Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, 13097-13099 [E6-3634]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
‘‘viability curves’’ showing the
relationships between productivity and
abundance that would indicate higher
or lower risk of extinction for a given
population.
The SRSRB adopted strategic
guidelines for recovery actions that
emphasize projects with long
persistence time and benefits
distributed over the widest possible
range of environmental attributes;
immediate measures in addition to longterm actions; adaptive management;
information contained in the applicable
subbasin plans; consideration of
recovery actions within the context of
the four ‘‘Hs’’ (habitat, harvest,
hatcheries, and hydroelectric); use of
the Ecological Diagnosis and Treatment
(EDT) analysis tool, in combination with
other analyses, empirical data and
professional opinion, to identify and
prioritize habitat actions; and
consideration of the economic, social,
and cultural constraints identified by
the recovery region.
The Draft SRSRB Plan primarily
focuses on actions to protect and restore
habitat, and to remove ‘‘imminent
threats’’ to salmon survival, such as fish
passage barriers and toxic effluents. The
Draft SRSRB Plan’s habitat actions are
targeted for the major spawning areas
(MSAs) identified by the ICTRT. The
actions are designed to increase
productivity, abundance, spatial
structure, and diversity by addressing
the limiting factors and threats. The
actions are designed to improve upland
habitat, riparian conditions, floodplain
functions, instream habitat, water
quantity, and water quality.
The Draft SRSRB Plan does not
propose actions for the hydropower
system or for harvest, because these are
managed in other venues, and these
actions will be addressed in the ESUlevel plans. The plan does propose a
hatchery strategy based on the Hatchery
and Genetic Management Plans
(HGMPs) for the region, which are
administered by NMFS. The strategy
attempts to balance risks to recovery of
listed fish populations with the
achievement of harvest objectives.
The SRSRB emphasizes adaptive
management as a fundamental aspect of
salmon recovery and envisions an
extensive adaptive management
program being developed in the
implementation phase of the watershed
planning process funded by the State of
Washington. This adaptive management
program will be incorporated into the
final SRSRB Plan.
The Draft SRSRB Plan details a 15–
year implementation strategy at a
projected cost of $6.9 million per year.
However, NMFS emphasizes in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Supplement that recovery planning and
implementation cannot stop at 15 years,
but must continue until the species is
recovered. The SRSRB further proposes
a specific, 18–month implementation
plan containing actions that have been
developed by multiple agencies and
groups within the recovery region and
that can be implemented quickly. The
Draft SRSRB Plan states that, because
salmon recovery efforts have been
underway in the region since the early
1990s, much of the internal framework
(policy, scientific, public support, and
funding) needed to implement these
actions is either in place or can be
established quickly once the plan is
adopted. Actions proposed in this 18–
month plan vary from working to
eliminate imminent threats to restoring
riparian areas. The section also
discusses policy, legislation and
scientific ‘‘unknowns’’ that need to be
resolved to fully implement the plan.
The Draft SRSRB Plan includes a
detailed cost estimate for site-specific
actions in each MSA.
