New England Fishery Management Council

New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 PHONE 978 465 0492 FAX 978 465 3116 John Pappalardo, Chairman Paul J. Howard, Executive Director ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) OMNIBUS AMENDMENT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DSEIS) PHASE 1 APPENDIX H SCOPING REPORT

This page left intentionally blank. H 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION In the 1996 Magnuson Stevens Act Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act) reauthorization, Congress recognized that one of the most significant long term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. To ensure that habitat considerations receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources, the amended Magnuson Stevens Act included new essential fish habitat (EFH) requirements. As such, each fishery management plan (FMP) must describe and identify EFH for the fishery, minimize adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing to the extent practicable, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. EFH is defined in the Magnuson Stevens Act as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. In October 1998, the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted Amendments 11/9/1/1 to the northeast multispecies, Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic salmon fishery management plans, respectively, and the EFH components to the herring fishery management plan and submitted them for review by the Secretary. These amendments were approved by the Secretary (FR 64, No. 76, p. 19503), in accordance with Section 304(a) of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The purpose of the Omnibus EFH Amendment of 1998 was to identify and describe the EFH for all species of marine, estuarine, anadromous finfish and mollusks managed by the Council to better protect, conserve, and enhance this habitat. The 1998 EFH Amendment also identified the major threats to EFH from both fishing and non fishing related activities and conservation and enhancement measures. The Council began implementation of the SFA s EFH requirements based on guidance provided by NMFS on interpreting the mandate and timelines. Amendments to the FMPs managed by the Council were initiated in 1998 and combined in one management action that was termed the Habitat Omnibus Amendment of 1998. The Council approved the final EFH FMP amendments (EA) in September 1998 and the EA was submitted to NMFS in October 1998. The Secretary of Commerce approved the amendments to all FMPs, with the exception of the Monkfish FMP, on March 1999. The EFH requirements of FMPs that were not included in the Omnibus Amendment of 1998 were completed on the following schedule: Monkfish FMP (April 1999), Red Crab FMP (October 2002), and Skate FMP (July 2003). In Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the Council evaluated gear impacts and selected measures to minimize impacts to the extent practicable which included effort reduction and closed areas (FR Vol. 69, No. 113, p.32900). In Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, the Council evaluated gear impacts and selected measures to minimize impacts to the extent practicable which included effort H 3

reductions, closed areas, gear modifications and research set aside monies (FR Vol. 69, No. 120, p. 35194). In Amendment 2 to the Monkfish FMP, the Council has evaluated gear effects and determined that adverse impacts to EFH from the monkfish fishery are occurring. As a result, the Council selected measures to minimize these impacts to the extent practicable, which included gear modifications and closed areas (FR Vol. 69, No. 36, p. 8367). The draft EIS has been submitted to NMFS and the public comment period runs through July 2004. In Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP, the Council has evaluated gear effects and determined that no adverse impacts rise to the threshold of more than minimal and temporary in nature. Therefore, the Council doe not need to develop a range of alternatives to minimize adverse impacts to the extent practicable. In February 2004, the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) initiated the development of an Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (M S Act) (FR Vol. 69, No. 36, p. 8367). This action will amend all of the fishery management plans (FMPs) managed by the Council and will become Amendment 14 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, Amendment 3 to the Monkfish FMP, Amendment 2 to the Herring FMP, Amendment 1 to the Skate FMP, Amendment 1 to the Red Crab FMP and Amendment 2 to the Atlantic Salmon FMP. This action is designed to determine whether and how to amend the Council FMPs pursuant to Section 307(a) of the Magnuson Stevens Act and based on the EFH Final Rule in 50 CFR, part 600 subpart J. More specifically, the intent of this action is twofold: (1) To meet NMFS published guidelines for implementation of the Magnuson Stevens Act s EFH provisions to review and revise EFH components of FMPs at least once every five (5) years; and, (2). To develop a comprehensive EFH Management Plan that will successfully minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH through actions that will apply to all Council managed FMPs. The Council is not satisfied with its current practice of evaluating EFH and EFH management through individual plans and believes that it would be preferable to meet the EFH requirements by developing a comprehensive EFH Omnibus Amendment for all its FMPs. The topics under consideration include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Review and update the description and identification of EFH 2. Review and develop analytical tools used to analyze alternatives to minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH 3. Review and update the non Magnuson Stevens FCMA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH 4. Review and update the non fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH 5. Review and update the cumulative impact analysis 6. Review and update the conservation and enhancement recommendations 7. Review and update the prey species information 8. Identify and consider new Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs)* H 4

