Endangered Fish and Wildlife; National Environmental Policy Act; Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Public Scoping, 36121-36124 [05-12352]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
Dated: June 16, 2005.
P. Michael Payne,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–12342 Filed 6–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Background
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 060804F]
Endangered Fish and Wildlife; National
Environmental Policy Act; Right Whale
Ship Strike Reduction Strategy Notice
of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement and Conduct Public
Scoping
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent; request for
written comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS intends to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to analyze the potential impacts of
implementing the operational measures
in NOAA’s Right Whale Ship Strike
Reduction Strategy (Strategy). This
notice describes the proposed action
and possible alternatives intended to
reduce the likelihood and threat of right
whale deaths as a result of collisions
with vessels.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
must be received no later than 5 p.m.,
eastern standard time, on July 22, 2005.
At this time there are no scheduled
scoping meetings.
ADDRESSES: Written comments, or
requests to be added to the mailing list
for this project, should be submitted to:
P. Michael Payne, Chief, Marine
Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation
Division, Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike
EIS, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910. Comments may also
be submitted via fax to (301) 427–2522,
Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike EIS, or by
e-mail to:
Shipstrike.comments@noaa.gov. Include
in the subject line the following
identifier: I.D. 060804F.
Additional information including the
Environmental Assessment (EA) and the
economic analysis report used in the
preparation of the EA are available on
the NMFS website at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg
Silber, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
Spring, MD 20910; telephone (301) 713–
2322, e-mail greg.silber@noaa.gov; or
Barb Zoodsma, Southeast Regional
Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South,
St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone
(904) 321–2806, e-mail
barb.zoodsma@noaa.gov.
The abundance of North Atlantic right
whales is believed to be fewer than 300
individuals despite protection for half a
century. The North Atlantic right whale
is also considered one of the most
endangered large whale populations in
the world. Recent modeling exercises
suggest that the loss of even an
individual animal has measurable
effects that may contribute to the
extinction of the species (Caswell et al.,
1999). The models also suggests that
preventing the mortality of one adult
female a year significantly alters the
projected outcome.
The two most significant humancaused threats and sources of mortality
to right whales are entanglements in
fishing gear and collisions with ships
(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Jensen and
Silber, 2003). Collisions with ships
(referred to as ship strikes) account for
more confirmed right whale mortalities
than any other human-related activity.
Ship strikes are responsible for over 50
percent of known human-related right
whale mortalities and are considered
one of the principal causes for the lack
of recovery in this population. Right
whales are located in, or adjacent to,
several major shipping corridors on the
eastern U.S. and southeastern Canadian
coasts.
NMFS has implemented conservation
measures to reduce the likelihood of
mortalities as a result of ship strikes.
These activities include the use of aerial
surveys to notify mariners of right whale
sighting locations, interagency
collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) which issues periodic notices to
mariners regarding ship strikes, joint
operation with the USCG of Mandatory
Ship Reporting (MSR) systems to
provide information to mariners
entering right whale habitat, support of
regional Right Whale Recovery Plan
Implementation Teams, support of
shipping industry liaisons, and
consultations with other Federal
agencies regarding the effects of their
activities on right whales (under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act).
However, right whales continue to
sustain mortalities as a result of
collisions with vessels despite the
efforts of these programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36121
NMFS recognizes that this complex
problem requires the implementation of
additional proactive measures to reduce
or eliminate the threat of ship strikes to
right whales. The goal of the Strategy is
to reduce, to the extent practicable, the
distributional overlap between ships
and right whales. The Strategy allows
for regional implementation and
accommodates differences in
oceanography, commercial ship traffic
patterns, navigational concerns, and
right whale use. Implementation of the
Strategy will require proposed and final
rulemaking to be taken.
Purpose of this Action
NEPA requires Federal agencies to
conduct an environmental analysis of
their proposed actions to determine if
the actions may significantly affect the
human environment. NMFS is
considering a variety of measures,
including regulatory and non-regulatory
initiatives. NMFS may implement the
operational measures of the Strategy
through its rulemaking authority
pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA). Under MMPA
section 112(a) (16 U.S.C. 1382(a)),
NMFS has authority, in consultation
with other Federal agencies to the extent
other agencies may be affected, to
‘‘prescribe such regulations as are
necessary and appropriate to carry out
the purposes of [the MMPA].’’ In
addition, NMFS has authority under the
Endangered Species Act to promote
conservation, implement recovery
measures, and enhance enforcement to
protect right whales. NMFS is seeking
public input on the scope of the
required National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis, including the
range of reasonable alternatives,
associated impacts of any alternatives,
and suitable mitigation measures.
On June 1, 2004, NMFS published an
Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) (69 FR 30857) and
announced its intent to prepare a draft
EA to address the potential impacts of
implementing the Strategy. The EA
considered the context and intensity of
the factors identified in NOAA’s NEPA
guidelines and regulations, along with
short- and long-term, and cumulative
effects of a No Action Alternative and
the proposed action (see ADDRESSES).
