was made by the CFMC (need to
send a letter) with the rationale including the definition (powerheads
use explosives so look at definition in Section 600). This is a simple
process of rule making. A letter had been sent to the RA requesting
that spear be allowed for the commercial fisheries. Trawls should not
be allowed in the US Caribbean. Need to revise all the allowable gears.
4.13 Action 13: Establish Framework Measures for ACLs and AMs in
the Reef Fish FMP.
Alternative 1. No Action. Do not establish a framework for ACLs and
AMs
Alternative 2. Establish a framework procedure for setting and
adjusting ACLs and AMs
Discussion
Action 13 will require modification of the existing framework
procedure so that ACLs and AMs may be quickly altered as necessary
through a regulatory action.
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS
These meetings are physically accessible to people with
disabilities. For more information or request for sign language
interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A.
Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268
Mu[ntilde]oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-
1920, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least five days prior to the meeting
date.
Dated: July 27, 2009.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-18162 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S