9. Review and update research and information needs including the consideration of Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRA)* 10. Integrate alternatives to minimize any adverse effects of fishing on EFH across all FMPs principally managed by the Council 2. 0 SCOPING PERIOD, PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS, AND ISSUES On February 24, 2004, the Council published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare this EIS. The NOI solicited written comments to determine the issues of concern and the appropriate range of management alternatives to be addressed in the EIS and included notification regarding noticed five scoping meetings in communities in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and North Carolina (FR Vol. 69, No. 36, p. 8367). 2.1 Summary of Scoping Meetings The Council conducted scoping hearings in accordance with NEPA requirements. The Chair of the Council s Habitat Committee, the Habitat Plan Development Team Chair and a member of the NMFS NERO Habitat Conservation Division attended each hearing. The hearings were organized and informational material was provided by the Council staff. Table 1. Schedule of public scoping hearings Date Location Number of Attendees Friday, March 5, 2004 12:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:00 p.m. Monday, March 15, 2004 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:30 p.m. Samoset Resort 220 Warrenton Street Rockport, ME 04846 22 Whaling Museum 18 Johnny Cake Hill New Bedford, MA 02740 9 Office of Public Safety 173 S. Broad St. (Route 1) Stonington, CT 06378 8 Shell Island Suites 2700 N. Lumina Avenue Wrightsville Beach, NC 17 H 5

28480 Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:00 p.m. Tavern on the Harbor 30 Western Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 19 2.2 Format of Scoping Meetings A presentation with relevant overview information was given by the NEFMC Habitat Committee Chairperson and NEFMC and NMFS staff answered questions. The public attendees were asked to sign in and were afforded unlimited time with which to comment on the proposed issues. Additionally, the public was allowed to ask staff clarification questions that would enable the public to provide more informed comments. 2.3 Written Comment Letters Table 2. Comment Letters and Issues Letter Source Date Number 1. Conservation Law Foundation, Dr. Priscilla Brooks, Dr. April 30, 2004 John Crawford, Mr. Roger Fleming 2. Penobscot Marine Research Center, Dr. Ted Ames March 5, 2004 3. East Coast Fisheries Federation, Mr. Jim O Malley March 15, 2004 4. North Atlantic Clam Association, Mr. John Brisen March 16, 2004 5. Mr. James Fletcher, Manns Harbor, NC March 22, 2004 6. Wallace and Associates, Mr. David Wallace April 30, 2004 7. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Dr. Craig April 30, 2004 MacDonald 8. Northeast Seafood Coalition, Ms. Jackie O Dell April 30, 2004 9. Coonamessett Farm, Mr. Ron Smolowitz March 6, 2004 10. B. Sachau, Florham Park, NJ February 17, 2004 11. The Ocean Conservancy, Ms. Susan Farady and Mr. April 28, 2004 Geoff Smith 12. Oceana, Mr. Chris Zeman April 30, 2004 13. Fisheries Survival Fund April 30, 2004 H 6

Mr. David Frulla and Mr. Shaun Gehan Dr. Trevor Kenchington Table 3. Summary Count of Comments within Comment Categories Issue Number of Comments Number of Unique Comments Review and update the description and identification of EFH Review and develop analytical tools used to analyze alternatives to minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH Review and update the non Magnuson Stevens FCMA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH Review and update the non fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH Review and update the cumulative impact analysis Review and update the conservation and enhancement recommendations Review and update the prey species information Identify and consider new Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs)* Review and update research and information needs including the consideration of Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRA)* Integrate alternatives to minimize any adverse effects of fishing on EFH across all FMPs principally managed by the Council by developing a comprehensive EFH Management Plan. H 7