The analysis concluded that the effects
of the proposed action on the human
environment are likely to be highly
controversial. This finding was based on
the controversial nature of the Strategy
on the human environment and the
possible cumulative effects of the
proposed action on certain sectors
within the maritime industry. The major
controversy concerns the potential
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
36122
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
economic impacts on the commercial
shipping industry. Further, the EA
concluded that individual impacts of
the proposed action may be
insignificant but the cumulative impacts
on the shipping industry may be
significant. As a result, the cumulative
effects on the environment as a result of
implementing this action, including the
alternatives proposed by this action, are
considered significant. Therefore, an EIS
is the appropriate level of
environmental analysis for the proposed
action under NEPA, not an EA. This is
consistent with NEPA regulations at
section 1501.4(c). This notice
announces NMFS’s intent to prepare an
EIS expanded from the EA to analyze
the potential impacts of implementing
the operational measures in NOAA’s
Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction
Strategy. This notice describes the
proposed action and several possible
alternatives intended to reduce the
likelihood and threat of mortalities
caused by ship strikes.
Scope of the Action
The Draft EIS is expected to identify
and evaluate all relevant impacts and
issues associated with implementing the
Strategy, in accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality’s Regulations at
40 CFR parts 1500, 1508, and NOAA’s
procedures for implementing NEPA
found in NOAA Administrative Order
(NAO) 216–6, Environmental Policy
Act, dated May 20, 1999.
NMFS is proposing to implement the
operational measures in the Strategy
within each of three broad regions: (a)
the southeastern Atlantic coast of the
U.S., (b) the Mid-Atlantic coastal region,
and (c) the northeastern Atlantic coast
of the U.S.
The implementation of operational
measures, and the specific times and
areas (with boundaries) in which the
measures would be in effect, are
expected to vary within and between
each region. However, each region
would contain specific elements to
reduce the threat of ship strikes to right
whales. The operational measures
proposed in the alternatives apply to
non-sovereign vessels 65 ft (19.8 m) and
greater in length. The operational
measures do not apply to vessels
operated by Federal agencies or the
military. Any potential effects of Federal
vessel activities, and mitigation, will be
evaluated through the Endangered
Species Act section 7 consultation
process for all alternatives. A more
detailed description of the operational
measures proposed for each region are
in the ANPR (June 1, 2004; 69 FR
30857).
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
That notice describes the proposed
action and possible alternatives
intended to reduce the likelihood and
threat of mortalities caused by ship
strikes pursuant to requirements under
NEPA. In particular, the Draft EIS is
intended to identify potential impacts to
human activities that occur as a result
of the proposed action and its
alternatives.
The areas of interest for evaluation of
environmental and socioeconomic
effects will include the territorial sea
and the Exclusive Economic Zone off
the east coast of the U.S. and
international waters in the North
Atlantic Ocean.
Public Involvement and the Scoping
Process
Public participation in the Strategy
has been encouraged through several
methods including soliciting public
comments on the ANPR and holding
public meetings, industry stakeholder
meetings, and other focus group
meetings. NMFS has been working with
state and other Federal agencies,
concerned citizens and citizens groups,
environmental organizations, and the
shipping industry to address the
ongoing threat of ship strikes to right
whales. NMFS’ intent is to encourage
the public and interest groups to
participate in the NEPA process,
including interested citizens and
environmental organizations, affected
low-income or minority populations or
affected local, state and Federal
agencies, and any other agencies with
jurisdiction or special expertise.
NMFS published the ANPR for Right
Whale Ship Strike Reduction in the
Federal Register on June 1, 2004 (69 FR
30857) and provided a comment period
to determine the issues of concern with
respect to the practical considerations
involved in implementing the Strategy
and to determine whether NMFS was
considering the appropriate range of
alternatives. Comments were received
from over 5,250 governmental entities,
individuals, and organizations, and can
be accessed at the NMFS website (see
ADDRESSES). These comments were in
the form of e-mail, letters, website
submissions, correspondence from
action campaigns (e-mail and U.S.
postal mail), faxes, and a phone call.
NMFS extended the comment period
to November 15, 2004 (September 13,
2004; 69 FR 55135) to provide for an
extended series of public meetings on
the ANPR and this topic in general. Five
public meetings on the ANPR were held
in the following locations: Boston, MA,
at the Tip O’Neill Federal Building (July
20, 2004); New York/New Jersey at the
Newport Courtyard Marriot (July 21,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2004); Wilmington, NC, at the Hilton
Riverside Wilmington (July 26, 2004);
Jacksonville, FL, at the Radisson
Riverwalk Hotel (July 27, 2004); and
Silver Spring, MD, at NOAA
Headquarters Science Center (August 3,
2004). Public comments were requested
at these meetings and transcribed for the
public record. Also, nine industry
stakeholder meetings were held to
explain the ANPR at the following
locations: Boston, MA (September 30,
2004); Portland, ME (October 1, 2004);
Norfolk, VA (October 4, 2004);
Morehead City, NC (October 6, 2004);
Jacksonville, FL (October 13, 2004);
Savannah, GA (October 14, 2004); New
London, CT (October 20, 2004); Newark,
NJ (October 25, 2004); and Baltimore,
MD/Washington, DC (October 27, 2004).
