Northeast Multispecies Fishery

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

50 CFR Part 651

[Docket No. 940552-4152; I.D. 051294A]

Northeast Multispecies Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement measures contained in

Framework Adjustment 4 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management

Plan (FMP). The measures contained in this rule are a series of time

and area closures for sink gillnet gear to reduce bycatch of harbor

porpoise. These measures replace blocks of time during each month

during which all sink gillnets would be required to be removed from the

water. The intent of this rule is to reduce significantly the bycatch

of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 5, its regulatory impact review (RIR)

and the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) contained with the

RIR, its final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS), and

Framework Adjustment #4 and its environmental assessment are available

upon request from Douglas G. Marshall, Executive Director, New England

Fishery Management Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1097.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Martin Jaffe, NMFS, Fishery Policy

Analyst, 508-281-9272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted

Amendment 5 to NMFS on September 27, 1993. One of its principal

objectives was to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of

Maine sink gillnet fishery by the end of year 4 of implementation of

the Amendment to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the population,

based on the best estimates of abundance and bycatch.

The Council was requested by NMFS in October 1992 to take action to

reduce the harbor porpoise bycatch within the context of Amendment 5.

The Council agreed to develop fishery management measures that would

address the issue on the basis that the sink gillnet fishery was

subject to regulation under the FMP, there were no existing regulatory

mechanisms to reduce porpoise takes, and the current level of bycatch

in the fishery was not sustainable.

Additionally, on January 7, 1993, NMFS published a proposed rule

(58 FR 3108) to list the Gulf of Maine population of harbor porpoise as

threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), due primarily to the

level of incidental takes in the sink gillnet fishery and the lack of

an adequate regulatory mechanism to accomplish bycatch reductions. As

NMFS noted in the rule, the Marine Mammal Exemption Program contained

in the 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) did

not set bycatch limits.

The Council subsequently adopted the goal of achieving reductions

in harbor porpoise bycatch, so that the actual amount of harbor

porpoise caught as bycatch in the sink gillnet fishery would not exceed

2 percent of the estimates of the harbor porpoise population, in part

to avoid the pending ESA listing. This objective was based on a

recruitment rate for harbor porpoise that is about 4 percent per year,

and a conservative fisheries bycatch level that should not exceed 50

percent of the recruitment rate for marine mammals. The 1991/1992

pooled harbor porpoise population abundance estimate is 47,200. Using

the lower bound of the 95-percent confidence interval for that

estimate, 39,500, the 1990, 1991, and 1992 ratios of bycatch to average

population abundance were approximately 6 percent, 4.3 percent and 2.2

percent, respectively. A 2-percent goal allocated solely to the Gulf of

Maine sink gillnet fishery did not take into account the unknown level

of harbor porpoise takes in the Mid-Atlantic region and in adjacent

Canadian waters.

Because the 1992 abundance and bycatch information was not

available until June 1993, however, development of effective measures

based on the best scientific information lagged behind the formulation

of the overall Amendment 5 package. The harbor porpoise bycatch

mitigation measure implemented by the final rule for the Amendment

required the removal of all sink gillnets from the water during 4-day

blocks of time each month in year 1 after implementation of Amendment

5. Years 2 and 3 of Amendment 5 called for 8-day blocks each month.

Year 4 required 12-day blocks and year 5 required 16-day blocks. The

Council supported, and NMFS approved, the use of blocks of time as an

interim measure on the assumption that appropriate time and area

management measures would be developed as soon as possible.

The rationale for the interim measure was based largely on the lack

of information concerning the sink gillnet fishery. By ``masking''

periods of time monthly, during which all sink gillnets must be removed

from the water, the time during which harbor porpoise would be exposed

to that gear would be reduced. In a simulation analyzing the effect of

closing the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery for 4 consecutive random

days per month, approximately 8.5 percent of the fish would not be

landed and 9.3 percent of the harbor porpoise bycatch would be avoided.

The effect of choosing random days, however, produced very different

values of harbor porpoise bycatch for the different trials.