3.0 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT SUGGEST ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement process is to identify a reasonable range of management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing between those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. NEPA requires that only significant issues need to be analyzed in depth for environmental effects, formulating alternatives, and prescribing mitigation measures. The term significance, has a different meaning under NEPA than statistical significance as generally used in scientific documents. Following guidance by the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations for NEPA, determinations of significance require consideration of both the context and the intensity of the issue (40 CFR 1508.27). 3.1 Review and update the description and identification of EFH 1. Recognize that EFH is not limited to the seafloor but also includes waters and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties 2. Give appropriate weight to both the water column and seabed facets of fish habitat. 3. Do not base EFH designations on proxies for the functional value of habitat such as habitat complexity or sediment types. 4. Continue to use the approach approved in the 1998 EFH Omnibus Amendment to designate EFH which bases the designations on the distribution of resource species. 5. Reduce the scale of the EFH designations from 10 minute squares to either a 1 or 3 nautical mile square. 6. The entire time series of the NMFS survey data and all the tows should be used. 7. Utilize the data from state surveys in determining EFH. 8. Modify the existing EFH designations to include known deep sea coral habitats 9. Maintain present EFH designations until new scientific research supports refinement H 8

10. Place greater emphasis on the text description of EFH so that EFH is clearly defined as portions of the spatial scale selected to represent EFH in map format. 11. Use higher spatial resolutions to designate EFH such as the 3 mile grid used in the SMAST video survey or a 2.5, 3.3 or 5 minute intervals of latitude and longitude. 3.2 Review and develop analytical tools used to analyze alternatives to minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH Gear Effects Evaluation 1. Address the seafloor habitat impacts from bottom tending mobile gear 2. Threshold for an adverse impact that needs to be minimized should be a function of the species s biomass levels: if the biomass is at the optimum yield, then EFH is not being adversely affected. 3. Depend on research results only from experiments that used actual commercial fishing gear operated in a commercial manner in areas that are commercially fished. 4. Bottom trawls and scallop dredges have the greatest potential to cause longterm, significant adverse impacts to marine habitats designated as EFH 5. The habitat types that are most vulnerable include: 1) emergent epifauna and structure forming organisms; 2) gravels, cobbles and boulder reefs; and 3) deep water corals. 6. The first pass theory of habitat impacts has no scientific foundation. 7. No solid evidence for a linkage between gear impacts and fish production exists. Minimizing Adverse Impacts 1. Focus habitat protections on the most important and/or sensitive EFH. Areas of high concentration of juvenile groundfish should be the first priority for protection with achieving a certain level of protection for all groundfish species within each stock area. H 9

2. Implement new or reconfigured habitat closures with appropriate gear restrictions 3. Develop a plan where bottom tending mobile gear use is limited 4. Habitat data should be analyzed and considered in the rotational area management scheme for scallop management. 5. Support and encourage the use of gears, such as rod and reel and hook and line gear, that reduce the habitat impacts of fishing. 6. Implement additional restrictions on rock hopper roller gear on trawl nets. 7. Encourage additional habitat protections in sector allocation and area based management programs. 8. Require VMS on all commercial vessels 9. Implement an adequate observer program with a minimum of 20% coverage and greater coverage in areas where protected species are known. 10. Employ the natural protection of marine organisms provided by the very rough areas on George s Bank and the Gulf of Maine where fishing gear cannot be used (e.g. steep canyon walls or large boulder fields). 11. If habitat closures and MPAs are employed, they should only be closed for a period of time (e.g. 2 5 years) and then re opened. 12. Develop a policy limiting the amount of area that can be closed for habitat protection to 2 3% of water less than 200 meters. 13. Two habitat types deserve greater attention by the Council for protection: boulder reefs and cerianthid anemone forests. 14. An updated review of the science on the effects of gear on EFH should be conducted. 15. Establish marine sanctuaries and prohibit all commercial and recreational fishing within the boundaries. 16. Reduce all quotas on commercial fishermen by 50% the first year and 10% each succeeding year. 17. Avoid the use of the precautionary approach (2) H 10