A summary report of these meetings and
a list of the attendees are posted on the
internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/
shipstrike.
NMFS also held two focus group
discussion meetings with participants
from non-governmental organizations,
academia, and Federal and state
government agencies. The first meeting
was held in Silver Spring, MD on
September 26, 2004, and the second
meeting was in New Bedford, MA on
November 5, 2004.
The comments on the ANPR focused
primarily on several broad topics
including: speed restrictions, vessel size
and operations, speed and routing
issues specific to regions, routing
restrictions (Port Access Routes Study
[PARS] and Areas To Be Avoided
[ATBA]), safety of navigation,
suggestions for alternative or expanded
dates for operational measures, military
and sovereign vessel exemptions,
enforcement, and compliance.
Alternatives
NMFS will evaluate a range of
alternatives in the Draft EIS for
developing a final Strategy to reduce
mortality to right whales due to ship
strikes based on a suite of possible
mitigative measures contained in each
of the elements of the overall Strategy.
The following alternatives are being
considered based on comments received
on the ANPR and during the public
meetings: Alternative 1, a no-action
alternative; Alternative 2, Use of
Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs);
Alternative 3, Speed Restrictions in
Designated Areas; Alternative 4, Use of
Designated or Mandatory Routes;
Alternative 5, Combination of
Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4; and
Alternative 6, NOAA Ship Strike
Strategy.
For all speed restrictions being
considered under an alternative, NMFS
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
expects to consider 10, 12, and 14 knots
in the analyses. Other variations or
additional alternatives may be
developed based on significant issues
raised during this public scoping
period. The probable environmental,
biological, cultural, social and economic
consequences of the alternatives and
those activities that may cumulatively
impact the environment are expected to
be considered in the Draft EIS.
Alternative 1 - No Action (Status
Quo): Under this alternative NMFS
would continue to implement existing
measures and programs, largely nonregulatory, to reduce the likelihood of
mortality from ship strikes. Research
would continue and existing
technologies would be used to
determine whale locations and pass this
information on to mariners. Ongoing
activities under this alternative would
include the use of aerial surveys to
notify mariners of right whale sighting
locations; the operation of Mandatory
Ship Reporting Systems; support of
Recovery Plan Implementation Teams;
education and outreach programs for
mariners; and ongoing research on
technological solutions. The
development, enhancement, and
implementation of the draft Education
and Outreach Strategy would continue
in coordination with the Recovery Plan
Implementation Teams. The alternative
would also rely on Endangered Species
Act section 7 consultations to address,
and mitigate the potential effects of, the
activities of vessels operated by
government agencies. Additionally,
efforts will continue to identify
technologies that will mitigate or
prevent ship strikes to right whales but
that would impose minimal or no
environmental impacts.
Alternative 2 - Use of DMAs: A second
alternative under consideration would
incorporate the elements of Alternative
1 with additional measures to
implement DMAs. The DMA component
of this alternative would be
implemented ONLY when right whale
sightings occur.
Under this alternative there would
need to be a commitment to continuing
aircraft surveillance coverage. If
confirmed right whale sightings occur, a
DMA would be specified and mariners
would have the option of either routing
around the DMA or to proceed within
the DMA at restricted speeds. NMFS is
considering various models for whale
density required to trigger a DMA
action; the current default is the same
criteria used for the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP)
Dynamic Area Management fishing
restrictions. Consecutive DMAs would
be imposed if trigger thresholds persist.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
If subsequent flights confirm the whales
are no longer aggregated in this location,
the DMA would be lifted.
Alternative 3 - Speed Restrictions in
Designated Areas: This alternative
includes all elements of Alternative 1
and implements large-scale speed
restrictions throughout the range of
northern right whales. Restrictions
would apply as follows:
1. Speed restrictions year round off
the northeast U.S. coast. This area
would include either (1) all waters
bounded on the east by the U.S.
coastline, the west by 68° W longitude,
the north by the U.S./Canadian border
and the south by 41°30′ N latitude, or
(2) all waters in the area used by
Seasonal Area Management (SAM)
zones as designated in the ALWTRP;
2. Speed restrictions from October 1
through April 30 off the U.S. midAtlantic coast. This area would include
all waters extended from U.S. coastline
out 25 nm from Providence/New
London (Block Island Sound) south to
Savannah, Georgia.