Because of the imprecise nature of the impacts of the blocks of

time, and upon receipt of the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center's

(NEFSC) comprehensive spatial and temporal analysis of the bycatch in

the fall of 1993, the Council voted to support the development of a

time and area closure management system. The intent was to replace the

existing gillnet alternative (nets removed from the water for specified

blocks of time) as the harbor porpoise bycatch mitigation measure. The

Council decided, and NMFS agreed, that the gillnet fleet would not be

subject to groundfish effort reductions until the effect of the harbor

porpoise bycatch reduction measures could be evaluated for their

impacts on groundfish fishing effort (approximately 1 year after

implementation of Amendment 5).

NMFS is amending the regulations under the framework abbreviated

rulemaking procedure established by Amendment 5 and codified at 50 CFR

part 651, subpart C. This procedure requires the Council, when making

specifically allowed adjustments to the FMP, to develop and analyze the

actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council

must provide the public with advance notice of both the proposals and

the analysis, and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the

second Council meeting. Upon review of the analysis and public comment,

the Council may recommend to the Regional Director of NMFS that the

measures be published as a final rule if certain conditions are met.

The Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, (Regional Director) may publish

the measures as a final rule or as a proposed rule if additional public

comment is needed.

The Council complied with the procedural requirements and submitted

the rule to NMFS, and NMFS concurs with the provisions of the Council's

submission. This final rule implements time and area closures based on

an analysis by the NEFSC of harbor porpoise bycatch using NMFS weighout

and observer program data on the distribution of sink gillnet activity

and the seasonal and spatial distribution of harbor porpoise in the

Gulf of Maine. Extensive discussions among the Council, the fishing

industry and scientists led to the measures outlined below.

For purposes of the management measures contained in this final

rule for Framework Adjustment #4, the Gulf of Maine is divided into

three areas: The Northeast (from Penobscot Bay to Eastport, ME); Mid-

coast (from Cape Ann to Penobscot Bay); and Massachusetts Bay (from

Cape Cod to Cape Ann). The Council recommended 30-day closures for each

of these areas. The timing of the closures corresponds to periods when

harbor porpoise bycatch is most likely to occur. The duration accounts

for the variability of harbor porpoise movements. The Council

recognizes that the Mid-coast and Northeast areas account for more of

the bycatch than Massachusetts Bay. At this time, however, harbor

porpoise bycatch mitigation measures are being applied uniformly across

all regions in the Gulf of Maine.

The NEFSC estimated that reductions of 20 to 40 percent might be

realized in the first year of implementation of Framework Adjustment #4

if boundaries discussed in its initial analysis of a time and area

management system for the Gulf of Maine were used in conjunction with

the proposed 30-day closures. The Council's boundary modifications

could alter that estimate to some unknown degree because of the

potential displacement of gillnet fishing effort to areas where harbor

porpoise are still subject to some level of bycatch. It is reasonable,

however, to anticipate the minimum estimate of approximately 20

percent, given that the timing of the closures occurs in seasons of

highest bycatch of harbor porpoise in their respective areas. It is

also reasonable to conclude that the continued annual target reductions

may be accomplished by modifications to the same measures.

The Council adopted the approach of integrating effort reductions

for key species of groundfish stocks with harbor porpoise bycatch

mitigation measures after the first year of program implementation. If

the measures, or any future approach that is adopted, accomplish the

harbor porpoise objective without reducing gillnet fishing effort

sufficiently to reach the 50 percent effort reduction target, the

Council will impose additional fishing restrictions.

A. Northeast Closure Area

This area will be closed to fishing with sink gillnets from August

15 through September 13 of each fishing year.

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

NE1................................ Maine shoreline 68 deg.55.0'W.

NE2................................ 43 deg.29.6' N. 68 deg.55.0' W.

NE3................................ 44 deg.04.4' N. 67 deg.48.7' W.

NE4................................ 44 deg.06.9' N. 67 deg.52.8' W.

NE5................................ 44 deg.31.2' N. 67 deg.02.7' W.

NE6................................ Maine shoreline 67 deg.02.7' W.

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

B. Mid-coast Closure Area

This area will be closed to fishing with sink gillnets from

November 1 through November 30 of each fishing year.

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

MC1....................................... 42 deg.45' N. Massachusetts shoreline.

MC2....................................... 42 deg.45' N. 70 deg.15' W.

