Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 103098C]

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Generic Essential Fish Habitat

Amendment

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

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of agency decision.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the partial approval of the Generic Essential

Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment (Gulf EFH Amendment) to the Fishery

Management Plans (FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf EFH Amendment

was submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

(Council).

DATES: This agency decision is effective February 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Barnette, 727-570-5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional

fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or

amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial

approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon

receiving an amendment, immediately publish a document in the Federal

Register stating that the amendment is available for public review and

comment. On November 9, 1998, NMFS published a notice of availability

(NOA) of the Gulf EFH Amendment to the Gulf of Mexico FMPs and

requested public comments through January 8, 1999 (63 FR 60287).

On February 8, 1999, after considering comments received, NMFS

partially approved the Gulf EFH Amendment. NMFS determined that

approval was warranted for the amendment, except for sections on the

identification of EFH for managed species and the assessment of fishing

impacts on EFH. NMFS approved the identification of EFH for 26 selected

species and the coral complex, but did not approve the identification

of EFH for the remaining species under management. In addition, NMFS

approved the assessment of impacts on EFH from the use of three types

of fishing gear (trawls, recreational fishing gear, and traps/pots),

but determined that an assessment of the impact on EFH by the other

gears used in the Gulf of Mexico should be considered in subsequent

amendments as more information becomes available.

Comments and Responses

Twelve commenters responded during the comment period for the Gulf

EFH Amendment.

Comment 1: Several commenters requested an extension of the comment

period past January 8, 1999, based on their belief that they could not

finish their comments on this lengthy amendment within the 60-day

period.

Response: Section 304(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act limits the

comment period to 60 days and provides no authority to extend it.

Furthermore, due to a statutory deadline of 30 days after the end of

the NOA comment period for action on the Gulf EFH Amendment, NMFS was

unable to grant an extension to the comment period.

Comment 2: Four commenters commented on issues regarding the scope

of review within the EFH document. All four groups found fault, to

varying degrees, with portions of the recommendations to minimize

impacts of identified threats from non-fishing activities. The

commenters stated that many of the recommendations were inappropriate,

based on current EFH designation, and did not take into account current

permitting regulations or restrictions from other agencies. One

commenter cited, for example, that the Council's recommendation for a

prescribed cut-off depth for oil rig structure removal does not take

into consideration the Rigs-to-Reefs program (allocation of disposed

oil rigs for an artificial reef program). Additionally, three

commenters disagreed with the broad EFH description, claiming that the

description detracts from the benefits of the EFH designation process;

they claimed that by designating as EFH, collectively, all Gulf of

Mexico waters from the shoreline to the EEZ, EFH is not unique. They

stated that by broadly encompassing all waters, this description

seriously threatens future activities currently in compliance with the

law within the region.

Response: NMFS believes the Council's recommendations in the Gulf

EFH Amendment to minimize adverse effects from non-fishing related

activities have been misinterpreted. The recommendations referenced in

the comments were intended by the Council as general guidance only. Due

to time and resource constraints, the Council opted for a broad range

of recommendations to serve as general guidance for any future actions.

NMFS supports this decision by the Council.

[[Page 13364]]

Specific cases will be reviewed and considered during any necessary EFH

consultation. Decisions regarding specific potential interaction with

EFH (e.g., Rigs-to-Reefs utilization) will be made, as appropriate,

during the EFH consultation process. Furthermore, recognizing the

limitations of available habitat information, NMFS agrees with the

Council's broad designation of EFH.

Comment 3: One commenter noted that vegetated wetlands conservation

was not adequately addressed in the Gulf EFH Amendment.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The Gulf EFH Amendment

adequately identified activities that may have the potential to

negatively impact coastal wetlands, including vegetated wetlands, and

contained recommendations to minimize those impacts (section 7.2). The

Council will consider further information for inclusion in future FMP

amendments when available. Public review of, and comment on, this

information will occur during the development of future amendments.

Comment 4: One commenter stated that section 6.2 (Identification of

Non-Fishing Related Activities That May Adversely Affect EFH) should be

rejected in favor of ranking EFH threats by severity.

