Essential Fish Habitat Components of Fishery Management Plans; 5-Year Review, 44214-44216 [2012-18400]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44214
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Notices
layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat-rolled products less than 4.75 mm
in composite thickness that consist of a
carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on
both sides with stainless steel in a
20%–60%–20% ratio.
Further, the Department made three
changed circumstances determination
with respect to the order on Germany.
The Department partially revoked the
order with respect to deep-drawing
carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both
sides with aluminum (AlSi) foils in
accordance with St3 LG as to EN 10139/
10140.5 The Department also partially
revoked the order with respect to certain
wear plate products.6 In addition, the
Department partially revoked the order
with respect to the following products:
Certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel
from Germany, meeting the following
description: electrolytically zinc coated
flat steel products, with a coating mass
between 35 and 72 grams per meter
squared on each side; with a thickness
range of 0.67 mm or more but not more
than 2.95 mm and width 817 mm or
more but not over 1830 mm; having the
following chemical composition
(percent by weight): carbon not over
0.08, silicon not over 0.25, manganese
not over 0.9, phosphorous not over
0.025, sulfur not over 0.012, chromium
not over 0.1, titanium not over 0.005
and niobium not over 0.05; with a
minimum yield strength of 310 Mpa and
a minimum tensile strength of 390 Mpa;
additionally coated on one or both sides
with an organic coating containing not
less than 30 percent and not more than
60 percent zinc and free of hexavalent
chrome.7
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in these reviews are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’) from Susan Kuhbach,
Director, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations Office
1, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, dated
concurrent with this notice of
preliminary results, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. The issues
5 See Notice of Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty and
Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of
Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products From Germany, 64 FR 51292
(September 22, 1999).
6 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Reviews and Revocation of
Orders In Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products From Canada and Germany, 71
FR 14498 (March 22, 2006).
7 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation of
Order In Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Germany, 71 FR 66163
(November 13, 2006).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
discussed in the Decision Memorandum
include the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping and the
magnitude of the margin likely to
prevail if the orders were revoked. In
our analysis, the Department addresses
the concerns raised by interested parties
with regard to the Final Modification for
Reviews. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in these
sunset reviews and the corresponding
recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading
‘‘July 2012.’’ The signed version and the
electronic versions are identical in
content.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily
determines that the magnitude of the
margin likely to prevail were the
antidumping duty orders on CORE from
Germany and Korea to be revoked is at
least 9.35 percent for Thyssen Stahl AG
and all other German producers and
exporters of CORE and at least 12.85
percent for all Korean producers and
exporters of CORE, other than POSCO.8
Interested parties may submit case
briefs no later than 50 days after the
date of publication of the preliminary
results of these full sunset reviews, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Any interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs,
which must be limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than the five days after the time limit for
filing case briefs in accordance with 19
CFR 351.309(d).
A hearing, if requested, will be held
two days after the date the rebuttal
briefs are due. The Department will
issue a notice of final results of these
full sunset reviews, which will include
the results of its analysis of issues raised
8 The order was revoked with respect to Pohang
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co.,
Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘POSCO’’), who was the only
respondent examined in the original antidumping
investigation. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Final Results of the 2009–2010
Administrative Review and Revocation, in Part, 77
FR 14501 (March 12, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in any such comments, no later than
November 28, 2012.9
The Department is issuing and
publishing the results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(c), 752,
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–18423 Filed 7–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XR75
Essential Fish Habitat Components of
Fishery Management Plans; 5-Year
Review
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of intent
(NOI) to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS).
AGENCY:
The New England Fishery
Management Council is in the process of
preparing an Essential Fish Habitat
Omnibus Amendment to the fishery
management plans for Northeast
multispecies, Atlantic sea scallop,
monkfish, Atlantic herring, skates,
Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic deep-sea
red crab. The Council is seeking
comments about removing the range of
alternatives pertaining to deep-sea
corals from this action and developing
them as a separate omnibus amendment.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before 5 p.m. e.s.t.,
August 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Email: CoralNOI@noaa.gov.
• Mail: Paul J. Howard, Executive
Director, New England Fishery
Management Council, 50 Water Street,
Newburyport, MA 01950.
• Fax: (978) 465–3116.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council
(978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New
England Fishery Management Council’s
(Council) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Omnibus Amendment 2 (OA2) currently
includes: (1) Review and update of EFH
designations, (2) review and update of
SUMMARY:
9 See
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
CORE Extension Notice.