MC3....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 70 deg.15' W.

MC4....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 69 deg.00' W.

MC5....................................... Maine shoreline 69 deg.00' W.

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

C. Massachusetts Bay Closure Area

This area will be closed to fishing with sink gillnets from March 1

through March 30 of each fishing year.

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

MB1....................................... 42 deg.30' N. Massachusetts shoreline.

MB2....................................... 42 deg.30' N. 70 deg.30' W.

MB3....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.30' W.

MB4....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.00' W.

MB5....................................... Massachusetts shoreline 70 deg.00' W.

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

There is a band outside the Mid-coast closure area that encompasses

Jeffreys Ledge and is described relative to the Mid-coast area as east

on 42 deg.30 N. from the shore to 70 deg.00 W., north along 70 deg.00

W. to 43 deg.00 N., on 43 deg.00 N. to 69 deg.00 W., then north on

69 deg.00 W. to the shore. According to the sea sampling data base,

harbor porpoise bycatch in this band has been relatively high during

the last 3 years. Concerns focus on whether a displacement of more

fishing effort into this region might account for a kill rate as high

as or potentially higher than in previous years. Under provisions of

this final rule, the band will remain open, but the Council recommended

mandatory observer coverage for vessels fishing in the area if funds

are available.

D. Open Areas:

Areas shown on Figure 4 to part 651, but not enclosed by the

boundary lines described above, would not be subject to closure at this

time.

The Council program calls for a 20-percent reduction in the Gulf of

Maine harbor porpoise bycatch in year 1 of implementation of Amendment

5. To ensure continued efforts to reduce the bycatch, Amendment 5

states that a Harbor Porpoise Review Team (HPRT), appointed by the

Council, will evaluate the effectiveness of the Council's mitigation

measures annually by September 15 of each year and, if necessary,

recommend changes to ensure that the bycatch reduction goals are met.

Future management measures will be designed to achieve a 60-percent

reduction in the bycatch of harbor porpoise from current levels over a

3-year period. Based on a bycatch of 1,300 animals (a figure that

constitutes a rough average of the bycatch estimates over the last 2

years), the bycatch in years 1, 2, and 3 would be reduced to 1,040,

780, and 520 animals, respectively.

Such a reduction schedule might surpass the goal of reducing the

harbor porpoise bycatch to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the

estimates of population abundance and bycatch (39,500 and approximately

1,300, respectively). The use of the lower bound of the 95-percent

confidence interval for the abundance estimate, 39,500, adds a level of

conservatism that in part addresses the problem of the confidence

intervals surrounding the bycatch estimates. As previously discussed,

the entire 2 percent bycatch cannot be allocated solely to the Gulf of

Maine sink gillnet fleet.

A specific target for year 4 will be established by the HPRT after

consideration of previous targets not met in any given year or because

of possible increased bycatch reductions required by the 1994

amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. For example, if the 20

percent target is missed in any of the first three years, the fourth

year allows the flexibility to add that portion of the target

reductions not achieved in any of the first three years to be deferred

until the next year or until year four of the program. The year-4

target, however, cannot exceed 20 percent of the total reduction

required over the entire 4-year period.

Comments and Responses

The Council held the first of two meetings required under the

Amendment 5 framework adjustment process on February 17, 1994. Two

public hearings were subsequently held on March 9, 1994, in Portsmouth,

NH, and on March 10, 1994, in Ellsworth, ME. The Council approved the

closures for the Northeast and Mid-coast areas at the second Council

meeting held on March 17, 1994. On April 6, 1994, the Council adopted

boundaries and a 30-day closure period for the Massachusetts Bay area.

In addition to the meetings held within the formal framework

period, the public was notified of all Marine Mammal Committee meetings

held between September 1993 and March 1994, for the purpose of

developing the time and area closure plan. For scoping purposes, the

issue also was included in the Amendment 5 public hearing document and

was reviewed at a series of coastwide meetings held in the spring of

1993.