3. Speed restrictions from December 1
through March 31 off the Southeast U.S.
This area would include all waters
within the MSR WHALESSOUTH
reporting area and the presently
designated right whale critical habitat.
Alternative 4 - Use of Designated or
Mandatory Routes: This alternative
includes all the elements of Alternative
1 and relies on altering current vessel
patterns to move vessels away from
areas where whales are known to
aggregate in order to reduce the
likelihood of a mortality due to a ship
strike.
This alternative also creates an ATBA
in the Great South Channel as described
in NOAA’s ANPR, and considers
recommendations of a PARS by the
USCG. At present the PARS analysis is
assessing possible lane changes in Cape
Cod Bay and waters off the Southeast
U.S. The alternative also will analyze
the possibility of moving the Traffic
Separation Scheme into/out of Boston to
avoid high density aggregations of
whales at the northern end of Cape Cod
Bay and Stellwagen Bank.
Alternative 5 - Combination of
Alternatives: This alternative includes
all elements of Alternatives 1 - 4. The
cumulative effects of Alternative 5
would be the additive effects of each of
the previous alternatives.
Alternative 6 - NOAA Ship Strike
Strategy: This alternative includes all
the operational measures identified in
the NOAA Ship Strike Strategy. The
principal difference between Alternative
5 and 6 is that Alternative 6 does not
include large-scale speed restrictions (as
identified in Alternative 3) but instead
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36123
relies on speed restrictions in much
smaller Seasonally Managed Areas as
identified in the NOAA Ship Strike
Strategy.
Comments Requested
NMFS provides this notice to: advise
the public and other agencies of the
NOAA’s intentions, and obtain
suggestions and information on the
scope of issues to include in the EIS.
Comments and suggestions are invited
from all interested parties to ensure that
the full range of issues related to this
proposed action and all significant
issues are identified. NMFS requests
that comments be as specific as
possible. In particular, the agency
requests information regarding: the
potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts resulting from the
proposed action on the human
environment. The human environment
could include air quality, water quality,
underwater noise levels, socioeconomic
resources, and environmental justice.
Comments concerning this
environmental review process should be
directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES). See
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for
questions. All comments and material
received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the
administrative record and may be
released to the public.
Authority
The environmental review of the Ship
Strike Strategy will be conducted under
the authority and in accordance with
the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), other
appropriate Federal laws and
regulations, and policies and procedures
of the Services for compliance with
those regulations.
Literature Cited
Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S.
Brault. 1999. Declining survival
probability threatens the North Atlantic
right whale. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
96:3308 3313.
Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. 2003.
Large whale ship strike database. U.S.
Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR 25, 37 p.
Knowlton, A.R., and S.D. Kraus. 2001.
Mortality and serious injury of northern
right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the
western North Atlantic Ocean. Jour.
Cetacean Res. and Manag. (Special
Issue) 2:193 208. Russell, B.A. 2001.
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
36124
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
Dated: June 16, 2005.
P. Michael Payne
Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–12352 Filed 6–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 061405C]
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act Provisions;
Application for Exempted Fishing
Permit Related to Horseshoe Crabs
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
is considering issuing an Exempted
Fishing Permit to Limuli Laboratories of
Cape May Court House, NJ, to conduct
the fifth year of an exempted fishing
operation otherwise restricted by
regulations prohibiting the harvest of
horseshoe crabs in the Carl N. Schuster
Jr. Horseshoe Crab Reserve (Reserve)
located 3 nautical miles (nm) seaward
from the mouth of the Delaware Bay. If
granted, the EFP would allow the
harvest of 10,000 horseshoe crabs for
biomedical purposes and require, as a
condition of the EFP, the collection of
data related to the status of horseshoe
crabs within the Reserve. This notice
also invites comments on the issuance
of the EFP to Limuli Laboratories.
DATES: Written comments on this action
must be received on or before July 7,
2005.
Written comments should
be sent to John H. Dunnigan, Director,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. Mark the
outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments on
Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal.’’
Comments may also be sent via fax to
(301) 713–0596. Comments on this
notice may also be submitted by e-mail
to: Horseshoe-Crab.EFP@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the following document
identifier: Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Meyer, Fishery Management Biologist,
(301) 713–2334.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
Background
The regulations that govern exempted
fishing, at 50 CFR 600.745(b) and
697.22, allow a Regional Administrator
or the Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries to authorize for
limited testing, public display, data
collection, exploration, health and
safety, environmental clean-up and/or
hazardous removal purposes, the
targeting or incidental harvest of
managed species that would otherwise
be prohibited. Accordingly, an EFP to
authorize such activity may be issued,
provided: there is adequate opportunity
for the public to comment on the EFP
application, the conservation goals and
objectives of the fishery management
plan are not compromised, and issuance
of the EFP is beneficial to the
management of the species.