27JYN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Notices
Habitat Area of Particular Concern
(HAPC) designations, (3) other EFH
requirements of fishery management
plans including prey species
information and non-fishing impacts, (4)
alternatives to minimize, to the extent
practicable, the adverse effects of
Council-managed fisheries on EFH, and
(5) alternatives to minimize fishing
effects on deep-sea corals developed
under the authority granted in the
fishery management plan (FMP)
discretionary provisions (section 303(b))
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Alternatives
developed under item 4 will include
options related to the groundfish closed
areas as well as options to designate
spatially-overlapping dedicated habitat
research areas. The Council added
review of the groundfish closed areas to
OA2 in April 2011 (76 FR 35408).
Approval of a range of adverse effects
minimization, groundfish area, and
research area alternatives (item 3) has
not yet occurred.
The purpose of this notification is to
alert and seek comment from the public
about Council’s consideration of
splitting the deep-sea coral
discretionary provision alternatives
from OA2, and including them in a
separate omnibus amendment.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act section
303(b) discretionary authority gives
Councils broad latitude to develop
measures to minimize the impacts of
fishing on deep-sea corals. Because most
of the deep-sea corals occur beyond the
limits of EFH, the Council is
considering conservation measures
under these discretionary provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This
authority was added when the
Magnuson-Stevens Act was
reauthorized in 2007. The Council first
directed its Habitat Plan Development
Team to evaluate information related to
deep-sea corals and develop alternatives
for their protection in February 2008.
The coral alternatives were folded into
OA2 as a matter of convenience,
because it was an ongoing habitatrelated action. A range of coral
alternatives were approved by the
Council for further development and
analysis in April 2012.
The following considerations were
discussed by the Council and its Habitat
Committee during recent meetings, and
may be helpful to members of the public
who wish to submit comments.
The range of coral alternatives
developed by NEFMC includes broad
zones beginning at 300, 400, or 500 m
on the continental slope and extending
to the Exclusive Economic Zone
boundary, and discrete zones
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
encompassing submarine canyons on
the continental slope off Georges Bank
and Southern New England, four
seamounts within the EEZ, and two
locations in the Gulf of Maine. The
range of possible management measures
for these zones includes mobile bottomtending gear restrictions or bottomtending gear restrictions, with
exceptions for deep-sea red crab traps,
special access programs, and
exploratory fishing programs. The
Council anticipates allowing these
management measures to be revised via
framework action. More detailed
information can be found on the
Council’s Habitat Web page (https://
www.nefmc.org/habitat/).
The fishing restriction alternatives as
currently drafted are gear-based, not
fishery or FMP based, and would apply
to vessels operating in fisheries
managed by both the New England and
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils. The Mid-Atlantic Council
initiated their own action related to
deep-sea corals at their April 2012
meeting. Assuming the New England
Council implements coral-related
measures north of the inter-council
boundary, and Mid-Atlantic Council
does so south of the boundary,
consistency in management approaches
will be critically important, because
fisheries managed by both Councils
operate near or within coral habitats and
are prosecuted both sides of the
boundary line.
To facilitate inter-council
coordination, the Councils are in the
process of drafting a memorandum of
understanding between the New
England, Mid-Atlantic, and South
Atlantic Councils. This document will
identify areas of consensus and common
strategy related to conservation of corals
and mitigation of the negative impacts
of fishery/coral interactions. At their
June meeting, the New England Council
reiterated that this is a priority issue for
the short term. If additional
development time is necessary to ensure
that management actions related to deep
sea corals are consistent throughout the
region, these delays could impact
completion of OA2 if the coral measures
remain in the same action. Conversely,
there have been delays associated with
groundfish-related aspects of
alternatives development for OA2 (item
3 above), and it might be possible to
move the coral alternatives forward first
if those delays continue. Overall,
placing the two sets of actions on
separate tracks could allow increased
flexibility as the Council re-evaluates its
priorities over time.
Separate actions for corals and EFH
could be clearer and easier to
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44215
understand than a single combined
action, since each one would be focused
towards a narrower set of goals and
objectives. However, there would be
overlaps in terms of some of the content
of the two separate amendments,
especially background information for
the slope and seamount areas (at a
minimum, the EFH action will designate
EFH along the slope and on the
seamounts, so these areas will need to
be discussed in that amendment even if
the coral alternatives are removed). If
the actions are being developed and
implemented in parallel, which seems
most likely, it might be difficult to
incorporate this material by reference.
