Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council's Restoration Efforts, 3706-3709 [2010-1201]
Download as PDF
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
3706
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the
regulations of the Board (15 CFR part
400). It was formally filed on January
13, 2010.
The Yankee Candle facilities (1,516
employees, 20,000,000 kg annual candle
capacity, 3,200,000 unit annual gift set
capacity) consist of four sites on 95
acres: Site 1 (44 acres) manufacturing
and kitting facility located at 102
Christian Lane, Whately; Site 2 (31
acres) distribution facility located at 27
Yankee Candle Way, South Deerfield;
Site 3 (10.5 acres) distribution and
kitting facility located at 1 Plain Road,
South Deerfield; and Site 4 (9.6 acres)
warehousing facility located at 14
Industrial Drive West, South Deerfield.
The facilities are used for the
manufacturing and kitting of candles
and gift sets. Components and materials
sourced from abroad (representing 3–
5% of the value of the finished candles
and 25–30% of the value of the finished
gift sets) include: metal lids, glass
candle toppers and tart warmers (duty
rate ranges from 2.6 to 30%).
FTZ procedures could exempt Yankee
Candle from customs duty payments on
the foreign components used in export
production. The company anticipates
that some 10 percent of the plant’s
shipments will be exported. On its
domestic sales, Yankee Candle would be
able to choose the duty rates during
customs entry procedures that apply to
the finished candles (duty-free) and gift
sets (duty rate ranges from 6 to 7.2%) for
the foreign inputs noted above. FTZ
designation would further allow Yankee
Candle to realize logistical benefits
through the use of weekly customs entry
procedures. Customs duties also could
possibly be deferred or reduced on
foreign status production equipment.
The request indicates that the savings
from FTZ procedures would help
improve the plant’s international
competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to
evaluate and analyze the facts and
information presented in the application
and case record and to report findings
and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions (original
and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
Board’s Executive Secretary at the
address below. The closing period for
their receipt is March 23, 2010. Rebuttal
comments in response to material
submitted during the foregoing period
may be submitted during the subsequent
15-day period to April 7, 2010.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading
Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site,
which is accessible via https://
www.trade.gov/ftz.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Whiteman at
Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202)
482–0473.
Dated: January 13, 2010.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–1244 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XT64
Intent to Prepare a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council’s Restoration Efforts
AGENCY: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
U.S. Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a
supplemental environmental impact
statement; request for comments.
SUMMARY: NOAA, as a member of the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council
(Council), announces the intent of the
Council to prepare a supplement to the
existing environmental impact
statement (EIS) on the Council’s
restoration efforts, in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, (NEPA). This supplemental EIS
(SEIS) is necessary to respond to
significant new circumstances bearing
on the Council’s restoration efforts as
assessed in the original EIS.
Specifically, as the restoration funds
remaining from the Exxon Valdez
settlement diminish, the Council seeks
a more discrete and efficient funding
mechanism by which to direct the
remaining funds. The SEIS would assess
the environmental impacts of the
Council’s proposal to narrow and refine
the scope of the Council’s restoration
efforts to five defined restoration
categories: herring; lingering oil; longterm monitoring of marine conditions;
harbor protection and marine
restoration; and habitat acquisition and
protection. Cooperating agencies are the
Alaska Departments of Law,
Environmental Conservation, and Fish
and Game, and the U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
DATES: Written comments on the intent
to prepare and the scope of a SEIS will
be accepted on or before April 1, 2010.
A draft SEIS will be released for public
comment by spring 2010. Specific dates
and times for future events will be
publicized on the EVOSTC website,
https://www.evostc.state.ak.us, when
scheduled.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on
suggested alternatives and potential
impacts should be sent to Laurel
Jennings, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council, 441 West 5th Avenue,
Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Emailed comments will be received at
dfg.evos.nepacomments@alaska.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel Jennings (888.654.EVOS).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1992, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council was formed by six
trustees, three State of Alaska trustees
and three federal trustees, to oversee
restoration of the natural resources and
ecosystem damaged by the 1989 oil
spill. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council was funded by
settlement of civil claims brought
against Exxon Companies by the State of
Alaska and the United States. The
Council initiated an extensive public
process to begin the work of restoration
using these joint trust funds and, in
1994, adopted a Restoration Plan to
guide restoration through research and
monitoring, habitat protection and
general restoration. The Restoration
Plan also established a Restoration
Reserve recognizing that recovery from
the spill would not occur for decades.
As part of this effort, the Council also
adopted an official list of resources and
services injured by the spill. When the
1994 Plan was drafted, the distinction
between the effects of the spill and
those of other natural or human-caused
stressors on injured resources or
services was not clearly understood.