Comments on the Council's proposal were received from Maine

Congressional Rep. Olympia J. Snowe and the following organizations:

Cape Ann Gillnetter's Association, Beverly, MA; Coonamessett Farm,

Falmouth, MA; International Wildlife Coalition, East Falmouth, MA;

Maine Gillnetters Association, Stonington, ME; Massachusetts Netters

Association, Marshfield, MA; and the New Hampshire Commercial

Fishermen's Association, Rye, NH.

Comment: Numbers of fishermen had serious concerns about the

quality of the data used to determine time and area closures.

Response: Measures contained in Framework Adjustment #4 are based

on the best scientific information available. NMFS has conducted two

population surveys of harbor porpoise abundance in the Gulf of Maine/

Bay of Fundy region. Additionally, bycatch estimates have been

calculated from observed gillnet trips, based on sea sampling data

collected since 1989. Since June 1991, observers have made trips on

roughly 9 percent of the Gulf of Maine gillnet trips. All available

information on the biology, seasonal distribution, abundance and

bycatch was reviewed at two international workshops convened by the

NEFSC in Woods Hole, MA in May 1992 and February 1994.

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the harbor

porpoise abundance estimates for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy

population and the disparity between the point estimates for 1991 and

1992. They urged the Council to ask NMFS to conduct ongoing surveys in

order to better refine the data.

Response: Again, the estimates are based on the best scientific

information available. NMFS abundance estimates for 1991 and 1992 are

37,500 (% coefficient of variation (CV)=28.8, 95% confidence interval

(CI)=26,700 to 86,400) and 67,500 (%CV=23.1, 95% CI=32,900 to 104,600),

respectively. The reason for the nearly twofold, but statistically

insignificant, increase between 1991 and 1992 is unknown. Although the

increase is statistically insignificant, it may reflect a real change

in abundance due to a distribution change or methodological sampling

error. Methods to investigate this difference were recommended at the

February 23-25 NEFSC workshop to evaluate the status of harbor porpoise

in the western North Atlantic. An abundance survey has been recommended

for 1995.

Comment: A suggestion was made to divide the Northeast closure area

in half, longitudinally, or simply to make the entire area smaller.

Response: The Northeast area proposed for closure from August 15

through September 13 already represents a compromise forged between

fishermen and the Council. But concerns still exist that animals will

move into adjacent areas where vessels may concentrate and increase the

likelihood of takes, rather than reduce that possibility. Also, NMFS

survey data indicate that harbor porpoise usually frequent the same

general areas of the Gulf of Maine, but not always at the same time

every year. Because of this variability, shorter closures in smaller

areas could result in little or no reduction in bycatch, if animals are

not present during the closure period. This would result in lost

fishing time with no benefit.

Comment: Commenters expressed concern about Northeast time and area

closures that would eliminate fishing in the Schoodic Ridge area, a

region vital to the ``downeast'' fishermen.

Response: The Council's final decision took into account the fact

that the time and area plan would be phased in over 4 years. During the

first year of implementation, the Schoodic Ridge fishing grounds will

be left open. Further changes to the area will be based on the harbor

porpoise bycatch estimates derived from sea sampling program and other

relevant data submitted to the Council.

Comment: Commenters from Maine questioned why Jeffreys Ledge, an

area located off the coasts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire that

accounts for a relatively high level of bycatch, was being left open in

the first year of the plan.

Response: The Council's Mid-coast closure area incorporates an area

known as Jeffreys Basin, but excludes Jeffreys Ledge. In past years,

the basin area has represented a higher level of bycatch than Jeffreys

Ledge. Concerns focus on whether the displacement of more fishing

effort onto Jeffreys Ledge might account for a kill rate as high as or

potentially higher than, in previous years. As with the Northeast area,

however, the Council considered the boundaries adequate for year one of

implementation of Framework Adjustment #4. Bycatch of harbor porpoise

will be monitored and the need to adjust the boundaries can be

accomplished under the framework system.

Comment: One individual asked for an exemption for small-boat

operators who fish inshore only, and who are responsible for little or

no harbor porpoise bycatch. Otherwise, they would effectively be

excluded from the fishery as of the November 1-30 Mid-coast closure

because they are too small to fish in offshore conditions. Another

commenter suggested that these vessels fish under the 500-pound (226.8

kg) possession limit for regulated species of groundfish.