Also, there is a linkage between the
coral discretionary provision
alternatives and the other alternatives in
the EFH amendment because portions of
the submarine canyons and seamounts
harboring deep-sea corals and other
associated ecosystem components were
recommended as HAPCs during Phase 1
of OA2 development (June 2007).
Because HAPCs are a subset of
designated EFH, HAPC designations
would remain as part of the EFH
Omnibus Amendment, and would not
be split off into a separate coral omnibus
amendment, even though some of the
HAPCs were developed with corals in
mind. Each of the HAPC alternatives
(and EFH alternatives) developed during
Phase 1 are pending implementation
and subject to change until final action
is taken by the Council on Omnibus
EFH Amendment 2. Thus, there remains
an opportunity to rectify any
inconsistencies between the coral zones
developed under the discretionary
authority and the HAPCs developed
under the EFH authority, bearing in
mind that objectives for the two sets of
areas may be different. A comparison of
the two sets of areas will be undertaken
whether they are developed via one
action or two separate actions.
It is possible that some of the impacts
analyses of both the coral and adverse
effects/groundfish would be streamlined
if coral alternatives and adverse effects/
groundfish alternatives continue to be
developed in a single amendment,
because restrictions in one area could
increase fishing activity in other areas.
However, as there are few spatial
overlaps between the coral zone
alternatives and the adverse effects
minimization areas as currently drafted,
and different fisheries are associated
with both sets of areas, this may not be
a major issue. This could be a more
important consideration for the two
coral areas proposed in the Gulf of
Maine near Mt Desert Rock and in
western Jordan Basin. With this possible
exception, splitting could simplify the
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44216
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Notices
NMFS publishes a
notification of a zero (0) percent fee for
cost recovery under the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization
Program. This action is intended to
provide holders of crab allocations with
the fee percentage for the 2012/2013
crab fishing year.
DATES: Fee liability payments made by
the Crab Rationalization Program
Registered Crab Receiver permit
holders, if necessary, are due to NMFS
on or before July 31, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Palmigiano, 907–586–7240.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Program
includes a cost recovery provision to
collect fees to recover the actual costs
directly related to the management, data
collection, and enforcement of the
Program. NMFS developed the cost
recovery provision to conform to
statutory requirements and to partially
reimburse the agency for the unique
added costs of management, data
collection, and enforcement of the
Program. Section 313(j) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act provided
supplementary authority to section
304(d)(2)(A) and additional detail for
cost recovery provisions specific to the
Program. The cost recovery provision
allows collection of 133 percent of the
actual management, data collection, and
enforcement costs up to 3 percent of the
ex-vessel value of crab harvested under
the Program. Additionally, section
313(j) requires the harvesting and
processing sectors to each pay half the
cost recovery fees. Catcher/processor
quota share holders are required to pay
the full fee percentage for crab
processed at sea.
A crab allocation holder generally
incurs a cost recovery fee liability for
every pound of crab landed. The crab
allocations include Individual Fishing
Quota, Crew Individual Fishing Quota,
Individual Processing Quota,
Community Development Quota, and
the Adak community allocation. The
Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit
holder must collect the fee liability from
the crab allocation holder who is
landing crab. Additionally, the RCR
permit holder must collect his or her
own fee liability for all crab delivered to
the RCR. The RCR permit holder is
responsible for submitting this payment
to NMFS on or before the due date of
July 31, in the year following the crab
fishing year in which landings of crab
were made.
The dollar amount of the fee due is
determined by multiplying the fee
percentage (not to exceed 3 percent) by
the ex-vessel value of crab debited from
the allocation. Specific details on the
Program’s cost recovery provision may
be found in the implementing
regulations set forth at § 680.44.
Background
NMFS Alaska Region administers the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab
Rationalization Program (Program) in
the North Pacific. Fishing under the
Program began on August 15, 2005.
Regulations implementing the Program
are set forth at 50 CFR part 680.
The Program is a limited access
system authorized by section 313(j) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Fee Percentage
Each year, NMFS calculates and
publishes in the Federal Register the fee
percentage according to the factors and
methodology described in Federal
regulations at § 680.44(c)(2). The
formula for determining the fee
percentage is the ‘‘direct program costs’’
divided by ‘‘value of the fishery,’’ where
‘‘direct program costs’’ are the direct
program costs for the Program for the
analysis required because the combined
effect of the two sets of alternatives
would be limited to the cumulative
effects analyses in each of the
amendment documents.