18. Management under the precautionary approach is inappropriate. 19. Develop a broad range of habitat specific closed areas that place special emphasis on identifying and protecting habitat types that are vulnerable to fishing related impacts and important to spawning and juvenile life stages of fish. Improve existing habitat closures to better protect the most vulnerable habitat types in the NE region. 20. Approve measures that restrict trawls and dredges from vulnerable habitat areas including boulder reefs, gravel and cobble substrates, and deep water corals. 21. The most important characteristics to be protected include: 1) unique habitat types; 2) emergent epifauna and structure forming organisms; 3) gravel, cobble, and boulder reefs that provide cover for juvenile and sub adult fish; and 4) deep water corals due to their life history characteristics and vulnerability to fishing gear impacts. 22. The most important functions to be protected include: 1) providing cover and refuge; 2) providing spawning sites; 3) providing habitat for important prey species; and 4) providing healthy populations of all marine life to help maintain and enhance biological diversity and overall ecosystem health. 23. Develop the following types of alternatives to minimize adverse effects: gear modifications, time/area closures, HAPCs, zoning, fishing restrictions and a no fishing alternative 24. Structural complexity and prey abundance are the two most important characteristics to be protected from adverse fishing impacts 25. Shelter and food sources are the two most important functions of marine habitats that need to be protected from adverse fishing impacts to protect sensitive gravel habitats and deep sea coral habitats. 26. In order to minimize the impacts of bottom trawling on sensitive gravel habitats and deep sea coral habitats considers a broad range of alternatives to: 1. Create no trawl/dredge habitat closures in known gravel, cobble and boulder habitats, specifically in areas west of the Great South Channel that are designated juvenile cod EFH; 2. Create no trawl/dredge habitat closures in HAPCs designed to protect the priority sensitive habitat; 3.Create no trawl/dredge closures in known areas of deep sea corals; 4. Exclude sensitive habitat types identified as HAPCs from scallop dredging rotational management areas and areas open to scallop dredging and 4. Protect the top 30 50% of juvenile cod EFH from bottomtrawling and dredging H 11

27. Develop an alternative that will prohibit all bottom trawling and dredging in areas that have been unfished for the past three years until such areas are mapped and it is shown that those areas do not contain sensitive marine habitats 28. The boundaries of the existing groundfish closed areas should be open for review. 29. With rare exceptions, any linkage between EFH issues and overfished status is inappropriate as species depleted by fishing pressure should be too scarce to fully utilize their available habitat and hence protection of their EFH should be less, not more urgent than is the case for other resources. 30. Focus the work on the importance of the inshore habitats to the fishery resources of New England. 31. Do not focus on the use of closed areas for habitat protection at the expense of other tools such as gear modifications. 32. Modifications of existing gears and adjustments in the balance of different gears used in the same fishery promise opportunities to ease any habitatrelated restrictions on fishing efforts. 33. The principal interest in area based responses to the habitat issue should be on area specific controls short of complete bans: 1. low effort areas, where fishing pressure (by one or more gear types) is held below the level deemed optimal elsewhere, without shutting off all access to the sedentary resources on relatively vulnerable bottoms and/or 2. high effort areas, where the industry is encouraged to harvest migrant fish on seabeds thought to be less vulnerable than those elsewhere. Areas might be open only to particular gear types or to other gears subject to specific restrictions. Bottom trawls might be allowed in an area, for example, if they are used to target species (shrimp perhaps) which only live on muddy sand but not in fishing for species which would draw the effort onto hard bottom patches scattered through the softer seabed. 34. In the few cases where closed areas are necessary to protect well defined, highly valued and highly vulnerable areas, delineate the area to be protected, surround that with a buffer and draw the closure boundary around the outside of the buffer. There should be no need to then add a further external buffer subject to some form of partial restriction. H 12