Response: Harbor porpoise throughout the Gulf of Maine are

distributed both inshore and offshore and become entangled in gillnets,

regardless of vessel size. Additionally, all sink gillnet vessels

fishing under a Federal multispecies permit, regardless of where they

are fishing, are subject to the porpoise bycatch reduction measures.

Comment: Gillnet gear should be given credit, one commenter said,

for being size-selective and for resulting in discards of juvenile

finfish.

Response: Once the time and area program has been in place

(approximately 1 year from the date of implementation), the Council

will evaluate the impact of the gillnet fishery on the mortality of

groundfish stocks and develop management measures that are appropriate

for the gillnet sector.

Comment: Some commenters felt the harbor porpoise bycatch reduction

program was a mechanism being used by other interests to close the sink

gillnet fishery.

Response: The Council's measures are designed to minimize impacts

on the sink gillnet fishery, while at the same time achieve the stated

harbor porpoise bycatch reduction objectives. The Council has held 16

public meetings since its initial commitment to incorporate bycatch

measures in Amendment 5 and has involved the fishing community,

conservation groups and interested parties in the development of the

FMP.

Comment: Several commenters felt it was inappropriate to use the

harbor porpoise time and area closure plan to protect endangered

whales.

Response: As part of the Council's obligations under section 7 of

the ESA, a consultation with NMFS is required if a fishery affects,

either directly or indirectly, endangered or threatened species or any

designated critical habitat. Because this framework adjustment

represents a change in management measures for a gear type that has

interactions with endangered species, the Council re-initiated the

section 7 consultation developed for Amendment 5, identified potential

interactions and has addressed them in the context of this framework

adjustment.

Comment: Many fishermen supported the use of ``pingers,'' sound

emitting devices that increase an animal's awareness of nets, as a

bycatch mitigation measure. A suggestion was made to use pingers in

year 1 of implementation of Amendment 5 in conjunction with four-day

blocks of time, but with no subsequent expansion of the days during

which nets would be removed from the water in future years.

Response: The 4-day blocks of time during which all gillnets would

be removed from the water each month throughout the range of species

covered by the Northeast Multispecies FMP was almost universally

rejected by commenters who attended public meetings and by those who

submitted written comments. The Council and NMFS are aware that

initiatives are underway which involve acoustical alarm research and

possible modifications to gillnet gear to reduce porpoise bycatch. If

any of these approaches produce scientifically supportable results that

can be incorporated into a management strategy, the Council would

recommend them through a framework adjustment with a minimum of

regulatory delay.

Comment: Several commenters questioned why the Council rejected the

use of an industry proposal based on a reduction in the number of

gillnets in use.

Response: At this time, it is not possible to determine the

relationship between the number of nets and fishing or harbor porpoise

mortality. It is known only that there is a relationship that is not

linear. Even a simple estimation of the number of nets in use is

impossible, at present, because of the variability of length of nets,

numbers of nets in a string, soak time and the variable numbers of both

full- and part-time vessels participating in the fishery. Moreover,

enforcement of a reduction in the number of nets in the ocean, as

opposed to a time and area prohibition, would be very difficult, if not

impossible, to accomplish at this time.

Classification

This regulation is not subject to the requirements to prepare a

proposed rule under the conditions met by this framework action that

have provided adequate prior public comment when the action was

proposed and discussed over the course of several Council meetings.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared for this

action because it is exempt from such an analysis under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds there is

good cause to waive prior notice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Public meetings held by the Council

to discuss the management measures implemented by this rule provided

adequate opportunity for public comment to be considered. Thus,

additional opportunity for public comment is unnecessary.

The AA also finds that under section 553(d)(1) of the APA, because

immediate implementation of this rule relieves a restriction that would

require 4 days out of the water by all vessels using sink gillnet gear

in May and June, there is no need to delay for 30 days the

effectiveness of this regulation.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 651

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 20, 1994.

Charles Karnella,

Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 651 is amended

as follows:

PART 651--NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FISHERY

1. The authority citation for part 651 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. Section 651.2 is amended by removing the definition of ``bottom-

tending gillnet or sink gillnet'' and adding a definition of ``sink

gillnet'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 651.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Sink gillnet means any gillnet, anchored or otherwise, that is

designed to be, capable of being, or is fished on or near the bottom in

the lower third of the water column.