The Council is requesting comments
on: splitting the deep-sea coral
discretionary provision alternatives out
of the EFH action and into a separate
amendment, the range of deep-sea coral
alternatives themselves, and
coordination and consultation with the
other Atlantic coast Councils,
particularly the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 24, 2012.
James P. Burgess,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–18400 Filed 7–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC118
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization
Cost Recovery Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of fee percentage.
AGENCY:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
previous fiscal year, and ‘‘value of the
fishery’’ is the ex-vessel value of the
catch subject to the crab cost recovery
fee liability for the current year. Fee
collections for any given year may be
less than, or greater than, the actual
costs and fishery value for that year,
because, by regulation, the fee
percentage is established in the first
quarter of a crab fishery year based on
the fishery value and the costs of the
prior year.
The fee percentage has declined over
time because of a variety of factors,
including the increasing value of the
fishery due to increased total allowable
catch limits for various crab species
such as Bristol Bay red king crab
(Paralithodes camtshaticus) and Bering
Sea snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio),
increased ex-vessel price per pound of
crab relative to previous years, and
decreased management costs relative to
previous years primarily due to
decreased staff and contract costs.
Using the fee percentage formula
described above, the estimated
percentage of costs to value for the
2010/2011 and 2011/2012 crab fishing
years was 2.67 percent and 1.23 percent,
respectively. These fee levels have
resulted in a fee collection greater than
the actual management, data collection,
and enforcement costs for the 2010/2011
and 2011/2012 crab fishing years.
Therefore, fee revenues remain to cover
projected actual costs for 2012/2013. As
a result, NMFS has determined that the
fee percentage will be zero (0) percent
for the 2012/2013 fishing year.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109–
241; Pub. L. 109–479.
Dated: July 24, 2012.
James P. Burgess,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–18403 Filed 7–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC130
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) and its
Strategic Planning Working Group, its
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44214-44216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18400]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XR75
Essential Fish Habitat Components of Fishery Management Plans; 5-
Year Review
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council is in the process
of preparing an Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus Amendment to the fishery
management plans for Northeast multispecies, Atlantic sea scallop,
monkfish, Atlantic herring, skates, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic deep-
sea red crab. The Council is seeking comments about removing the range
of alternatives pertaining to deep-sea corals from this action and
developing them as a separate omnibus amendment.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m. e.s.t.,
August 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Email: CoralNOI@noaa.gov.
Mail: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Fax: (978) 465-3116.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New England Fishery Management Council's
(Council) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus Amendment 2 (OA2)
currently includes: (1) Review and update of EFH designations, (2)
review and update of
[[Page 44215]]
Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) designations, (3) other EFH
requirements of fishery management plans including prey species
information and non-fishing impacts, (4) alternatives to minimize, to
the extent practicable, the adverse effects of Council-managed
fisheries on EFH, and (5) alternatives to minimize fishing effects on
deep-sea corals developed under the authority granted in the fishery
management plan (FMP) discretionary provisions (section 303(b)) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). Alternatives developed under item 4 will include options
related to the groundfish closed areas as well as options to designate
spatially-overlapping dedicated habitat research areas. The Council
added review of the groundfish closed areas to OA2 in April 2011 (76 FR
35408). Approval of a range of adverse effects minimization, groundfish
area, and research area alternatives (item 3) has not yet occurred.
The purpose of this notification is to alert and seek comment from
the public about Council's consideration of splitting the deep-sea
coral discretionary provision alternatives from OA2, and including them
in a separate omnibus amendment.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(b) discretionary authority
gives Councils broad latitude to develop measures to minimize the
impacts of fishing on deep-sea corals. Because most of the deep-sea
corals occur beyond the limits of EFH, the Council is considering
conservation measures under these discretionary provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. This authority was added when the Magnuson-
Stevens Act was reauthorized in 2007. The Council first directed its
Habitat Plan Development Team to evaluate information related to deep-
sea corals and develop alternatives for their protection in February
2008. The coral alternatives were folded into OA2 as a matter of
convenience, because it was an ongoing habitat-related action. A range
of coral alternatives were approved by the Council for further
development and analysis in April 2012.
The following considerations were discussed by the Council and its
Habitat Committee during recent meetings, and may be helpful to members
of the public who wish to submit comments.