The ICTRT provided technical
guidance to the SRSRB for use in the
Draft SRSRB Plan. This technical
guidance was itself reviewed by
multiple technical experts from Federal,
state, and local agencies and the
Umatilla Tribe. The Draft SRSRB Plan
bases much of its information on the
subbasin plans for the Lower Snake
Mainstem, Walla Walla, Tucannon,
Asotin, and Grand Ronde subbasins,
and these plans were peer-reviewed by
the Independent Scientific Review
Panel, appointed by the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC), and by the Independent
Scientific Advisory Board, appointed by
the NPCC and NMFS.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on
the Draft SRSRB Plan and the NMFS
Supplement. The Supplement states
NMFS’ assessment of the Draft SRSRB
Plan’s relationship to ESA requirements
for recovery plans. The Supplement also
explains the agency’s intent to use the
SRSRB Plan together with the
Supplement as an interim regional
recovery plan to guide and prioritize
recovery actions and to roll up the
interim regional recovery plan with
other local plans into Federal ESA
recovery plans for the respective
domains. All substantive comments
received by the date specified above
will be considered prior to NMFS’
decision whether to endorse the SRSRB
Plan as an interim regional recovery
plan and incorporate it into the specieslevel plans. Additionally, NMFS will
provide a summary of the comments
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13097
and responses through its regional web
site and provide a news release for the
public announcing the availability of
the response to comments. NMFS seeks
comments particularly in the following
areas: (1) The analysis of limiting factors
and threats; (2) the recovery strategies
and measures; (3) the criteria for
removing the ESUs and DPS from the
Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants; and (4)
meeting the ESA requirement for
estimates of time and cost to implement
recovery actions by soliciting
implementation schedules.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 8, 2006.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–3633 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 030706E]
Fisheries off the West Coast States
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for Fishing Conducted
Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
announcement of public scoping period;
request for written comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with
the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council), announces its intention to
prepare an EIS in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NMFS and the Council intend
to expand the scope of an EIS they had
initially announced as needed to assess
the impacts of the 2007–2008 Pacific
Coast groundfish fishery specifications
and management measures on the
human, biological, and physical
environment. The scope of this EIS will
be expanded to include an analysis of
the impacts of revising the rebuilding
plans for the seven overfished Pacific
Coast groundfish species. Revisions to
rebuilding plans will be incorporated in
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
13098
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) via
Amendment 16–4.
DATES: Public scoping opportunities for
the 2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish
fishery specifications and management
measures and Amendment 16–4 EIS
will occur during meetings of the
Council and its advisory bodies, at the
April 2–7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento,
CA and at the June 11–16, 2006, meeting
in Foster City, CA. Written comments
will be accepted at the Council office
through April 13, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
on issues and alternatives, identified by
any of the following methods:
• E-mail: (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov.
Include [030706E]
and enter ‘‘Scoping Comments’’ in the
subject line of the message.)
• Fax: 503–820–2299.
• Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac, Pacific
Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE
Ambassador Pl., Suite 200, Portland, OR
97220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery
Management Coordinator; phone: 503–
820–2280, fax: 503–820–2299, and email: john.devore@noaa.gov or Yvonne
deReynier, NMFS, Northwest Region,
phone: 206–526–6129, fax: 206–526–
6736 and e-mail:
yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is
available on the Government Printing
Office’s website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/
fr/.
Background and Need for Agency
Action
On October 25, 2005, NMFS and the
Council published a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS or an environmental
assessment (EA) for the 2007–2008
groundfish harvest specifications and
management measures (70 FR 61595).
At that time, NMFS and the Council
were unsure whether an EA or an EIS
would be the appropriate analytical
document for that action. During the
Council’s October 31 - November 4,
2005, meeting in San Diego, Ca, NMFS
reported to the Council on recent Court
instructions in Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. NMFS, 421
F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2005), a lawsuit
originally filed in opposition to
darkblotched rockfish rebuilding
measures in the 2002 groundfish harvest
specifications and management
measures.
The Council discussed a strategy for
responding to the Court’s orders to re-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
evaluate the darkblotched rockfish
rebuilding plan so that the rebuilding
period for that species would be as short
as possible, taking into account the
status and biology of the species and the
needs of fishing communities. Like
other overfished species, darkblotched
rockfish co-occurs with both healthy
and overfished species. This tendency
for various groundfish species to cooccur with each other drives many
groundfish management measures,
because harvest of healthy stocks must
be constrained to ensure that stocks are
not subject to overfishing and that
overfished stocks are rebuilt within the
appropriate time frame. In order to meet
the Court’s order on darkblotched
rockfish management within the
biological constraints of a mixed, multispecies fishery, the Council
recommended taking a global look at all
of its overfished species rebuilding
plans. NMFS and the Council reported
back to the Court that they planned to
implement a reduced darkblotched
rockfish optimum yield (OY) for 2006,
and to re-evaluate all seven of the
overfished species rebuilding plans for
2007 and beyond. The Court reviewed
this plan, and ordered NMFS to both
implement a reduced darkblotched
rockfish OY for 2006, and to re-evaluate
and revise all overfished species
rebuilding plans by January 1, 2007.
(For more information on the revised
2006 darkblotched rockfish OY, see the
proposed and final rules for that action;
70 FR 75115, December 19, 2005 and 71
FR 8489, February 17, 2006.)
This Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
announces NMFS and the Council’s
intent to expand the scope of the NEPA
document analyzing the 2007–2008
groundfish harvest specifications and
management measures to include
revising rebuilding plans for seven
overfished species. NMFS and the
Council believe that this expansion of
scope warrants NEPA analysis under an
EIS, rather than an EA. When the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement is
submitted for public review, it will also
include an analysis of the impacts of the
action under the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866),
and other applicable laws.
The Council will consider revisions to
the overfished species rebuilding plans
when it considers the 2007–2008
groundfish harvest specifications and
management measures, at the April and
June 2006 meetings. When the Council
makes it final recommendations on a
preferred alternative in June 2006, it
plans to submit new overfished species
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
rebuilding plans for NMFS review.
These new overfished species
rebuilding plans will be incorporated
into the FMP as Amendment 16–4.
Alternatives
In the October 25, 2005, Notice of
Intent, NMFS and the Council described
the general structure of the range of
alternatives that the public could expect
to see for the 2007–2008 groundfish
harvest specifications and management
measures. These early draft alternatives
looked at different rebuilding rates for
each overfished species individually,
and the effects of that species’ harvest
on the harvest rates of co-occurring
healthy groundfish stocks. Since that
notice was published, the Council and
its advisory bodies have been refining
the alternatives to better define them for
public review.
The Council’s Allocation Committee
and Groundfish Management Team held
a joint public meeting in Portland, OR,
February 6–9, 2006. During that
meeting, the advisory bodies discussed
the need to revise the structure of the
alternatives in order to ensure that the
analysis of alternatives would
adequately address issues raised by the
Court. The advisory bodies discussed
recommending that the Council first
look at each overfished species at
different rebuilding rates and associated
harvest levels - a horizontal look across
each species’ biological constraints to
rebuilding. Then, alternatives for
analysis would be vertically integrated
to account for the relationships between
overfished species. Where, for example,
rebuilding measures for darkblotched
rockfish constrain the harvest of cooccurring Pacific ocean perch (POP), the
POP OY would not be set higher than
a level that would accommodate a given
darkblotched rockfish yield level.
At the Council’s April 2–7, 2006,
meeting in Sacramento, CA, the Council
will adopt a preferred range of
alternative harvest levels. In this range,
the Council take into account the interrelationships between continental slope
overfished species (darkblotched
rockfish and POP), between different
continental shelf species (yelloweye,
canary, widow, cowcod, and bocaccio
rockfish), between northern species
(darkblotched, POP, widow, yelloweye,
and canary rockfish), and between
southern species (canary, bocaccio, and
cowcod rockfish, and in some areas,
widow and darkblotched rockfish.
At its April meeting, the Council will
also make preliminary
recommendations on alternative fishery
management measures for 2007–2008.
As in past years, alternative
management measures will be
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
structured to account for the
interactions between healthy and
overfished stocks, and between the
different fisheries and particular
overfished stocks. Not all overfished
stocks are incidentally caught in all
fishery sectors. Therefore, management
measures will differ by sector in order
to allow access to healthy stock harvest
while ensuring that overfished stocks
are rebuilt as quickly as possible.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Preliminary Identification of
Environmental Issues
A principal objective of the scoping
and public input process is to identify
potentially significant impacts to the
human environment that should be
analyzed in depth in the EIS. This
process is also intended to eliminate
from detailed study the issues that are
not significant, or which have been
covered in prior environmental reviews.
Narrowing the scope of analysis is
intended to allow greater focus on those
impacts that are potentially most
significant. NMFS and the Council will
evaluate the impacts of the proposed
action on these components of the
biological and physical environment: (1)
Essential fish habitat and ecosystems;
(2) protected species listed under the
Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act and their
habitat; and (3) the fishery management
unit, including target and non-target fish
stocks. Socioeconomic impacts, which
may be considered under NEPA, or
under the RFA and E.O. 12866, are also
considered in terms of the effect
changes will have on the following
groups: (1) those who participate in
harvesting the fishery resources and
other living marine resources (for
commercial, subsistence, or recreational
purposes); (2) those who process and
market fish and fish products; (3) those
who are involved in allied support
industries; (4) those who rely on living
marine resources in the management
area; (5) those who consume fish
products; (6) those who benefit from
non-consumptive use (e.g., wildlife
viewing); (7) those who do not use the
resource, but derive benefit from it by
virtue of its existence, the option to use
it, or the bequest of the resource to
future generations; (8) those involved in
managing and monitoring fisheries; and
(9) communities.