Through the hundreds of studies
conducted over the last twenty years,
the Council has come to recognize that
ecosystem restoration is not easily
addressed. The interactions between a
changing environment and the injured
resources and services are only
beginning to be understood, and, as time
passes, the ability to distinguish the
effects of the oil from other factors
affecting fish and wildlife populations
becomes more difficult. These
complexities and the difficulties in
measuring the continuing impacts from
the spill result in some inherent
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices
uncertainty in defining the status of a
resource or service through a specific
list.
The 1994 Plan also outlined an
ecosystem approach to restoration, a
more integrated view that has become
increasingly recognized as essential.
Even before the Plan was final, the
Council began efforts to better
understand the marine ecosystem. This
approach has provided and continues to
provide an abundance of information on
fish, marine birds, and mammals.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Meetings Times and Dates
Preliminary public scoping meetings
are scheduled as follows; updates or
changes to the meeting times or dates,
due to weather or other factors, can be
found at https://www.evostc.state.ak.us:
1. February 16, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m. at the Alaska Islands and
Oceans Visitor Center, 95 Sterling
Highway, Homer, AK 99603.
2. February 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m. at Dena´ina Civic &
Convention Center, 600 West Seventh
Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501.
3. February 18, 2010 from 7:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. at the Cordova Public Library,
622 First Street, Cordova, AK 99574.
4. March 16, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. at the K.M. Rae Building, 125
Third Avenue, Seward, AK 99664.
5. March 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. at the Valdez City Council
Chambers, 206 Pioneer Drive, Valdez,
AK 99686.
6. March 18, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. at the Kodiak Refuge Visitor
Center, 402 Center Street, Kodiak AK
99615.
Proposed Action
Of the approximately $780 million of
joint trust funds initially funding the
Council, over $180 million has been
used for research, monitoring and
general restoration and over $375
million has funded habitat protection.
Council annual program development,
implementation and administration
have cost over $45 million dollars.
Approximately $76 million remains
available for research, monitoring and
general restoration and $24 million
remains available for habitat acquisition
and protection. Recognizing that
funding for future restoration is limited
and that it is becoming increasingly
difficult to distinguish between spill
impacts and other effects in measuring
recovery, the Council is considering an
organized and strategic transition to a
modest program which would focus the
remaining funds on a few specific
programs and habitat protection.
Long-term management of species and
resources initially injured by the spill
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
lies with the agencies and entities that
have the mandate and resources to
pursue these long-term goals. To
support natural restoration and to
enable management consistent with this
long-term restoration, the Council has
increasingly directed funds toward
research that provides information that
is critical to monitor and support the
healthy functioning of the spill
ecosystem.
Building on its past efforts, the
Council has identified five areas of
focus for its remaining work: (1) herring;
(2) lingering oil; (3) long-term
monitoring of marine conditions; (4)
harbor protection and marine
restoration; and (5) habitat acquisition
and protection. The following
paragraphs elaborate on the details of
each of these proposed areas of focus.
1. Herring
The Council has classified the Prince
William Sound (PWS) population of
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) as a
resource that has not recovered from the
effects of the 1989 oil spill. The PWS
herring population was increasing prior
to 1989 with record harvests reported
just before the spill. The 1989 year class
was one of the smallest cohorts of
spawning adults recorded and by 1993
the fishery had collapsed with only 25%
of the expected adults returning to
spawn. The PWS fishery was closed
from 1993 to 1996, but reopened in 1997
and 1998, based on an increasing
population. Numbers again declined in
1999, and the fishery remains closed
today. The 1993 collapse can be
explained by several competing
hypothesis; however, data uncertainty
makes it unlikely that the reasons will
be known.
The Council recognizes the
uncertainty with regard to the role of the
1989 spill and the current depressed
state of the PWS herring population.
However, herring are considered a
keystone species in the marine
ecosystem and play a vital role in the
food chain of many injured species.
Thus, rebuilding the herring population
has the potential to support the
restoration of these injured species. In
addition, supporting a healthy herring
population may compensate for some of
the losses in fishing opportunities that
resulted from the spill and its damage
to salmon and species other than
herring. In April 2006, prompted by
public comments about the continuing
impacts to communities and
commercial fishermen from herring
losses, the Council convened scientists
and researchers, commercial and
subsistence fishermen, and natural
resource managers for a herring
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3707
workshop. One of the most important
outcomes of the workshop was the
consensus that a long-term strategic
herring restoration program was needed
if viable herring recovery activities were
to be implemented. From 2006 to 2008,
Council representatives met with
natural resource managers, commercial
fishers, scientists, the Public Advisory
Committee (PAC) and Alaska Native
residents of spill-area communities to
gain sufficient input to draft a costefficient, scientifically credible, and
coordinated program. This effort
produced the first draft of the Integrated
Herring Restoration Program (IHRP) in
December 2008.