35. Establish specific review dates for existing and any new habitat closed areas. 36. Consider the use of positive incentives to encourage fishing practices that will reduce seabed impacts such as reopening closed portions of traditional fishing grounds and/or provide free steaming time to offshore areas so as to draw effort away from more vulnerable habitats, particularly inshore, rocky areas where mobile gear was not used in the past and where few fishermen would choose to use if they had alternatives. 37. Implementation dates of measures should occur at the beginning of a fishing year and not in the middle. Tools and Methods 1. Develop analytical tools that improve the ability to quantify the expected benefits of area closures and subsequent habitat recovery to the overall productivity of fish populations and the ocean ecosystem. 2. Make available mapping and analysis to allow the public to develop wellinformed alternatives for protecting habitat 3. Analyses should concentrate on the consequences of each alternative for designated EFH and specifically the designated EFH upon which particular gear types have been determined to have adverse impacts. 4. Consider the effects of migratory behavior on the survey data when determining which areas to consider in their analyses. 5. Include fishermen s knowledge as important information inputs. 3.3 Review and update the non-magnuson-stevens FCMA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH None. 3.4 Review and update the non-fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH 1. The Council should review the recommendations on citing of finfish aquaculture sites in the near shore waters of coastal Maine H 13

2. Environmental changes need to be considered in managing fisheries 3. Use the NOAA National Coastal Conditions Report to highlight areas with water clarity problems and protect the EFH contained therein. 4. Consider review the recommendations on acid rain, estrogen and estrogen like chemicals and chlorine deposited from waste water treatment plants. 3.5 Review and update the cumulative impact analysis 1. Examine not only the trawling (and dredging) taking place today, but also at how that trawling combines with past trawling, and likely future trawling, negatively affects the marine environment; 2. Consider the synergistic effects of habitat damage with other fishing effects, such as food web effects that may result from removal of key ecosystem components like top predators or forage species; and 3. All reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 4. Organize a regional workshop with scientists, staff from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior, and interested stakeholders, to develop a methodology and approach to analyze the cumulative impacts of the multitude of fisheries occurring in New England waters in a way that is scientifically sound, provides helpful management data, and adheres to NEPA requirements 3.6 Review and update the conservation and enhancement recommendations None. 3.7 Review and update the prey species information 1. Need to recognize prey species in existing EFH designations, list managed species prey species and their habitats and recognize the lost of prey from fishing as an adverse impact. H 14

2. Place review and update emphasis on improving the understanding or key forage species (including herring, mackerel and sand lance). 3. Designate EFH for prey species. 3.8 Identify and consider new Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs)* 1. Implement HAPCs with management measures containing the highest levels of protection from gear impacts 2. Consider designating larger HAPCs, or surrounding HAPCs with buffer zones (in nearshore areas, hook and line fishing could be conducted) 3. Review the existing cod HAPC to see if it s in the right location by analyzing the abundance of juvenile cod and types of substrate in that area as compared to other areas. 4. Develop a broad range of HAPC alternatives with special consideration given to unique habitat features and areas where habitat is particularly vulnerable to fishing related impacts: 1) complex gravel cobble habitats with emergent epifuana, 2) boulder reefs, 3) deep waters corals, 4) kelp forests and 5) spawning aggregations and juvenile life stages of fish species. 5. Designate as HAPCs, and protect from bottom tending mobile gear, gravel, cobble and boulder habitats and deep sea coral habitats 6. Consider the following habitat types for HAPC designation and protection: 1. Gravel, cobble, and boulder habitats; 2. Deep sea coral areas in inshore and offshore areas in the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank; 3. Deep sea (>100 m), low energy habitats that contain emergent epifauna, including cerianthids, sponges, and deep sea corals; and 4. Areas known to have clay pipes, lemon squirts, and mussel beds. 7. Establish a procedure to assess existing and potential adverse impacts to specific places that contain these sensitive habitat types appropriate to be designated and protected as HAPC that includes the following: 1. Visually overlay or describe active and potential adverse impacts (fishing, non fishing, cumulative) to the specific places designated as HAPC; 2. Visually overlay or describe existing protective measures for these specific HAPC places; 3. Identify any gaps that may exist in habitat protection; 4. Develop proposals recommended by the Habitat PDT, in addition to requesting proposals from the public on measures to protect these specific places. H 15