The Reserve was established on
March 7, 2001 to protect the Atlantic
coast stock of horseshoe crabs and to
support the effectiveness of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
(Commission) Interstate Fishery
Management Plan (ISFMP) for
horseshoe crabs. The final rule
(February 5, 2001; 66 FR 8906)
prohibited fishing for and possession of
horseshoe crabs in the Reserve on a
vessel with a trawl or dredge gear
aboard while in the Reserve. While the
rule did not allow for any biomedical
harvest or the collection of fishery
dependent data, NMFS stated in the
comments and responses section that it
would consider issuing EFPs for the
biomedical harvest of horseshoe crabs in
the Reserve.
The biomedical industry collects
horseshoe crabs, removes approximately
30 percent of their blood, and returns
them alive to the water. Approximately
10 percent do not survive the bleeding
process. The blood contains a reagent
called Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL)
that is used to test injectable drugs and
medical devices for bacteria and
bacterial by-products. Presently, there is
no alternative to the LAL derived from
horseshoe crabs.
NMFS manages horseshoe crabs in the
exclusive economic zone in close
cooperation with the Commission and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Commission’s Horseshoe Crab
Management Board met on April 21,
2000, and again on December 16, 2003,
and recommended to NMFS that
biomedical companies with a history of
collecting horseshoe crabs in the
Reserve are given an exemption to
continue their historic levels of
collection not to exceed a combined
harvest total of 10,000 crabs annually. In
2000, the Commission’s Horseshoe Crab
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Plan Review Team reported that
biomedical harvest of up to 10,000
horseshoe crabs should be allowed to
continue in the Reserve given that the
resulting mortality should be only about
1,000 horseshoe crabs (10 percent
mortality during bleeding process). Also
in 2000, the Commission’s Horseshoe
Crab Stock Assessment Committee
Chairman recommended that, in order
to protect the Delaware Bay horseshoe
crab population from over-harvest or
excessive collection mortality, no more
than a maximum of 20,000 horseshoe
crabs should be collected for biomedical
purposes from the Reserve. In addition
to the direct mortality of horseshoe
crabs that are bled, it can be expected
that more than 20,000 horseshoe crabs
will be trawled up and examined for
LAL processing. This is because
horseshoe crab trawl catches usually
include varied sizes and sexes of
horseshoe crabs and large female
horseshoe crabs are the ones usually
selected for LAL processing. The
remaining horseshoe crabs are released
at sea with some unknown amount of
mortality. Although unknown, this
mortality is expected to be negligible.
Collection of horseshoe crabs for
biomedical purposes from the Reserve is
necessary because of the low numbers of
horseshoe crabs found in other areas
along the New Jersey Coast from July
through early November and because of
the critical role horseshoe crab blood
plays in health care. In conjunction with
the biomedical harvest, NMFS is
considering requiring that scientific data
be collected from the horseshoe crabs
taken in the Reserve as a condition of
receiving an EFP. Since the Reserve was
first established, the only fishery data
from the Reserve were under EFPs
issued to Limuli Laboratories for the
past four years, and under Scientific
Research Activity Letter of
Acknowledgment issued Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State
University’s Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife Science on September 4,
2001 (for collections from September 1–
October 31, 200l), on September 24,
2002 (for collections from September
24–November 15, 2002), on August 14,
2003 (for collections from September 1–
October 31, 2003), and on September 15,
2004 (for collections from September
15–October 31, 2004). Further data are
needed to improve the understanding of
the horseshoe crab population in the
Delaware Bay area and to better manage
the horseshoe crab resource under the
cooperative state/Federal management
program. The data collected through the
EFP will be provided to NMFS, the
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36121-36124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 060804F]
Endangered Fish and Wildlife; National Environmental Policy Act;
Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy Notice of Intent to Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Public Scoping
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent; request for written comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to analyze the potential impacts of implementing the operational
measures in NOAA's Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy
(Strategy). This notice describes the proposed action and possible
alternatives intended to reduce the likelihood and threat of right
whale deaths as a result of collisions with vessels.
DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received no later than 5
p.m., eastern standard time, on July 22, 2005. At this time there are
no scheduled scoping meetings.
ADDRESSES: Written comments, or requests to be added to the mailing
list for this project, should be submitted to: P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Attn: Right Whale
Ship Strike EIS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments may also be submitted via
fax to (301) 427-2522, Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike EIS, or by e-mail
to: Shipstrike.comments@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the
following identifier: I.D. 060804F.
Additional information including the Environmental Assessment (EA)
and the economic analysis report used in the preparation of the EA are
available on the NMFS website at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
shipstrike/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Silber, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910;
telephone (301) 713-2322, e-mail greg.silber@noaa.gov; or Barb Zoodsma,
Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13\th\ Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone (904) 321-2806, e-mail
barb.zoodsma@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The abundance of North Atlantic right whales is believed to be
fewer than 300 individuals despite protection for half a century. The
North Atlantic right whale is also considered one of the most
endangered large whale populations in the world. Recent modeling
exercises suggest that the loss of even an individual animal has
measurable effects that may contribute to the extinction of the species
(Caswell et al., 1999). The models also suggests that preventing the
mortality of one adult female a year significantly alters the projected
outcome.