Response: NMFS believes that section 6.2 is adequate. Due to time

constraints and the need to amend the FMPs to identify EFH, the ranking

of threats and the establishment of a systematic approach to addressing

those threats must await future FMP amendments.

Comment 5: Two commenters stated that the approval of the

recommendations within the Gulf EFH Amendment regarding oil and gas

permit consultation would burden NMFS and, in turn, cause time delays

and cost overruns for hydrocarbon exploration and production.

Response: NMFS intends to initiate new consultation processes only

where no existing process is available to conduct the EFH consultation

process required by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the

case of oil and gas exploration and development, NMFS believes that

there are adequate mechanisms already in place to accommodate any

needed EFH consultations. The environmental impact assessment and

review procedure under the National Environmental Policy Act is the

most likely existing process that will be used. NMFS does not intend to

increase the time or complexity needed to complete the environmental

impact and review procedures already in place. Therefore, NMFS

disagrees with these comments.

Comment 6: Several commenters noted that assessments of the impact

on EFH of all allowable fishing gear types and activities in the Gulf

of Mexico, including Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, were not

covered in section 6.1 of the Gulf EFH Amendment (Fishing Activities

That May Adversely Affect EFH). These commenters suggested that section

6.1 should be rejected until adequate assessments are provided.

Response: NMFS partially approved section 6.1. NMFS approved the

assessment of the impacts of trawls, recreational fishing, and traps/

pots on EFH; however, NMFS did not approve the assessment of the impact

on EFH of other gear types and fishing in general. NMFS agrees that

fishery-related EFH impacts are important issues that need to be better

addressed. Currently, the scientific information base in the Gulf of

Mexico lacks the necessary detail on fishing-related impacts on EFH to

support a more complete assessment. Fishing-related impacts on EFH can

and will be properly addressed in future amendments, as information

becomes available.

Comment 7: Several commenters claimed that the Gulf EFH Amendment

failed to assess cumulative impacts on EFH in the Gulf of Mexico. The

commenters claimed that, as a result, section 6.3 of the Gulf EFH

Amendment was inadequate and should be rejected.

Response: NMFS believes that section 6.3 is adequate and based on

the best scientific information that is currently available. NMFS

agrees that cumulative EFH impacts are important and need to be better

addressed. Currently, the scientific information base in the Gulf of

Mexico lacks the necessary detail on cumulative impacts on EFH to

assess them more fully. These impacts can and will be properly

addressed in future amendments, as information becomes available.

Comment 8: Three commenters claimed that the amendment failed to

include any conservation or management measures to prevent, mitigate,

or minimize identified adverse fishing impacts on EFH.

Response: Current FMPs for Gulf of Mexico fisheries in Federal

waters already contain many management measures to reduce fishing-

related impacts on habitat. NMFS believes that the current scientific

information base in the Gulf of Mexico lacks the necessary detail to

determine the practicality of additional management measures. The need

for additional management measures to reduce fishing-related impacts on

EFH can and will be properly addressed in future amendments, as

information becomes available. Future research on fishing-related

impacts on EFH will form the basis for future identification of

additional mitigating measures.

Comment 9: Three commenters noted that there was a lack of an

assessment of regional habitat information/research needs or current

regional habitat data gaps within the Gulf EFH Amendment. The

commenters stated that the information provided was inadequate and

failed to meet the necessary requirements, and, thus, should be

rejected.

Response: NMFS agrees that a section regarding comprehensive

research needs in the Gulf of Mexico EFH Amendment is desirable. A

general research needs section was included in the amendment and

provides adequate guidance for developing specific regional research

activities. NMFS agrees, however, that a research schedule is needed in

the future. The Council can address this need in subsequent FMP

amendments.

Comment 10: A commenter indicated that the Gulf EFH Amendment must

include a revision of the Council's Statement of Practices and

Procedures.

Response: Revision of the Council's Statement of Practices and

Procedures is outside the scope of the Gulf EFH Amendment and was not

necessary for its approval. Therefore, NMFS disagrees with this

comment.

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

Dated: March 12, 1999.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

[FR Doc. 99-6627 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F