Public Scoping Process
Public scoping will primarily occur
during the Council’s decision-making
process. All decisions during the
Council process benefit from written
and verbal comments delivered prior to
or during the Council meetings. NMFS
and the Council consider these public
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
comments as integral to scoping for
developing this EIS. The Council
developed its preliminary range of
2007–2008 harvest specifications and
management measures at its October
31–November 4, 2005, meeting in San
Diego, CA. This was the same meeting
at which the Council decided to expand
the scope of this EIS. The Council will
select the preferred range of
management measures at the April 2–7,
2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA, at the
Double Tree Hotel, 2001 Point West
Way, 9815–4702; telephone: 800–227–
6963 or 1–800–222–8733. The Council
expects to select the preferred
alternative at the June 11–16, 2006,
meeting in Foster City, CA at the
Crowne Plaza Mid Peninsula Hotel,
1221 Chess Drive, 94404; telephone 1–
800- 227–6963 or 650–570–5700. Public
comment may be made under the
agenda items, when the Council will
consider these proposed actions. The
agendas for these meetings will be
available from the Council website, or
by request from the Council office in
advance of the meetings (see
ADDRESSES). Written comments on the
scope of issues and alternatives may
also be submitted as described under
ADDRESSES.
NMFS invites comments and
suggestions on the scope of the analysis
to be included in the DEIS. The scope
includes the range of alternatives to be
considered, and potentially significant
impacts to the human environment that
should be evaluated in the DEIS. NMFS
and the Council plan to make the DEIS
available for public comment following
the Council’s June 2006 meeting. The
comment period on the DEIS will be 45
days from the date the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Notice of
Availability appears in the Federal
Register. To be most helpful, comments
on the DEIS should be as specific as
possible and should address the
adequacy of the statement or merits of
the alternatives discussed. It is also
helpful if comments refer to specific
pages or chapters of the DEIS.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of
the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the DEIS. (Reviewers may
wish to refer to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions
of NEPA CFR 1503.3 in addressing these
points). Comments received, including
the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13099
Special Accommodations
These meetings are accessible to
people with physical disabilities.
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Carolyn Porter
503–820–2280 (voice) or 503–820–2299
(fax), at least 5 days prior to the
scheduled meeting date.
Dated: March 9, 2006.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–3634 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 030806B]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries
in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and
Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement;
request for written comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to
prepare the Alaska Groundfish Harvest
Specifications Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), for the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries. The
scope of the EIS will be to determine the
impacts to the human environment
resulting from setting groundfish
harvest specifications. NMFS will hold
a public scoping meeting and accept
written comments from the public to
determine the issues of concern and the
appropriate range of management
alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by May 15, 2006. A scoping
meeting will be held on Tuesday, April
4, 2006, from 7 to 9 p.m., Alaska local
time.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on issues
and alternatives for the EIS should be
sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Records Officer. Comments may be
submitted by:
• E-mail:
EIS.Specifications.Intent@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line the following
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13097-13099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 030706E]
Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS); announcement of public scoping period; request for written
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council), announces its intention to prepare an EIS in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NMFS and
the Council intend to expand the scope of an EIS they had initially
announced as needed to assess the impacts of the 2007-2008 Pacific
Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures on the
human, biological, and physical environment. The scope of this EIS will
be expanded to include an analysis of the impacts of revising the
rebuilding plans for the seven overfished Pacific Coast groundfish
species. Revisions to rebuilding plans will be incorporated in
[[Page 13098]]
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) via
Amendment 16-4.
DATES: Public scoping opportunities for the 2007-2008 Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery specifications and management measures and Amendment
16-4 EIS will occur during meetings of the Council and its advisory
bodies, at the April 2-7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA and at the
June 11-16, 2006, meeting in Foster City, CA. Written comments will be
accepted at the Council office through April 13, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, on issues and alternatives,
identified by any of the following methods:
E-mail: (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov. Include [030706E]
and enter ``Scoping Comments'' in the subject line of the message.)