The goal of the IHRP is to determine
what, if anything, can be done to
successfully restore PWS herring; to
determine what steps can be taken to
examine the reasons for the continued
decline of herring in the Sound; to
identify and evaluate potential recovery
options; and to recommend a course of
action for restoration. The document is
currently being reviewed and updated
with new information and will serve as
a general road map for the Council’s
herring-related funding decisions. The
Council has proposed to fund $20
million for research in this area over a
twenty-year period.
2. Lingering Oil
One of the most surprising revelations
from two decades of research and
restoration efforts since the 1989 spill is
the persistence of subsurface oil in a
relatively un-weathered state. This oil,
estimated to be around 97.2 metric tons
(or 23,000 gallons), is contained in
discontinuous patches across beaches
that were initially impacted by the spill.
The patches cannot be visually
identified on the beach surface, but their
presence may be a source for continued
exposure to oil of sea otters and birds
that seek food in sediments where the
oil persists and remains a concern and
a perception of contamination by
subsistence users. The survey work
completed to date indicates that the oil
is decreasing at a rate of zero to four
percent per year, with only a five
percent chance that the rate is as high
as four percent. As a result, it may
persist for decades.
Passive and subsistence uses were
significantly impacted by the spill and
this has affected the overall health of the
communities in Prince William Sound.
The lingering oil has also impacted the
public’s perception of the spill area as
the pristine environment that was
present before the spill occurred. This
perception has continued to preclude
full recovery for some passive and
subsistence uses. It may require
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
3708
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
additional resources to evaluate,
monitor, and redress the impact of
lingering oil on these uses in the spillarea. An important function of this
information gathering would be to pass
this information back to the
communities and the general public.
In an effort to address the issue of
lingering oil, the governments
developed a restoration plan under the
terms of the Reopener provision in the
Consent Decree with Exxon (https://
www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/
reopener.cfm). Efforts to date include
the development of a spatial probability
model to identify beach segments with
a high likelihood of persistent oil, and
investigations of the reasons for the
persistence of oil as a means to consider
options that may accelerate the oil
degradation. Under the lingering oil
initiative, the Council envisions
completion of the studies underway to
reach a decision point on further efforts
for active remediation. Upon receiving
additional lingering oil information
from these current lingering oil studies
and the resolution of the Reopener, the
Council will evaluate the need for
restoration of related services and thus
no prospective funding amount has
been proposed.
3. Long-term Monitoring of Marine
Conditions
In the twenty years since the Exxon
Valdez oil spill, it has become apparent
that the ocean ecosystem can undergo
profound changes and such changes
likely preclude a return to pre-spill
conditions. The 1994 Restoration Plan
(Plan) recognized that recovery from the
spill would likely take decades. A
Restoration Reserve was created from
the Plan in part to provide for long-term
observation of injured resources and
services and provide for appropriate
restoration actions into the future. To
further this effort, in 1999 the Council
also supported the development of a
long-term research and monitoring
program.
Long-term monitoring has two
components: monitoring the recovery of
resources from the initial injury and
monitoring how factors other than oil
may inhibit full recovery or adversely
impact recovered resources. This second
type of monitoring collects data on
environmental factors that drive
ecosystem-level changes. The
information that is produced from such
monitoring may be used to manage
individual injured species and
resources. However, such data is
increasingly valuable in illuminating
the larger ecosystem shifts that impact
and influence a broad variety of species
and resources injured by the spill.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
By monitoring these changes, agencies
and interested parties may be able to
adjust their own activities and
management strategies to adapt to what
may lie ahead and to further support
injured resources in these quicklyshifting marine ecosystems. The Council
has a history of supporting
oceanographic monitoring by helping to
establish and fund long-term data
collections. In this initiative, the
Council envisions seeking partnerships
with scientific entities or consortiums
able to maintain those collections and
that can demonstrate an ability to
leverage this support and develop
science-based products to inform the
public of changes in the environment
and the impacts of these changes on
injured resources and services. The
Council proposes to fund this effort
with approximately $25 million, to be
spent over a twenty-year period.
4. Harbor Protection and Marine
Restoration
a. Storm Water, Wastewater, and Harbor
Projects
Many coastal communities in the spill
area have a limited ability to collect and
properly dispose of waste, such as oily
bilge water, used engine oil, paints,
solvents, and lead-acid batteries.
Improper disposal of these wastes in
landfills adversely affects the quality of
nearby marine waters through runoff
and leaching. In some cases, these
wastes are discharged directly into
marine waters. Chronic marine
pollution stresses fish and wildlife
resources, possibly delaying recovery of
resources injured by the oil spill. For
example, with regard to the worldwide
mortality of seabirds, the effects of
chronic marine pollution are believed to
be at least as important as those of largescale spills.
The Council has approved the
funding of several projects to prepare
waste management plans and has
contributed to their implementation.