The two most significant human-caused threats and sources of
mortality to right whales are entanglements in fishing gear and
collisions with ships (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Jensen and Silber,
2003). Collisions with ships (referred to as ship strikes) account for
more confirmed right whale mortalities than any other human-related
activity. Ship strikes are responsible for over 50 percent of known
human-related right whale mortalities and are considered one of the
principal causes for the lack of recovery in this population. Right
whales are located in, or adjacent to, several major shipping corridors
on the eastern U.S. and southeastern Canadian coasts.
NMFS has implemented conservation measures to reduce the likelihood
of mortalities as a result of ship strikes. These activities include
the use of aerial surveys to notify mariners of right whale sighting
locations, interagency collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
which issues periodic notices to mariners regarding ship strikes, joint
operation with the USCG of Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) systems to
provide information to mariners entering right whale habitat, support
of regional Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Teams, support of
shipping industry liaisons, and consultations with other Federal
agencies regarding the effects of their activities on right whales
(under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). However, right whales
continue to sustain mortalities as a result of collisions with vessels
despite the efforts of these programs.
NMFS recognizes that this complex problem requires the
implementation of additional proactive measures to reduce or eliminate
the threat of ship strikes to right whales. The goal of the Strategy is
to reduce, to the extent practicable, the distributional overlap
between ships and right whales. The Strategy allows for regional
implementation and accommodates differences in oceanography, commercial
ship traffic patterns, navigational concerns, and right whale use.
Implementation of the Strategy will require proposed and final
rulemaking to be taken.
Purpose of this Action
NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis
of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly
affect the human environment. NMFS is considering a variety of
measures, including regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives. NMFS may
implement the operational measures of the Strategy through its
rulemaking authority pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). Under MMPA section 112(a) (16 U.S.C. 1382(a)), NMFS has
authority, in consultation with other Federal agencies to the extent
other agencies may be affected, to ``prescribe such regulations as are
necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of [the MMPA].'' In
addition, NMFS has authority under the Endangered Species Act to
promote conservation, implement recovery measures, and enhance
enforcement to protect right whales. NMFS is seeking public input on
the scope of the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives, associated
impacts of any alternatives, and suitable mitigation measures.
On June 1, 2004, NMFS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) (69 FR 30857) and announced its intent to prepare a
draft EA to address the potential impacts of implementing the Strategy.
The EA considered the context and intensity of the factors identified
in NOAA's NEPA guidelines and regulations, along with short- and long-
term, and cumulative effects of a No Action Alternative and the
proposed action (see ADDRESSES). The analysis concluded that the
effects of the proposed action on the human environment are likely to
be highly controversial. This finding was based on the controversial
nature of the Strategy on the human environment and the possible
cumulative effects of the proposed action on certain sectors within the
maritime industry. The major controversy concerns the potential
[[Page 36122]]
economic impacts on the commercial shipping industry. Further, the EA
concluded that individual impacts of the proposed action may be
insignificant but the cumulative impacts on the shipping industry may
be significant. As a result, the cumulative effects on the environment
as a result of implementing this action, including the alternatives
proposed by this action, are considered significant. Therefore, an EIS
is the appropriate level of environmental analysis for the proposed
action under NEPA, not an EA. This is consistent with NEPA regulations
at section 1501.4(c). This notice announces NMFS's intent to prepare an
EIS expanded from the EA to analyze the potential impacts of
implementing the operational measures in NOAA's Right Whale Ship Strike
Reduction Strategy. This notice describes the proposed action and
several possible alternatives intended to reduce the likelihood and
threat of mortalities caused by ship strikes.
Scope of the Action
The Draft EIS is expected to identify and evaluate all relevant
impacts and issues associated with implementing the Strategy, in
accordance with Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations at 40
CFR parts 1500, 1508, and NOAA's procedures for implementing NEPA found
in NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, Environmental Policy Act,
dated May 20, 1999.
NMFS is proposing to implement the operational measures in the
Strategy within each of three broad regions: (a) the southeastern
Atlantic coast of the U.S., (b) the Mid-Atlantic coastal region, and
(c) the northeastern Atlantic coast of the U.S.
The implementation of operational measures, and the specific times
and areas (with boundaries) in which the measures would be in effect,
are expected to vary within and between each region. However, each
region would contain specific elements to reduce the threat of ship
strikes to right whales. The operational measures proposed in the
alternatives apply to non-sovereign vessels 65 ft (19.8 m) and greater
in length. The operational measures do not apply to vessels operated by
Federal agencies or the military. Any potential effects of Federal
vessel activities, and mitigation, will be evaluated through the
Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation process for all
alternatives. A more detailed description of the operational measures
proposed for each region are in the ANPR (June 1, 2004; 69 FR 30857).
That notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives
intended to reduce the likelihood and threat of mortalities caused by
ship strikes pursuant to requirements under NEPA. In particular, the
Draft EIS is intended to identify potential impacts to human activities
that occur as a result of the proposed action and its alternatives.
The areas of interest for evaluation of environmental and
socioeconomic effects will include the territorial sea and the
Exclusive Economic Zone off the east coast of the U.S. and
international waters in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Public Involvement and the Scoping Process
Public participation in the Strategy has been encouraged through
several methods including soliciting public comments on the ANPR and
holding public meetings, industry stakeholder meetings, and other focus
group meetings. NMFS has been working with state and other Federal
agencies, concerned citizens and citizens groups, environmental
organizations, and the shipping industry to address the ongoing threat
of ship strikes to right whales. NMFS' intent is to encourage the
public and interest groups to participate in the NEPA process,
including interested citizens and environmental organizations, affected
low-income or minority populations or affected local, state and Federal
agencies, and any other agencies with jurisdiction or special
expertise.
NMFS published the ANPR for Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction in
the Federal Register on June 1, 2004 (69 FR 30857) and provided a
comment period to determine the issues of concern with respect to the
practical considerations involved in implementing the Strategy and to
determine whether NMFS was considering the appropriate range of
alternatives. Comments were received from over 5,250 governmental
entities, individuals, and organizations, and can be accessed at the
NMFS website (see ADDRESSES). These comments were in the form of e-
mail, letters, website submissions, correspondence from action
campaigns (e-mail and U.S. postal mail), faxes, and a phone call.
NMFS extended the comment period to November 15, 2004 (September
13, 2004; 69 FR 55135) to provide for an extended series of public
meetings on the ANPR and this topic in general. Five public meetings on
the ANPR were held in the following locations: Boston, MA, at the Tip
O'Neill Federal Building (July 20, 2004); New York/New Jersey at the
Newport Courtyard Marriot (July 21, 2004); Wilmington, NC, at the
Hilton Riverside Wilmington (July 26, 2004); Jacksonville, FL, at the
Radisson Riverwalk Hotel (July 27, 2004); and Silver Spring, MD, at
NOAA Headquarters Science Center (August 3, 2004). Public comments were
requested at these meetings and transcribed for the public record.
Also, nine industry stakeholder meetings were held to explain the ANPR
at the following locations: Boston, MA (September 30, 2004); Portland,
ME (October 1, 2004); Norfolk, VA (October 4, 2004); Morehead City, NC
(October 6, 2004); Jacksonville, FL (October 13, 2004); Savannah, GA
(October 14, 2004); New London, CT (October 20, 2004); Newark, NJ
(October 25, 2004); and Baltimore, MD/Washington, DC (October 27,
2004). A summary report of these meetings and a list of the attendees
are posted on the internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike.
NMFS also held two focus group discussion meetings with
participants from non-governmental organizations, academia, and Federal
and state government agencies. The first meeting was held in Silver
Spring, MD on September 26, 2004, and the second meeting was in New
Bedford, MA on November 5, 2004.
The comments on the ANPR focused primarily on several broad topics
including: speed restrictions, vessel size and operations, speed and
routing issues specific to regions, routing restrictions (Port Access
Routes Study [PARS] and Areas To Be Avoided [ATBA]), safety of
navigation, suggestions for alternative or expanded dates for
operational measures, military and sovereign vessel exemptions,
enforcement, and compliance.
Alternatives
NMFS will evaluate a range of alternatives in the Draft EIS for
developing a final Strategy to reduce mortality to right whales due to
ship strikes based on a suite of possible mitigative measures contained
in each of the elements of the overall Strategy. The following
alternatives are being considered based on comments received on the
ANPR and during the public meetings: Alternative 1, a no-action
alternative; Alternative 2, Use of Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs);
Alternative 3, Speed Restrictions in Designated Areas; Alternative 4,
Use of Designated or Mandatory Routes; Alternative 5, Combination of
Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4; and Alternative 6, NOAA Ship Strike
Strategy.
For all speed restrictions being considered under an alternative,
NMFS
[[Page 36123]]
expects to consider 10, 12, and 14 knots in the analyses. Other
variations or additional alternatives may be developed based on
significant issues raised during this public scoping period. The
probable environmental, biological, cultural, social and economic
consequences of the alternatives and those activities that may
cumulatively impact the environment are expected to be considered in
the Draft EIS.