The range of coral alternatives developed by NEFMC includes broad
zones beginning at 300, 400, or 500 m on the continental slope and
extending to the Exclusive Economic Zone boundary, and discrete zones
encompassing submarine canyons on the continental slope off Georges
Bank and Southern New England, four seamounts within the EEZ, and two
locations in the Gulf of Maine. The range of possible management
measures for these zones includes mobile bottom-tending gear
restrictions or bottom-tending gear restrictions, with exceptions for
deep-sea red crab traps, special access programs, and exploratory
fishing programs. The Council anticipates allowing these management
measures to be revised via framework action. More detailed information
can be found on the Council's Habitat Web page (https://www.nefmc.org/habitat/).
The fishing restriction alternatives as currently drafted are gear-
based, not fishery or FMP based, and would apply to vessels operating
in fisheries managed by both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Councils. The Mid-Atlantic Council initiated their own
action related to deep-sea corals at their April 2012 meeting. Assuming
the New England Council implements coral-related measures north of the
inter-council boundary, and Mid-Atlantic Council does so south of the
boundary, consistency in management approaches will be critically
important, because fisheries managed by both Councils operate near or
within coral habitats and are prosecuted both sides of the boundary
line.
To facilitate inter-council coordination, the Councils are in the
process of drafting a memorandum of understanding between the New
England, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic Councils. This document will
identify areas of consensus and common strategy related to conservation
of corals and mitigation of the negative impacts of fishery/coral
interactions. At their June meeting, the New England Council reiterated
that this is a priority issue for the short term. If additional
development time is necessary to ensure that management actions related
to deep sea corals are consistent throughout the region, these delays
could impact completion of OA2 if the coral measures remain in the same
action. Conversely, there have been delays associated with groundfish-
related aspects of alternatives development for OA2 (item 3 above), and
it might be possible to move the coral alternatives forward first if
those delays continue. Overall, placing the two sets of actions on
separate tracks could allow increased flexibility as the Council re-
evaluates its priorities over time.
Separate actions for corals and EFH could be clearer and easier to
understand than a single combined action, since each one would be
focused towards a narrower set of goals and objectives. However, there
would be overlaps in terms of some of the content of the two separate
amendments, especially background information for the slope and
seamount areas (at a minimum, the EFH action will designate EFH along
the slope and on the seamounts, so these areas will need to be
discussed in that amendment even if the coral alternatives are
removed). If the actions are being developed and implemented in
parallel, which seems most likely, it might be difficult to incorporate
this material by reference.
Also, there is a linkage between the coral discretionary provision
alternatives and the other alternatives in the EFH amendment because
portions of the submarine canyons and seamounts harboring deep-sea
corals and other associated ecosystem components were recommended as
HAPCs during Phase 1 of OA2 development (June 2007). Because HAPCs are
a subset of designated EFH, HAPC designations would remain as part of
the EFH Omnibus Amendment, and would not be split off into a separate
coral omnibus amendment, even though some of the HAPCs were developed
with corals in mind. Each of the HAPC alternatives (and EFH
alternatives) developed during Phase 1 are pending implementation and
subject to change until final action is taken by the Council on Omnibus
EFH Amendment 2. Thus, there remains an opportunity to rectify any
inconsistencies between the coral zones developed under the
discretionary authority and the HAPCs developed under the EFH
authority, bearing in mind that objectives for the two sets of areas
may be different. A comparison of the two sets of areas will be
undertaken whether they are developed via one action or two separate
actions.
It is possible that some of the impacts analyses of both the coral
and adverse effects/groundfish would be streamlined if coral
alternatives and adverse effects/groundfish alternatives continue to be
developed in a single amendment, because restrictions in one area could
increase fishing activity in other areas. However, as there are few
spatial overlaps between the coral zone alternatives and the adverse
effects minimization areas as currently drafted, and different
fisheries are associated with both sets of areas, this may not be a
major issue. This could be a more important consideration for the two
coral areas proposed in the Gulf of Maine near Mt Desert Rock and in
western Jordan Basin. With this possible exception, splitting could
simplify the
[[Page 44216]]
analysis required because the combined effect of the two sets of
alternatives would be limited to the cumulative effects analyses in
each of the amendment documents.
The Council is requesting comments on: splitting the deep-sea coral
discretionary provision alternatives out of the EFH action and into a
separate amendment, the range of deep-sea coral alternatives
themselves, and coordination and consultation with the other Atlantic
coast Councils, particularly the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 24, 2012.
James P. Burgess,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-18400 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