These projects resulted in the
acquisition of waste oil management
equipment and the construction of
environmental operating stations for the
drop-off of used oil, household
hazardous waste and recyclable solid
waste in Cordova, Valdez, Chenega Bay,
Tatitlek and Whittier, Kodiak and lower
Cook Inlet. The Council seeks to further
reduce pollution in the marine
environment to contribute to the
recovery of injured natural resources or
services and is considering funding this
effort with $10 million.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
b. Marine Debris Removal
Marine debris is an issue in the
marine and near-shore environment in
Alaska, where it is likely that thousands
of tons of marine debris exist within
three nautical miles of the Alaska
coastline. Marine fish and wildlife
become entangled in and ingest debris
from foreign and domestic sources that
may be a day or decades old and that
range from small plastic items to very
large fishing nets. Approximately 175
metric tons of debris was collected from
Alaska coasts by citizen cleanup
projects in 2007. Marine debris removal
projects can result in an immediate
improvement to the coastal habitat.
Coastal communities are effective in
marine debris cleanups due to their
intimate knowledge of the locations of
debris accumulation. In addition, when
communities participate in marine
debris cleanups, they often alter the
common practices that led to marine
debris as their awareness of the effects
of the debris on their coastline and the
fisheries upon which they depend
increases. Marine debris removal
reduces marine pollution affecting
injured resources and services and thus
further supports natural restoration. The
Council proposes to fund marine debris
removal with approximately $3 million.
c. Response, Damage Assessment and
Restoration Implications
Damage to natural resources occurs
not only with an initial oil spill, but
additional damage can also be caused by
spill response efforts. Damage
assessment from the 1989 spill has
yielded information that can assist in
mitigating damage from spill response
activities in future spills. Skilled
damage assessment also quantifies the
extent of injury and allows for the
accurate monitoring and measurement
of restoration after a spill. Organizing,
preserving, and passing on such
information will help responders and
those conducting future damage
assessments. These efforts ensure that
restoration efforts are truly effective.
Outreach efforts could include a
conference or series of papers sharing
information to be used by future
responders, including natural resource
assessment, the long-term costs of highpressure washing, use of dispersants in
the near-shore, sub-arctic environment,
and the effects of potential burning
scenarios. The Council proposes to fund
this effort with $1 million.
5. Habitat Acquisition and Protection
The protection of habitat is an
important component of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill restoration program. The
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
acquisition of private lands or partial
interests in private lands promotes the
natural recovery of spill-injured
resources and associated services by
removing the threat posed by additional
development impacts. The program is
implemented by state and federal
resource agencies, often in partnership
with non-governmental organizations.
The habitat program has protected
approximately 650,000 acres of valuable
habitat through a variety of purchases of
various property rights, ranging from fee
simple acquisition to conservation and
timber easements. The goals of the
habitat protection program remain
viable. Resource and land management
agencies, such as the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service and U.S. Forest Service,
continue to receive parcel nominations
for Council consideration.
Approximately $24 million remains
within the habitat subaccount for future
habitat protection efforts. The Council is
considering alternatives for allocation of
these funds. For example, half of the
funds remaining may be allocated to the
purchase of large parcels within a
period of two to three years, and the
remaining half to a program spanning a
12-year period focused on the protection
of small parcels less than 1,000 acres or
$1 million in price. The Council
proposes to utilize the approximately
$24 million remaining to continue the
habitat program. A variety of
administrative options, funding
allocations, time frames, and
management strategies will be
considered.
Public Involvement
Scoping is an early and open process
for determining the scope of issues to be
addressed in a SEIS and for identifying
if there are significant environmental
effects or issues related to the proposed
action. A principal objective of the
scoping and public involvement process
is to identify a range of reasonable
alternatives that will delineate critical
issues and provide a clear basis for
distinguishing among those alternatives
and selecting a preferred alternative.
Through this Notice, the Council
notifies the public that a NEPA analysis
and decision-making process has been
initiated so that interested or affected
people may participate and contribute
to the final decision.
Through this scoping process, the
Council is seeking input and feedback
on the areas, issues and projects
proposed above, as well as possible
alternatives to these proposals. The
Council seeks public involvement in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
development of the SEIS and
encourages members of the public to
submit comments in writing at the
address shown above (see ADDRESSES).
Written comments should be as specific
as possible to be the most helpful.
Written comments received during the
scoping process, including the names
and addresses of those submitting them,
will be considered part of the public
record on this proposal and will be
available for public inspection.
The Council also invites the public to
participate in the scoping meetings
shown above (see DATES). When the lead
federal agency considers a change to a
proposed action analyzed in an
environmental impact statement (EIS),
or new information relevant to the
action becomes available, the federal
agency must determine whether a
supplement to the EIS (also referred to
as a ‘‘supplemental EIS’’) or a new EIS
is appropriate. In this instance, NOAA,
as the lead agency, has determined that
a SEIS is appropriate and will be
prepared under the authority and in
accordance with the requirements of
NEPA, Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–
1508), other applicable federal laws and
regulations, and NOAA’s established
policies and procedures for compliance
with those regulations. A SEIS must
consider all reasonable alternatives,
including the preferred action and the
no action alternative. Even the most
straightforward actions may have
alternatives, often considered and
rejected in early stages of project
development that should be discussed.