Alternative 1 - No Action (Status Quo): Under this alternative NMFS
would continue to implement existing measures and programs, largely
non-regulatory, to reduce the likelihood of mortality from ship
strikes. Research would continue and existing technologies would be
used to determine whale locations and pass this information on to
mariners. Ongoing activities under this alternative would include the
use of aerial surveys to notify mariners of right whale sighting
locations; the operation of Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems; support
of Recovery Plan Implementation Teams; education and outreach programs
for mariners; and ongoing research on technological solutions. The
development, enhancement, and implementation of the draft Education and
Outreach Strategy would continue in coordination with the Recovery Plan
Implementation Teams. The alternative would also rely on Endangered
Species Act section 7 consultations to address, and mitigate the
potential effects of, the activities of vessels operated by government
agencies. Additionally, efforts will continue to identify technologies
that will mitigate or prevent ship strikes to right whales but that
would impose minimal or no environmental impacts.
Alternative 2 - Use of DMAs: A second alternative under
consideration would incorporate the elements of Alternative 1 with
additional measures to implement DMAs. The DMA component of this
alternative would be implemented ONLY when right whale sightings occur.
Under this alternative there would need to be a commitment to
continuing aircraft surveillance coverage. If confirmed right whale
sightings occur, a DMA would be specified and mariners would have the
option of either routing around the DMA or to proceed within the DMA at
restricted speeds. NMFS is considering various models for whale density
required to trigger a DMA action; the current default is the same
criteria used for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP)
Dynamic Area Management fishing restrictions. Consecutive DMAs would be
imposed if trigger thresholds persist. If subsequent flights confirm
the whales are no longer aggregated in this location, the DMA would be
lifted.
Alternative 3 - Speed Restrictions in Designated Areas: This
alternative includes all elements of Alternative 1 and implements
large-scale speed restrictions throughout the range of northern right
whales. Restrictions would apply as follows:
1. Speed restrictions year round off the northeast U.S. coast. This
area would include either (1) all waters bounded on the east by the
U.S. coastline, the west by 68[deg] W longitude, the north by the U.S./
Canadian border and the south by 41[deg]30' N latitude, or (2) all
waters in the area used by Seasonal Area Management (SAM) zones as
designated in the ALWTRP;
2. Speed restrictions from October 1 through April 30 off the U.S.
mid-Atlantic coast. This area would include all waters extended from
U.S. coastline out 25 nm from Providence/New London (Block Island
Sound) south to Savannah, Georgia.
3. Speed restrictions from December 1 through March 31 off the
Southeast U.S. This area would include all waters within the MSR
WHALESSOUTH reporting area and the presently designated right whale
critical habitat.
Alternative 4 - Use of Designated or Mandatory Routes: This
alternative includes all the elements of Alternative 1 and relies on
altering current vessel patterns to move vessels away from areas where
whales are known to aggregate in order to reduce the likelihood of a
mortality due to a ship strike.
This alternative also creates an ATBA in the Great South Channel as
described in NOAA's ANPR, and considers recommendations of a PARS by
the USCG. At present the PARS analysis is assessing possible lane
changes in Cape Cod Bay and waters off the Southeast U.S. The
alternative also will analyze the possibility of moving the Traffic
Separation Scheme into/out of Boston to avoid high density aggregations
of whales at the northern end of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank.
Alternative 5 - Combination of Alternatives: This alternative
includes all elements of Alternatives 1 - 4. The cumulative effects of
Alternative 5 would be the additive effects of each of the previous
alternatives.
Alternative 6 - NOAA Ship Strike Strategy: This alternative
includes all the operational measures identified in the NOAA Ship
Strike Strategy. The principal difference between Alternative 5 and 6
is that Alternative 6 does not include large-scale speed restrictions
(as identified in Alternative 3) but instead relies on speed
restrictions in much smaller Seasonally Managed Areas as identified in
the NOAA Ship Strike Strategy.
Comments Requested
NMFS provides this notice to: advise the public and other agencies
of the NOAA's intentions, and obtain suggestions and information on the
scope of issues to include in the EIS. Comments and suggestions are
invited from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of
issues related to this proposed action and all significant issues are
identified. NMFS requests that comments be as specific as possible. In
particular, the agency requests information regarding: the potential
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed
action on the human environment. The human environment could include
air quality, water quality, underwater noise levels, socioeconomic
resources, and environmental justice.
Comments concerning this environmental review process should be
directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES). See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
for questions. All comments and material received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be
released to the public.
Authority
The environmental review of the Ship Strike Strategy will be
conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR
1500-1508), other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and
policies and procedures of the Services for compliance with those
regulations.
Literature Cited
Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival
probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. 96:3308 3313.
Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large whale ship strike
database. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR 25,
37 p.
Knowlton, A.R., and S.D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury
of northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North
Atlantic Ocean. Jour. Cetacean Res. and Manag. (Special Issue) 2:193
208. Russell, B.A. 2001.
[[Page 36124]]
Dated: June 16, 2005.
P. Michael Payne
Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-12352 Filed 6-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