8. Recommend reconsideration of the Council s HAPC designation process and the current cod HAPC. 9. Opposes any blanket list of restrictions to be applied in all HAPCs, without regard to the reasons that particular areas are deemed to be of particular concern. 3.9 Review and update research and information needs including the consideration of Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRA)* 1. Not only look at areas currently closed but also look at areas currently open to fishing. 2. The RFP should proposals based on best available scientific data and use systematic and objective methods as criteria. 3. Designate a portion of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary as a longterm research/reference area where the effects of human activities on sanctuary resources can be discerned. 4. Develop a broad range of alternatives for DHRAs with emphasis on improving the understanding of ecological processes and habitat recovery rates. 5. Coordinate with SBNMS and consider DHRA sites within the Sanctuary boundary. 6. Consider a DHRA west of the Great South Channel in areas of historically highly productive juvenile cod EFH 7. Conduct an experiment to inter calibrate the State and NMFS trawl surveys such that existing data from State waters could be used to extend the quantitative information on fish distributions for input into new EFH designations. 8. Urge the Council to direct its Habitat PDT to swiftly compile a prioritized list of other projects which could usefully be undertaken within the existing time constraints, such that the various agencies and institutions involved in fisheries research in New England can direct their attention and resources in appropriate directions. 9. Council should adopt an explicit policy requiring that the declaration of any DHRA be tied to an analysis showing that such action is expected to have a net benefit for the fisheries. H 16

10. Proponents of any DHRA be required to show why the research to be undertaken there cannot be carried out in areas open to fishing and why it cannot be carried out in any existing closures, either within the waters subject to NEFMC management or elsewhere. 11. The number and size of DHRAs which can exist at any one time should be limited. 12. Should ensure that each DHRA passes the test of a positive net benefit for the fisheries, the selection of areas must proceed from identified research needs, through details of the studies required to provide the necessary knowledge, and thence to selection of an area which can provide the habitat types needed for those studies. 3.10 Integrate alternatives to minimize any adverse effects of fishing on EFH across all FMPs principally managed by the Council by developing a comprehensive EFH Management Plan. 1. Council should take an integrated approach to designing habitat alternatives minimizing the adverse effects of fishing on EFH 2. Opposes a coordinated, habitat management program but harmonization across multiple FMPs is necessary. 3.11 Other Comments 1. NMFS should expand the data collected in its trawl surveys in order to accumulate information on the biodiversity of the larger ecosystem and to collect data on benthic epifauna. 2. Identify deep sea corals in New England as EFH and implement measures to protect them. 3. Corals should be designated as HAPCs. 4. Designate EFH for deep sea and coldwater corals 5. Protection needed for very sensitive areas in New England (e.g. coral beds and kelp forests) 6. Council should develop a series of workshops to provide a complete update of the most current EFH science and an explanation of the relevant legal and management decisions that have been made to date. H 17

7. Support the development of a Habitat Assessment Workshop and Review Committee to bring together experts knowledgeable in methods and application of applied habitat research to review and improve the current EFH designation process. 8. Urge NMFS to increase the use of multibeam sonar, backscatter plots, video surveys, and ROVs to improve habitat characterization and mapping. 9. In order to minimize the impacts of bottom trawling on deep sea coral habitats consider creating no trawl/dredge closures in known areas of deep sea corals 10. Urge Council and NMFS to design a system that will provide serious review of the advice provided to the Committee and one which will provide full opportunity for the PDT to correct any deficiencies identified by the review. 3.12 Data Sources and Tools 1. Use MARXAN for integrating EFH measures across FMPs 2. Do not use MARXAN. 3.13 Literature Cited in Scoping Comments Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Special Publication 14, Juneau; Hall Spencer, J.M and P.G. Moore. 2000. Scallop dredging has profound, long term impacts on maerl habitats. ICES J. of Mar. Sci. 57(5):1407 1415. Ames, T. 2004 Andrews et al. 2002 Auster, P.J., Lindholm, J. and Valentine, P.C. 2003. Variation in habitat use by juvenile Acadian redfish, Sebastes fasciatus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: 381 389. Auster, P.J. 2001. Defining thresholds for precautionary habitat management actions in a fisheries context, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol. 21, pp1 9. Auster and Lindholm, 2000. Auster and Lindholm. 1999 Babcock, E., Pikitch, E., Hudson, S., 2003 Bigelow and Schroeder 1953 Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero & P.C. Valentine. 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155: 159 172. Collie et al. 2000. A Quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology. 69, 785 798; Collie, J.S., Escanero, G.A., and P.C. Valentine. 2000. Photographic evaluation of the impacts of bottom fishing on benthic epifauna. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57(4):1054 3119; H 18