Opportunities for public comment are
provided through public review and
comment on documents contained in
the Administrative Record as well as on
the Public Review Document, Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
when prepared.
In compliance with 15 CFR 990.45,
the Council will prepare an
Administrative Record (Record). The
Record will include documents that the
Council relied upon during the
development of the SEIS. After
preparation, the Record will be on file
at the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council office in Anchorage, AK and
duplicate copies will be maintained at
the following website: https://
www.evostc.state.ak.us.
Dated: January 15, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–1201 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–12–S
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3709
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Notice of Intent To Conduct
Restoration Planning (Pursuant to 15
CFR 990.44)—Discharge of Oil From
the MIV CASCO BUSAN Into San
Francisco Bay, November 7, 2007
AGENCY: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct
restoration planning (pursuant to 15
CFR 990.44)—Discharge of Oil from the
MIV CASCO BUSAN into San Francisco
Bay, November 7, 2007.
SUMMARY: On or about November 7,
2007, the privately owned cargo carrier
MlV CASCO BUSAN struck a portion of
the fendering system for the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge’s Delta
Tower. This ruptured one or more of the
vessel’s fuel tanks, allowing a portion of
the vessel’s bunker oil to be discharged
into the San Francisco Bay. The
estimated discharge amounted to
approximately 53,000 gallons of IFO
380, a heavy fuel oil used primarily to
propel ships. This discharge affected
natural resources in the area. All of the
foregoing is referred to as the ‘‘Incident.’’
Pursuant to section 1006 of the Oil
Pollution Act (‘‘OPA’’), 33 U.S.C. 2701,
et seq., federal and state trustees for
natural resources are authorized to: (1)
Assess natural resource injuries
resulting from a discharge of oil or the
substantial threat of a discharge and
response activities, and (2) Develop and
implement a plan for restoration of such
injured resources. The federal trustees
are designated pursuant to the National
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Section
300.600 and Executive Order 12777.
State trustees for California are
designated pursuant to the National
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Section
300.605 and the Governor’s Designation
of State Natural Resource Trustees
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, and California
Health and Safety Code section
25352(c), dated October 5, 2007. The
natural resources trustees (‘‘Trustees’’)
under OPA for this Incident are the
United States Department of Commerce,
acting through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (‘‘NOAA’’);
the United States Department of the
Interior (‘‘DOl’’), acting through the
National Park Service (‘‘NPS’’), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’), and
the Bureau of Land Management
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3706-3709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1201]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XT64
Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council's Restoration Efforts
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact
statement; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOAA, as a member of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council (Council), announces the intent of the Council to prepare a
supplement to the existing environmental impact statement (EIS) on the
Council's restoration efforts, in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (NEPA). This supplemental EIS (SEIS)
is necessary to respond to significant new circumstances bearing on the
Council's restoration efforts as assessed in the original EIS.
Specifically, as the restoration funds remaining from the Exxon Valdez
settlement diminish, the Council seeks a more discrete and efficient
funding mechanism by which to direct the remaining funds. The SEIS
would assess the environmental impacts of the Council's proposal to
narrow and refine the scope of the Council's restoration efforts to
five defined restoration categories: herring; lingering oil; long-term
monitoring of marine conditions; harbor protection and marine
restoration; and habitat acquisition and protection. Cooperating
agencies are the Alaska Departments of Law, Environmental Conservation,
and Fish and Game, and the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior.
DATES: Written comments on the intent to prepare and the scope of a
SEIS will be accepted on or before April 1, 2010. A draft SEIS will be
released for public comment by spring 2010. Specific dates and times
for future events will be publicized on the EVOSTC website, https://www.evostc.state.ak.us, when scheduled.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on suggested alternatives and potential
impacts should be sent to Laurel Jennings, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council, 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Emailed comments will be received at dfg.evos.nepacomments@alaska.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Jennings (888.654.EVOS).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1992, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council was formed by
six trustees, three State of Alaska trustees and three federal
trustees, to oversee restoration of the natural resources and ecosystem
damaged by the 1989 oil spill. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council was funded by settlement of civil claims brought against Exxon
Companies by the State of Alaska and the United States. The Council
initiated an extensive public process to begin the work of restoration
using these joint trust funds and, in 1994, adopted a Restoration Plan
to guide restoration through research and monitoring, habitat
protection and general restoration. The Restoration Plan also
established a Restoration Reserve recognizing that recovery from the
spill would not occur for decades.
