[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42968-42969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16358]
[[Page 42968]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 071204C]
Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS); request for written comments; preliminary notice of scoping
meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
intend to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to analyze a range of alternatives for the
annual allocation of the Pacific sardine harvest guideline.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted at the Council office through
August 25, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by (I.D. 071204C), by
any of the following methods:
E-mail: [email protected]: (enter ``Pacific Sardine
Allocation'' and include the I.D. number in the subject line of the
message).
Mail: Written comment on issues and alternatives to be
addressed in this EIS should be sent to Dr. Donald McIsaac, Pacific
Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200,
Portland, OR 97220.
Fax: 503-820-2299.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Svein Fougner, NMFS, Southwest Region
telephone: 562-980-4040, fax: 562-980-4018; or Dan Waldeck, Pacific
Fishery Management Council, telephone: 503-820-2280, fax: 503-820-2299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is available on the Government
Printing Office's website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index/html.
Background
NEPA requires consideration of a full range of reasonable
alternatives including status quo (no action). The Council has not yet
determined which alternative will be its preferred alternative. When
developed, the proposed management alternatives would modify the
Pacific sardine allocation framework in the Coastal Pelagic Species
(CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and regulations that implement the
FMP (68 FR 52523). The tentative schedule for Council actions related
to this matter is: September 2004, progress report; November 2004,
review preliminary range of draft alternatives; January-February 2005,
public hearings on range of alternatives; March or April 2005,
preliminary action; June 2005, final action. If this schedule holds,
and NMFS approves the Council action; the Council anticipates
implementation of the new Pacific sardine allocation framework in time
for the 2006 Pacific sardine fishery, which opens January 1.
Description of the Proposal
The proposed action is to implement a comprehensive, long-term
allocation framework to apportion the annual Pacific sardine harvest
guideline among the various sectors of the sardine fishery. The Pacific
sardine resource is healthy and abundant, supporting fisheries in
California (Los Angeles harbor area and Monterey Bay area), in Oregon
(Port of Astoria), and Washington (ports of Westport and Ilwaco). The
proposal is intended to ensure optimal utilization of the resource and
equitably allocate harvest opportunity.
The Council adopted the CPS FMP in 1998. The CPS FMP was
implemented by NMFS in December 1999 (64 FR 69888). The original
Pacific sardine allocation formula in the FMP partitioned 33 percent of
the annual harvest guideline to the northern subarea (``Subarea A'')
and 66 percent to the southern subarea (``Subarea B''). Nine months
after the January 1 start of the fishery (i.e., October 1), the
remaining harvest guideline was pooled and re-allocated 50 percent - 50
percent to each subarea. The original boundary between the two subareas
was 35[deg] 40' N lat. (approximately Point Piedras Blancas,
California). This formula was incorporated into Federal management from
existing California State law. The State law was designed to balance
fishing opportunity between the Southern California-based fishery
(``South'') and the Monterey-based fishery (``North''). At the time of
the FMP's implementation, this was considered a status quo action (as
the sardine fishery occurred, principally, in California) with no
environmental impacts. No alternative allocation formulae were
considered.
As the Pacific sardine biomass expanded, fisheries developed in the
Pacific Northwest. With this expansion, under the original formula, the
northern area allocation was shared by Monterey, Oregon, and
Washington-based fisheries. Oregon and Washington fishery interests
expressed concern to the Council that the original allocation framework
did not provide optimal harvest opportunity to the respective fishery
sectors. Each of the three sectors operates over a unique schedule.
Generally, Southern California starts harvesting sardine January 1 and
harvest increases steadily throughout the year; Northern California
starts in August (tied to market squid availability) and harvest
increases through January or February of the following year; and Oregon
and Washington have a much more abbreviated season, which starts in
June and ends in October. Because these sectors operate on very
different schedules, annual allocations help to ensure that each sector
receives a reasonable fishing opportunity. Ex-vessel landings in all
sectors are driven by domestic and international market forces for
sardines, as well as the availability and markets for other species of
economic benefit to sardine vessels and processors (for example, market
squid). The Northern California fishery and Pacific Northwest fishery
are also affected by adverse weather.
In April 2003, the Council recommended to NMFS an interim framework
for allocating sardine. The revised allocation system: (1) changed the
definition of Subarea A (northern subarea) and Subarea B (southern
subarea) by moving the geographic boundary between the two areas from
35[deg] 40' N. lat. (Point Piedras Blancas, California) to 39[deg] N.
lat. (Point Arena, California), (2) moved the date when Pacific sardine
that remains unharvested is reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B from
October 1 to September 1, (3) changed the percentage of the unharvested
sardine that is reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B from 50 percent
to both subareas to 20 percent to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea
B, and (4) reallocates all unharvested sardine that remains on December
1 coastwide.
The Council requested this allocation framework be in place for the
2003 and 2004 fishing seasons, and also in 2005 (if the 2005 harvest
guideline is at least 90 percent of the 2003 harvest guideline). NMFS
implemented the revised allocation framework by a regulation that was
published on September 4, 2003 (68 FR 52523).
Using the best available information, the interim allocation
framework was rapidly developed to address the concerns in the short-
term. At the time, it was understood that more information and time
would be needed to develop a more comprehensive, longer-term
[[Page 42969]]
allocation framework, which is a purpose of this EIS.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
A principal objective of this scoping and public input process is
to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment
that should be analyzed in depth in the EIS. Impacts of the following
components on the biological and physical environment may be evaluated:
(1) essential fish habitat and ecosystems; (2) protected species listed
under the Endangered Species Act or protected by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and the critical habitat of those species (if any); and
(3) the fishery management unit, including target and nontarget fish
stocks. Socioeconomic impacts on the following groups are also going to
be evaluated: (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 nonconsumptive 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) fishing communities. Analysis of these groups will
be presented in a manner that allows the identification of any
disproportionate impacts on low income and minority segments of the
identified groups and impacts on small entities.
Scoping and Public Involvement
Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues
related to proposed alternatives (including status quo). A principal
objective of the scoping and public input processes is to identify a
reasonable set of alternatives that, with adequate analysis, sharply
define critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing
among those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. The
public scoping process provides the public with the opportunity to
comment on the range of alternatives and specific options within the
alternatives. The scope of the alternatives to be analyzed should be
broad enough for the Council and NMFS to make informed decisions on
whether an alterative should be developed and, if so, how it should be
designed, and to assess other changes to the FMP and regulations
necessary for the implementation of the alternative.
Dated: July 13, 2004.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 04-16358 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S