Currie, D.R. and G.D. Parry. 1999. Impacts and efficiency of scallop dredging on different soft substrates. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:539 550; Dorsey, E. and Pederson, J., 1998. Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England (published by Conservation Law Foundation (Boston). Freese, L., P.J. Auster, J. Heifetz & B.L. Wing (1999) Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 182: 119 126; Grant, J. 2000. Modeling approaches to dredging impacts and their role in scallop population dynamics. Heikoop et al. 1998 Johnson and Nelson, 1984. Kostylev et al. 2001. Krieger, K.J. 2001. Coral (Primnoa) impacted by fishing gear in the Gulf of Alaska. In: J.H.M. Willison, J. Hall, S.E. Gass, E.L.R. Kenchington, M. Butler & P. Doherty (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Symposium ondeep Sea Corals, Ecology Action Centre & Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax: 106 116; Lindholm, J.B., P.J. Auster, M. Ruth, and L. Kaufman. 2001. Juvenile fish responses to variations in seafloor habitats: modeling the effects of fishing and implications for the design of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology. 15:424 437. Lindholm et al. 1999 Probert, 1984. Smolowitz, R. 1998. Bottom tending mobile gear used in New England in Dorsey, E. and Pederson, J. Effects of fishing gear on the sea floor of New England, CLF Boston. Steele, J., D.L. Alverson, P. Auster, J. Collie, J.T. DeAlteris, L. Deegan, E. Escobar Briones, S.J. Hall, G.H. Kruse, C. Pomeroy, K.M. Scanlon & P. Weeks (2002) Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.: 126p., pp. 61 62. Steele et al. op.cit., Figure 3.2, p. 24. Tracy et al. 2003. Turner et al., 1995. Veale, L.O., Hill, A.S., Hawkins, S.J., and A.R. Brand. 2000. Effects of long term physical disturbance by commercial scallop fishing on subtidal epifaunal assemblages and habitats. Marine Biology 137(2):325 337 Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt & N. Nicholson. 1987. Effects of a research trawl on a hard bottom assemblage of sponges and corals. Fisheries Research 5: 39 54; Wassenberg, T.J., G. Dews & S.D. Cook. 2002. The impact of fish trawls on megabenthos (sponges) on the north west shelf of Australia. Fisheries Research 58: 141 151. Watling and Auster 2003 (draft manuscript) H 19

4.0 DETAILED SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED IN WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING SCOPING On June 16, 2004, the Council s Habitat/MPA Committee and Advisors met to review the comments received on the scoping process for completing the Habitat Omnibus Amendment #2. The Committee considered all the comments received and identified draft goals and objectives to guide the development of this action. Key issues raised in each of the comments that may suggest significant alternative actions will be developed by the Committee after the Council approves the goals and objectives at the July 2004 Council meeting. In some cases the Committee will make a call as to whether they think the issue is significant (yes/no). Significant issues are used to formulate alternatives, develop or analyze environmental effects. Issues are considered significant based on the extent, duration, magnitude, or intensity of the effect. The extent is the geographic distribution of the effects. The duration is the length of time the effect is likely to occur. The magnitude or intensity is the value of the effect relative to acceptable values and/or the intensity of interest or resource conflict. 4.1 Goals The Committee approved the following draft list of goals for the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment #2 to be submitted to the Council for approval at the July Council meeting. This list is a combination of required review components (R) as well as discretionary topics (D). Discretionary topics are those that the Council is not required to cover either due to the statutory time of review requirements of the EFH Final Rule that guides the development of the EFH components of the Council s FMP documents. 1. Update the identification and description all EFH for those species of finfish and mollusks managed by the Council, including the consideration of HAPCs. (R) 2. Review and update the major fishing activities (MSA and non MSA) that may adversely affect the EFH of those species managed by the Council. (D) 3. Review and update the major non fishing activities that may adversely affect the EFH of those species managed by the Council. (R) 4. Identify and implement mechanisms to protect, conserve, and enhance the EFH of those species managed by the Council to the extent practicable. (R) 5. Define metrics for achieving the requirements to minimize adverse impacts to the extent practicable. (D) 6. Integrate and optimize measures to minimize the adverse impacts to EFH across all Council managed FMPs. (D) H 20