As part of this effort, the Council also adopted an official list
of resources and services injured by the spill. When the 1994 Plan was
drafted, the distinction between the effects of the spill and those of
other natural or human-caused stressors on injured resources or
services was not clearly understood. Through the hundreds of studies
conducted over the last twenty years, the Council has come to recognize
that ecosystem restoration is not easily addressed. The interactions
between a changing environment and the injured resources and services
are only beginning to be understood, and, as time passes, the ability
to distinguish the effects of the oil from other factors affecting fish
and wildlife populations becomes more difficult. These complexities and
the difficulties in measuring the continuing impacts from the spill
result in some inherent
[[Page 3707]]
uncertainty in defining the status of a resource or service through a
specific list.
The 1994 Plan also outlined an ecosystem approach to restoration, a
more integrated view that has become increasingly recognized as
essential. Even before the Plan was final, the Council began efforts to
better understand the marine ecosystem. This approach has provided and
continues to provide an abundance of information on fish, marine birds,
and mammals.
Meetings Times and Dates
Preliminary public scoping meetings are scheduled as follows;
updates or changes to the meeting times or dates, due to weather or
other factors, can be found at https://www.evostc.state.ak.us:
1. February 16, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Alaska Islands
and Oceans Visitor Center, 95 Sterling Highway, Homer, AK 99603.
2. February 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Dena[acute]ina
Civic & Convention Center, 600 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage, AK
99501.
3. February 18, 2010 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Cordova Public
Library, 622 First Street, Cordova, AK 99574.
4. March 16, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the K.M. Rae Building,
125 Third Avenue, Seward, AK 99664.
5. March 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Valdez City
Council Chambers, 206 Pioneer Drive, Valdez, AK 99686.
6. March 18, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Kodiak Refuge
Visitor Center, 402 Center Street, Kodiak AK 99615.
Proposed Action
Of the approximately $780 million of joint trust funds initially
funding the Council, over $180 million has been used for research,
monitoring and general restoration and over $375 million has funded
habitat protection. Council annual program development, implementation
and administration have cost over $45 million dollars. Approximately
$76 million remains available for research, monitoring and general
restoration and $24 million remains available for habitat acquisition
and protection. Recognizing that funding for future restoration is
limited and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
between spill impacts and other effects in measuring recovery, the
Council is considering an organized and strategic transition to a
modest program which would focus the remaining funds on a few specific
programs and habitat protection.
Long-term management of species and resources initially injured by
the spill lies with the agencies and entities that have the mandate and
resources to pursue these long-term goals. To support natural
restoration and to enable management consistent with this long-term
restoration, the Council has increasingly directed funds toward
research that provides information that is critical to monitor and
support the healthy functioning of the spill ecosystem.
Building on its past efforts, the Council has identified five areas
of focus for its remaining work: (1) herring; (2) lingering oil; (3)
long-term monitoring of marine conditions; (4) harbor protection and
marine restoration; and (5) habitat acquisition and protection. The
following paragraphs elaborate on the details of each of these proposed
areas of focus.
1. Herring
The Council has classified the Prince William Sound (PWS)
population of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) as a resource that has
not recovered from the effects of the 1989 oil spill. The PWS herring
population was increasing prior to 1989 with record harvests reported
just before the spill. The 1989 year class was one of the smallest
cohorts of spawning adults recorded and by 1993 the fishery had
collapsed with only 25% of the expected adults returning to spawn. The
PWS fishery was closed from 1993 to 1996, but reopened in 1997 and
1998, based on an increasing population. Numbers again declined in
1999, and the fishery remains closed today. The 1993 collapse can be
explained by several competing hypothesis; however, data uncertainty
makes it unlikely that the reasons will be known.
The Council recognizes the uncertainty with regard to the role of
the 1989 spill and the current depressed state of the PWS herring
population. However, herring are considered a keystone species in the
marine ecosystem and play a vital role in the food chain of many
injured species. Thus, rebuilding the herring population has the
potential to support the restoration of these injured species. In
addition, supporting a healthy herring population may compensate for
some of the losses in fishing opportunities that resulted from the
spill and its damage to salmon and species other than herring. In April
2006, prompted by public comments about the continuing impacts to
communities and commercial fishermen from herring losses, the Council
convened scientists and researchers, commercial and subsistence
fishermen, and natural resource managers for a herring workshop. One of
the most important outcomes of the workshop was the consensus that a
long-term strategic herring restoration program was needed if viable
herring recovery activities were to be implemented. From 2006 to 2008,
Council representatives met with natural resource managers, commercial
fishers, scientists, the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) and Alaska
Native residents of spill-area communities to gain sufficient input to
draft a cost-efficient, scientifically credible, and coordinated
program. This effort produced the first draft of the Integrated Herring
Restoration Program (IHRP) in December 2008.
The goal of the IHRP is to determine what, if anything, can be done
to successfully restore PWS herring; to determine what steps can be
taken to examine the reasons for the continued decline of herring in
the Sound; to identify and evaluate potential recovery options; and to
recommend a course of action for restoration. The document is currently
being reviewed and updated with new information and will serve as a
general road map for the Council's herring-related funding decisions.