Fax: 503-820-2299.
Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac, Pacific Fishery Management
Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Pl., Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery
Management Coordinator; phone: 503-820-2280, fax: 503-820-2299, and e-
mail: john.devore@noaa.gov or Yvonne deReynier, NMFS, Northwest Region,
phone: 206-526-6129, fax: 206-526-6736 and e-mail:
yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is available on the Government
Printing Office's website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
Background and Need for Agency Action
On October 25, 2005, NMFS and the Council published a Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS or an environmental assessment (EA) for the
2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures (70
FR 61595). At that time, NMFS and the Council were unsure whether an EA
or an EIS would be the appropriate analytical document for that action.
During the Council's October 31 - November 4, 2005, meeting in San
Diego, Ca, NMFS reported to the Council on recent Court instructions in
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872 (9th
Cir. 2005), a lawsuit originally filed in opposition to darkblotched
rockfish rebuilding measures in the 2002 groundfish harvest
specifications and management measures.
The Council discussed a strategy for responding to the Court's
orders to re-evaluate the darkblotched rockfish rebuilding plan so that
the rebuilding period for that species would be as short as possible,
taking into account the status and biology of the species and the needs
of fishing communities. Like other overfished species, darkblotched
rockfish co-occurs with both healthy and overfished species. This
tendency for various groundfish species to co-occur with each other
drives many groundfish management measures, because harvest of healthy
stocks must be constrained to ensure that stocks are not subject to
overfishing and that overfished stocks are rebuilt within the
appropriate time frame. In order to meet the Court's order on
darkblotched rockfish management within the biological constraints of a
mixed, multi-species fishery, the Council recommended taking a global
look at all of its overfished species rebuilding plans. NMFS and the
Council reported back to the Court that they planned to implement a
reduced darkblotched rockfish optimum yield (OY) for 2006, and to re-
evaluate all seven of the overfished species rebuilding plans for 2007
and beyond. The Court reviewed this plan, and ordered NMFS to both
implement a reduced darkblotched rockfish OY for 2006, and to re-
evaluate and revise all overfished species rebuilding plans by January
1, 2007. (For more information on the revised 2006 darkblotched
rockfish OY, see the proposed and final rules for that action; 70 FR
75115, December 19, 2005 and 71 FR 8489, February 17, 2006.)
This Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS announces NMFS and the
Council's intent to expand the scope of the NEPA document analyzing the
2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures to
include revising rebuilding plans for seven overfished species. NMFS
and the Council believe that this expansion of scope warrants NEPA
analysis under an EIS, rather than an EA. When the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement is submitted for public review, it will also include
an analysis of the impacts of the action under the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866),
and other applicable laws.
The Council will consider revisions to the overfished species
rebuilding plans when it considers the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest
specifications and management measures, at the April and June 2006
meetings. When the Council makes it final recommendations on a
preferred alternative in June 2006, it plans to submit new overfished
species rebuilding plans for NMFS review. These new overfished species
rebuilding plans will be incorporated into the FMP as Amendment 16-4.
Alternatives
In the October 25, 2005, Notice of Intent, NMFS and the Council
described the general structure of the range of alternatives that the
public could expect to see for the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest
specifications and management measures. These early draft alternatives
looked at different rebuilding rates for each overfished species
individually, and the effects of that species' harvest on the harvest
rates of co-occurring healthy groundfish stocks. Since that notice was
published, the Council and its advisory bodies have been refining the
alternatives to better define them for public review.
The Council's Allocation Committee and Groundfish Management Team
held a joint public meeting in Portland, OR, February 6-9, 2006. During
that meeting, the advisory bodies discussed the need to revise the
structure of the alternatives in order to ensure that the analysis of
alternatives would adequately address issues raised by the Court. The
advisory bodies discussed recommending that the Council first look at
each overfished species at different rebuilding rates and associated
harvest levels - a horizontal look across each species' biological
constraints to rebuilding. Then, alternatives for analysis would be
vertically integrated to account for the relationships between
overfished species. Where, for example, rebuilding measures for
darkblotched rockfish constrain the harvest of co-occurring Pacific
ocean perch (POP), the POP OY would not be set higher than a level that
would accommodate a given darkblotched rockfish yield level.