7. Update research and information needs. (R) 8. Review and update prey species information. (R) 4.2 Objectives Based on their goals, the Committee developed a set of objectives to support the above stated goals. This list was developed via Committee discussion, input from the AP Chair and Vice Chair as well as staff input and assistance by the general public: A. Identify new data sources and assimilate into the process to meet goals (state, federal and other data sources) B. Implement review of existing HAPCs and consider modified or additional HAPCs (Goal #1) C. Review EFH designations and refine where appropriate as improved data and analysis become available (Goal #1) D. Develop analytical tools for designation of EFH, minimization of adverse impacts, and monitoring the effectiveness of measures designed to protect habitat (Goal #1, Goal #3 and Goal #5) E. Modify fishing methods and create incentives to reduce the impacts on habitat associated with fishing (Goal #4) F. Support restoration and rehabilitation of fish habitat which have already been degraded (by fishing and non fishing activities) (Goal #4) G. Support creation and development of fish habitat where appropriate and when increased fishery resources would benefit society (Goal #4) H. Develop a strategy for prioritizing habitat protection (Goal #4) I. Develop criteria for establishing and implementing dedicated habitat research areas (Goal #7) J. Design a system for monitoring and evaluating the benefits of EFH management actions including dedicated habitat research areas (Goal #7). H 21

5.0 Significant Issues that Suggest Alternative Actions To be developed. 6.0 Other Significant Issues to Be Analyzed in the EIS To be developed. H 22

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF INTENT Background Due largely to public clarity and issues of complexity, on September 9, 2005, the Council published in the Federal Register a Supplemental Notice of Intent to declare its intention to complete Omnibus Amendment 2 in a two phased approach, as further described below. The two phases will be documented in on accompanying EIS with potentially two separate volumes. Separation of this large action into two phases (volumes) will allow for the continued sequential development of the Omnibus Amendment but avoids the creation of an extremely large and complex action that may not be decipherable from the public s perspective. Further, in order to meet the Sustainable Fisheries Act intention of the EFH mandate, it is prudent to take a step wise approach. For instance, it is necessary to determine what is EFH prior to conducting an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing gear on EFH and to develop a range of alternatives to minimize, mitigate or avoid any impacts that are more than minimal and less than temporary in nature. The Council s approved goals and objectives for the two phase EFH Omnibus Amendment are listed here. Bolded items denote those that apply to Phase 1 of the Amendment GOALS 1. Redefine, refine or update the identification and description of all EFH for those species of finfish and mollusks managed by the Council, including the consideration of HAPCs; 2. Identify, review and update the major fishing activities (MSA and non MSA) that may adversely affect the EFH of those species managed by the Council; 3. Identify, review and update the major non fishing activities that may adversely affect the EFH of those species managed by the Council; 4. Identify and implement mechanisms to protect, conserve, and enhance the EFH of those species managed by the Council to the extent practicable; 5. Define metrics for achieving the requirements to minimize adverse impacts to the extent practicable; 6. Integrate and optimize measures to minimize the adverse impacts to EFH across all Council managed FMPs; 7. Update research and information needs; 8. Review and update prey species information for each species in the FMU. In summary, the purpose (four fold) of Phase 1, which is the focus of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and Fishery Management Plan Amendment, includes the following four main goals: H 23

1. Redefine, refine or update the identification and description of all EFH for those species of finfish and mollusks managed by the Council, including the consideration of HAPCs; 2. Identify, review and update the major non fishing activities that may adversely affect the EFH of those species managed by the Council 3. Identify, review and update the major non fishing activities that may adversely affect the EFH of those species managed by the Council; 4. Review and update prey species information for each species in the FMU. Summary of Scoping Comments The Council received two (2) comment letters during the supplemental NOI comment period and are summarized below. Support the concept of separating the EFH identification process from the development of management measures under the various fishery management plans but believe that identification of habitat areas of particular concern should be conducted in conjuction with Phase 2. Concerned that the Council will designate revisions and/or new HAPCs before they have considered gear impacts an potential management measures and that this should be done simultaneously. H 24