* * * * *

3. Section 651.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(13) and

(e)(31) to read as follows:

Sec. 651.9 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(13) Fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel, or fail

to remove a sink gillnet from the areas and for the times specified in

Sec. 651.32(a), unless authorized in writing by the Regional Director.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(31) Fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel, or fail

to remove a sink gillnet from the EEZ portion of the areas, and for the

times specified in Sec. 651.32(a), unless authorized in writing by the

Regional Director.

* * * * *

4. Section 651.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) (1)

and (2) to read as follows:

Sec. 651.32 Sink gillnet requirements to reduce harbor porpoise takes.

(a) General. In addition to the measures specified in Secs. 651.20

and 651.21, persons owning or operating vessels using, possessing on

board a vessel, or fishing with, sink gillnet gear are subject to the

following restrictions, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the

Regional Director:

(1) Areas closed to sink gillnets. All persons owning or operating

vessels must remove all of their sink gillnet gear from, and may not

use, set, haul back fish with, or possess on board a vessel a sink

gillnet in, the EEZ portion of the areas and for the times specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section; and, all persons

owning or operating vessels issued a Federal Multispecies Limited

Access Permit must remove all of their sink gillnet gear from, and, may

not use, set, haul back fish with or possess on board a vessel a sink

gillnet in, the entire areas and for the times specified in paragraphs

(a)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) Northeast Closure Area. During the period August 15 through

September 13 of each fishing year, the restrictions and requirements

specified in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall apply to an area known as the Northeast Closure Area, which is an

area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the

order stated (see Figure 4 of this part).

Northeast Closure Area

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

NE1....................................... Maine shoreline 68 deg.55.0' W.

NE2....................................... 43 deg.29.6' N. 68 deg.55.0' W.

NE3....................................... 44 deg.04.4' N. 67 deg.48.7' W.

NE4....................................... 44 deg.06.9' N. 67 deg.52.8' W.

NE5....................................... 44 deg.31.2' N. 67 deg.02.7' W.

NE6....................................... Maine shoreline 67 deg.02.7' W.

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

(ii) Mid-coast Closure Area. During the period November 1 through

November 30 of each fishing year, the restrictions and requirements

specified in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall apply to an area known as the Mid-coast Closure Area, which is an

area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the

order stated (see Figure 4 of this part).

Mid-coast Closure Area

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

MC1....................................... 42 deg.45' N. Massachusetts shoreline.

MC2....................................... 42 deg.45' N. 70 deg.15' W.

MC3....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 70 deg.15' W.

MC4....................................... 43 deg.15' N. 69 deg.00' W.

MC5....................................... Maine shoreline 69 deg.00' W.

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

(iii) Massachusetts Bay Closure Area. During the period March 1

through March 30 of each fishing year, the restrictions and

requirements specified in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of

this section shall apply to an area known as the Massachusetts Bay

Closure Area, which is an area bounded by straight lines connecting the

following points in the order stated (see Figure 4 of this part).

Massachusetts Bay Closure Area

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

MB1....................................... 42 deg.30' N. Massachusetts shoreline.

MB2....................................... 42 deg.30' N. 70 deg.30' W.

MB3....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.30' W.

MB4....................................... 42 deg.12' N. 70 deg.00' W.

MB5....................................... Massachusetts shoreline 70 deg.00' W.

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

(b) * * * (1) By September 15 of each year, the Council's Harbor

Porpoise Review team (HPRT) shall complete an annual review of harbor

porpoise bycatch and abundance data in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet

fishery, evaluate the impacts on other measures that reduce harbor

porpoise take, and may make recommendations on other ``reduction-of-

take'' measures in light of the harbor porpoise mortality reduction

goals.

(2) At the first Council meeting following the HPRT annual meeting,

the team shall make recommendations to the Council as to what

adjustments or changes, if any, to the ``reduction-of-take'' measures

should be implemented in order to meet harbor porpoise mortality

reduction goals.

* * * * *

5. Figure 4 is added to the part as follows:

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

TR25MY94.001

[FR Doc. 94-12782 Filed 5-20-94; 4:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C