The Council has proposed to fund $20 million for research in this area
over a twenty-year period.
2. Lingering Oil
One of the most surprising revelations from two decades of research
and restoration efforts since the 1989 spill is the persistence of
subsurface oil in a relatively un-weathered state. This oil, estimated
to be around 97.2 metric tons (or 23,000 gallons), is contained in
discontinuous patches across beaches that were initially impacted by
the spill. The patches cannot be visually identified on the beach
surface, but their presence may be a source for continued exposure to
oil of sea otters and birds that seek food in sediments where the oil
persists and remains a concern and a perception of contamination by
subsistence users. The survey work completed to date indicates that the
oil is decreasing at a rate of zero to four percent per year, with only
a five percent chance that the rate is as high as four percent. As a
result, it may persist for decades.
Passive and subsistence uses were significantly impacted by the
spill and this has affected the overall health of the communities in
Prince William Sound. The lingering oil has also impacted the public's
perception of the spill area as the pristine environment that was
present before the spill occurred. This perception has continued to
preclude full recovery for some passive and subsistence uses. It may
require
[[Page 3708]]
additional resources to evaluate, monitor, and redress the impact of
lingering oil on these uses in the spill-area. An important function of
this information gathering would be to pass this information back to
the communities and the general public.
In an effort to address the issue of lingering oil, the governments
developed a restoration plan under the terms of the Reopener provision
in the Consent Decree with Exxon (https://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/reopener.cfm). Efforts to date include the development of a spatial
probability model to identify beach segments with a high likelihood of
persistent oil, and investigations of the reasons for the persistence
of oil as a means to consider options that may accelerate the oil
degradation. Under the lingering oil initiative, the Council envisions
completion of the studies underway to reach a decision point on further
efforts for active remediation. Upon receiving additional lingering oil
information from these current lingering oil studies and the resolution
of the Reopener, the Council will evaluate the need for restoration of
related services and thus no prospective funding amount has been
proposed.
3. Long-term Monitoring of Marine Conditions
In the twenty years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, it has become
apparent that the ocean ecosystem can undergo profound changes and such
changes likely preclude a return to pre-spill conditions. The 1994
Restoration Plan (Plan) recognized that recovery from the spill would
likely take decades. A Restoration Reserve was created from the Plan in
part to provide for long-term observation of injured resources and
services and provide for appropriate restoration actions into the
future. To further this effort, in 1999 the Council also supported the
development of a long-term research and monitoring program.
Long-term monitoring has two components: monitoring the recovery of
resources from the initial injury and monitoring how factors other than
oil may inhibit full recovery or adversely impact recovered resources.
This second type of monitoring collects data on environmental factors
that drive ecosystem-level changes. The information that is produced
from such monitoring may be used to manage individual injured species
and resources. However, such data is increasingly valuable in
illuminating the larger ecosystem shifts that impact and influence a
broad variety of species and resources injured by the spill.
By monitoring these changes, agencies and interested parties may be
able to adjust their own activities and management strategies to adapt
to what may lie ahead and to further support injured resources in these
quickly-shifting marine ecosystems. The Council has a history of
supporting oceanographic monitoring by helping to establish and fund
long-term data collections. In this initiative, the Council envisions
seeking partnerships with scientific entities or consortiums able to
maintain those collections and that can demonstrate an ability to
leverage this support and develop science-based products to inform the
public of changes in the environment and the impacts of these changes
on injured resources and services. The Council proposes to fund this
effort with approximately $25 million, to be spent over a twenty-year
period.
4. Harbor Protection and Marine Restoration
a. Storm Water, Wastewater, and Harbor Projects
Many coastal communities in the spill area have a limited ability
to collect and properly dispose of waste, such as oily bilge water,
used engine oil, paints, solvents, and lead-acid batteries. Improper
disposal of these wastes in landfills adversely affects the quality of
nearby marine waters through runoff and leaching. In some cases, these
wastes are discharged directly into marine waters. Chronic marine
pollution stresses fish and wildlife resources, possibly delaying
recovery of resources injured by the oil spill. For example, with
regard to the worldwide mortality of seabirds, the effects of chronic
marine pollution are believed to be at least as important as those of
large-scale spills.
The Council has approved the funding of several projects to prepare
waste management plans and has contributed to their implementation.
