Purpose and Need

The Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The new Act mandates that any FMP must include a provision to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. Essential fish habitat has been broadly defined by the Act to include “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity”. Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) are those areas of special importance that may require additional protection from adverse effects.  HAPC is defined on the basis of its ecological importance, sensitivity, exposure, and rarity of the habitat. 

Vertical structure provided by invertebrates (e.g. corals, sponges, mussels, rockweed and kelp) may be important habitat for fish. The purpose of Amendment 65 is to provide for improved long-term productivity of Alaska’s fisheries by controlling harvest of invertebrates, which have the potential to be developed into large-scale commercial fisheries.

Analysis

A 51-page EA/RIR (Secretarial review draft dated June 2000) was prepared for this amendment. Three alternatives including the status quo were considered. The alternatives included establishing HAPC biota as a prohibited species or establishing a new HAPC category to allow for a controlled fishery to develop. Various options would allow some HAPC species (e.g., coral and sponges) to be prohibited from harvest, while allowing controlled fisheries to occur on the remaining species (e.g., kelp and mussels).

After the amendment was put on hold (see Results section), a 281-page EA/RIR/IRFA (Secretarial review draft dated October 2005) was prepared (see GOA Amendment 73).

Regulation Summary

At the April 2000 meeting, the Council took final action on Part 1 of the HAPC- the harvest control measures. Part 2 was an action to develop a more comprehensive and iterative process for HAPC identification and habitat protection involving researchers, stakeholders, and management agencies, which required a longer timeline and was not an FMP amendment.

The Council adopted Alternative 2 of the analysis which will add corals and sponges to the prohibited species category. This action essentially split prohibited species into two types: the first type would continue to allow no retention for halibut, salmon, and crab species, and the second type (coral and sponges) could be retained, but the sale, barter, trade, or processing of corals and sponges would be prohibited. Kelp (including rockweed), and mussels would not be subject to any management actions at this time, as they are typically found in intertidal areas which occur within the state water boundary (0-3 nm). This action applied to both the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries in the EEZ; other fisheries may be considered for HAPC biota protection in the future.

Results

Due to the court case on Essential Fish Habitat (see Salmon Amendment 5), the HAPC amendment was put on hold until 2006, after Council and Agency staff prepared an EIS for EFH.

Because most of the HAPC biota is found within state waters, the Council requested state cooperation to prohibit any new fishery on HAPC biota developing in order to effectively achieve the objective of preventing a commercial fishery from developing for corals and sponges. The state completed this action in 2002.

This amendment also resulted in minor changes to the existing EFH description and identification for groundfish stocks, to incorporate more recent information, improve mapping, and identify new EFH descriptions for a few species that have been separated out from a complex since the existing description and identification were compiled.

Amendments 7 and 8 were implemented together.

Sibling Amendments