At the Council's April 2-7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA, the
Council will adopt a preferred range of alternative harvest levels. In
this range, the Council take into account the inter-relationships
between continental slope overfished species (darkblotched rockfish and
POP), between different continental shelf species (yelloweye, canary,
widow, cowcod, and bocaccio rockfish), between northern species
(darkblotched, POP, widow, yelloweye, and canary rockfish), and between
southern species (canary, bocaccio, and cowcod rockfish, and in some
areas, widow and darkblotched rockfish.
At its April meeting, the Council will also make preliminary
recommendations on alternative fishery management measures for 2007-
2008. As in past years, alternative management measures will be
[[Page 13099]]
structured to account for the interactions between healthy and
overfished stocks, and between the different fisheries and particular
overfished stocks. Not all overfished stocks are incidentally caught in
all fishery sectors. Therefore, management measures will differ by
sector in order to allow access to healthy stock harvest while ensuring
that overfished stocks are rebuilt as quickly as possible.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to
identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that
should be analyzed in depth in the EIS. This process is also intended
to eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant,
or which have been covered in prior environmental reviews. Narrowing
the scope of analysis is intended to allow greater focus on those
impacts that are potentially most significant. NMFS and the Council
will evaluate the impacts of the proposed action on these components of
the biological and physical environment: (1) Essential fish habitat and
ecosystems; (2) protected species listed under the Endangered Species
Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act and their habitat; and (3) the
fishery management unit, including target and non-target fish stocks.
Socioeconomic impacts, which may be considered under NEPA, or under the
RFA and E.O. 12866, are also considered in terms of the effect changes
will have on the following groups: (1) those who participate in
harvesting the fishery resources and other living marine resources (for
commercial, subsistence, or recreational purposes); (2) those who
process and market fish and fish products; (3) those who are involved
in allied support industries; (4) those who rely on living marine
resources in the management area; (5) those who consume fish products;
(6) those who benefit from non-consumptive use (e.g., wildlife
viewing); (7) those who do not use the resource, but derive benefit
from it by virtue of its existence, the option to use it, or the
bequest of the resource to future generations; (8) those involved in
managing and monitoring fisheries; and (9) communities.
Public Scoping Process
Public scoping will primarily occur during the Council's decision-
making process. All decisions during the Council process benefit from
written and verbal comments delivered prior to or during the Council
meetings. NMFS and the Council consider these public comments as
integral to scoping for developing this EIS. The Council developed its
preliminary range of 2007-2008 harvest specifications and management
measures at its October 31-November 4, 2005, meeting in San Diego, CA.
This was the same meeting at which the Council decided to expand the
scope of this EIS. The Council will select the preferred range of
management measures at the April 2-7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA,
at the Double Tree Hotel, 2001 Point West Way, 9815-4702; telephone:
800-227-6963 or 1-800-222-8733. The Council expects to select the
preferred alternative at the June 11-16, 2006, meeting in Foster City,
CA at the Crowne Plaza Mid Peninsula Hotel, 1221 Chess Drive, 94404;
telephone 1-800- 227-6963 or 650-570-5700. Public comment may be made
under the agenda items, when the Council will consider these proposed
actions. The agendas for these meetings will be available from the
Council website, or by request from the Council office in advance of
the meetings (see ADDRESSES). Written comments on the scope of issues
and alternatives may also be submitted as described under ADDRESSES.
NMFS invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis
to be included in the DEIS. The scope includes the range of
alternatives to be considered, and potentially significant impacts to
the human environment that should be evaluated in the DEIS. NMFS and
the Council plan to make the DEIS available for public comment
following the Council's June 2006 meeting. The comment period on the
DEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection
Agency's Notice of Availability appears in the Federal Register. To be
most helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible
and should address the adequacy of the statement or merits of the
alternatives discussed. It is also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the DEIS. Comments may also address the
adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the DEIS. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points). Comments
received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will
be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be
available for public inspection.
Special Accommodations
These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Carolyn Porter 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-
2299 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Dated: March 9, 2006.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6-3634 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