These projects resulted in the acquisition of waste oil management
equipment and the construction of environmental operating stations for
the drop-off of used oil, household hazardous waste and recyclable
solid waste in Cordova, Valdez, Chenega Bay, Tatitlek and Whittier,
Kodiak and lower Cook Inlet. The Council seeks to further reduce
pollution in the marine environment to contribute to the recovery of
injured natural resources or services and is considering funding this
effort with $10 million.
b. Marine Debris Removal
Marine debris is an issue in the marine and near-shore environment
in Alaska, where it is likely that thousands of tons of marine debris
exist within three nautical miles of the Alaska coastline. Marine fish
and wildlife become entangled in and ingest debris from foreign and
domestic sources that may be a day or decades old and that range from
small plastic items to very large fishing nets. Approximately 175
metric tons of debris was collected from Alaska coasts by citizen
cleanup projects in 2007. Marine debris removal projects can result in
an immediate improvement to the coastal habitat.
Coastal communities are effective in marine debris cleanups due to
their intimate knowledge of the locations of debris accumulation. In
addition, when communities participate in marine debris cleanups, they
often alter the common practices that led to marine debris as their
awareness of the effects of the debris on their coastline and the
fisheries upon which they depend increases. Marine debris removal
reduces marine pollution affecting injured resources and services and
thus further supports natural restoration. The Council proposes to fund
marine debris removal with approximately $3 million.
c. Response, Damage Assessment and Restoration Implications
Damage to natural resources occurs not only with an initial oil
spill, but additional damage can also be caused by spill response
efforts. Damage assessment from the 1989 spill has yielded information
that can assist in mitigating damage from spill response activities in
future spills. Skilled damage assessment also quantifies the extent of
injury and allows for the accurate monitoring and measurement of
restoration after a spill. Organizing, preserving, and passing on such
information will help responders and those conducting future damage
assessments. These efforts ensure that restoration efforts are truly
effective. Outreach efforts could include a conference or series of
papers sharing information to be used by future responders, including
natural resource assessment, the long-term costs of high-pressure
washing, use of dispersants in the near-shore, sub-arctic environment,
and the effects of potential burning scenarios. The Council proposes to
fund this effort with $1 million.
5. Habitat Acquisition and Protection
The protection of habitat is an important component of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill restoration program. The
[[Page 3709]]
acquisition of private lands or partial interests in private lands
promotes the natural recovery of spill-injured resources and associated
services by removing the threat posed by additional development
impacts. The program is implemented by state and federal resource
agencies, often in partnership with non-governmental organizations. The
habitat program has protected approximately 650,000 acres of valuable
habitat through a variety of purchases of various property rights,
ranging from fee simple acquisition to conservation and timber
easements. The goals of the habitat protection program remain viable.
Resource and land management agencies, such as the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service,
continue to receive parcel nominations for Council consideration.
Approximately $24 million remains within the habitat subaccount for
future habitat protection efforts. The Council is considering
alternatives for allocation of these funds. For example, half of the
funds remaining may be allocated to the purchase of large parcels
within a period of two to three years, and the remaining half to a
program spanning a 12-year period focused on the protection of small
parcels less than 1,000 acres or $1 million in price. The Council
proposes to utilize the approximately $24 million remaining to continue
the habitat program. A variety of administrative options, funding
allocations, time frames, and management strategies will be considered.
Public Involvement
Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed in a SEIS and for identifying if there are
significant environmental effects or issues related to the proposed
action. A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement
process is to identify a range of reasonable alternatives that will
delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing
among those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. Through
this Notice, the Council notifies the public that a NEPA analysis and
decision-making process has been initiated so that interested or
affected people may participate and contribute to the final decision.
Through this scoping process, the Council is seeking input and
feedback on the areas, issues and projects proposed above, as well as
possible alternatives to these proposals. The Council seeks public
involvement in the development of the SEIS and encourages members of
the public to submit comments in writing at the address shown above
(see ADDRESSES). Written comments should be as specific as possible to
be the most helpful. Written comments received during the scoping
process, including the names and addresses of those submitting them,
will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
The Council also invites the public to participate in the scoping
meetings shown above (see DATES). When the lead federal agency
considers a change to a proposed action analyzed in an environmental
impact statement (EIS), or new information relevant to the action
becomes available, the federal agency must determine whether a
supplement to the EIS (also referred to as a ``supplemental EIS'') or a
new EIS is appropriate. In this instance, NOAA, as the lead agency, has
determined that a SEIS is appropriate and will be prepared under the
authority and in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other
applicable federal laws and regulations, and NOAA's established
policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations. A SEIS
must consider all reasonable alternatives, including the preferred
action and the no action alternative. Even the most straightforward
actions may have alternatives, often considered and rejected in early
stages of project development that should be discussed. Opportunities
for public comment are provided through public review and comment on
documents contained in the Administrative Record as well as on the
Public Review Document, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement
when prepared.
In compliance with 15 CFR 990.45, the Council will prepare an
Administrative Record (Record). The Record will include documents that
the Council relied upon during the development of the SEIS. After
preparation, the Record will be on file at the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council office in Anchorage, AK and duplicate copies will be
maintained at the following website: https://www.evostc.state.ak.us.
Dated: January 15, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-1201 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-S