81 FR 5102 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 20 (February 1, 2016)

NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) announce their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to analyze the short- and long-term impacts on the human (biological, physical, social, and economic) environment of Amendment 28 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This notice also requests written comment.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5102-5105]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01759]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE401


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent To Prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement

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 comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
announce their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
of 1969 to analyze the short- and long-term impacts on the human 
(biological, physical, social, and economic) environment of Amendment 
28 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This 
notice also requests written comment.

DATES: Public scoping will be conducted through this notice. Written 
comments must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on March 2, 
2016 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on issues and alternatives by any of 
the following methods:
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax: 360-753-9463, Attention Dr. John Stadler.

[[Page 5103]]

     Mail: Submit written comments to Dr. John Stadler, 
Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region, 510 Desmond 
Drive SE., Lacey, WA 98503.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Stadler, Essential Fish 
Habitat Coordinator, NMFS West Coast Region at 360-534-9328 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background for Agency Actions and Proposed Action

    There are more than 90 species managed under the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP). These groundfish 
stocks support an array of commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing 
interests in state and Federal waters off the coasts of Washington, 
Oregon, and California. In addition, groundfish are also harvested 
incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries, most notably, the trawl 
fisheries for pink shrimp and California halibut.
    Amendment 28 to the FMP is intended to accomplish three goals: (1) 
Revise the essential fish habitat (EFH) components of the FMP; (2) make 
adjustments to the trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs); and (3) 
use the discretionary authorities in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to protect benthic habitats, 
including deep sea corals, from the adverse effects of fishing. These 
actions are described in detail below.

Essential Fish Habitat

    The MSA mandates that each regional fishery management council 
designate EFH for the species that they manage. EFH is defined as 
``those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 
feeding or growth to maturity.'' The regulations implementing the EFH 
provisions of the MSA (50 CFR 600.815) require or, in some cases, 
recommend that fishery management plans include the following 
components:
    1. A description and identification of EFH, including habitat 
information for each managed species and life stage;
    2. A description of the MSA fishing activities that may adversely 
affect EFH and management measures to minimize those effects to the 
extent practicable;
    3. A description of the non-MSA fishing activities that may 
adversely affect EFH, for example, those managed by state agencies;
    4. A description of the non-fishing activities that may adversely 
affect;
    5. and analysis, if feasible, of how the cumulative effects of 
fishing and non-fishing activities affect the function of EFH on an 
ecosystem or watershed scale;
    6. A description of conservation and enhancement measures that 
encourage the conservation of EFH, including recommended options to 
avoid, minimize, or compensate for the adverse effects of fishing and 
non-fishing activities;
    7. Identification of the major prey species of each species;
    8. Identification of habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs); 
and
    9. Identification of research and information needs that the 
Council and NMFS view as necessary to improve upon the description and 
identification of EFH, the identification of threats to EFH from 
fishing and other activities, and the development of conservation and 
enhancement measures for EFH;
    10. A procedure for reviewing and revising, if warranted, the EFH 
components of the FMP.
    The PFMC designated EFH for Pacific Coast groundfish in 2005, and 
established the EFH components described above in Amendment 19 to the 
Groundfish FMP. In particular, the Council identified a number of EFH 
Conservation Areas (EFHCAs) where certain types of bottom-contact gear 
are prohibited to minimize the adverse effects of the groundfish 
fishery on EFH. Maps of the EFHCAs are available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/groundfish/map-gfish-efh-close.pdf.
    Subsequently, and in accordance with the regulations, NMFS and the 
Council completed a review of the information available in 2013, and 
the Council issued a request for proposals on changes to these 10 
components. The Council received eight proposals, two of which were 
later withdrawn by the sponsors. Although these proposals covered a 
number of the EFH components, the Council determined that revisions 
were warranted for these five components: The essential fish habitat 
descriptions for each species and life stage; the description of the 
adverse effects of fishing on groundfish EFH and management measures to 
minimize those effects (i.e., the EFHCAs); the description of non-
fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, conservation and 
enhancement measures that encourage the conservation of EFH; the 
research and information needs; and the procedure to review and revise 
the groundfish EFH components. In addition, minor clarifications and 
corrections to the FMP are warranted.

Trawl RCA Adjustment

    Trawl RCAs are areas that are closed to bottom-trawl gear to 
protect overfished species, primarily several species of rockfishes, 
and were first implemented in 2002. The trawl RCAs extend along the 
entire West Coast and is bounded by lines approximating particular 
depth contours. In recent years, the Council also considered 
modifications to control the bycatch of several non-overfished species 
(e.g., spiny dogfish, longnose skate, and rougheye rockfish). In 2011, 
the trawl fishery was rationalized by Amendment 20 to the groundfish 
FMP and participants are now individually accountable for their bycatch 
of individual fishing quota species. Due to the success of this program 
at reducing bycatch, the Council is now considering making adjustments 
to the RCA boundaries or eliminating them entirely.
    Although the trawl RCAs were implemented to control bycatch of 
overfished species, the habitats within them have been largely 
protected from bottom-trawl gear since their inception in 2002, even 
though trawling for pink shrimp has occurred in some areas. Because of 
the habitat protections afforded by the RCAs, the habitats that have 
not been trawled for pink shrimp have recovered, at least partially, 
from the effects of past bottom trawling. Therefore the Council will 
evaluate adjustments to the RCA at the same time they are considering 
revisions to the EFHCAs.

Prohibition of Bottom-Contact Gear in Water Deeper Than 3500 Meters

    When the Council adopted Amendment 19 to the groundfish FMP, it 
attempted to close waters deeper than 3500 meters to bottom trawling to 
minimize the effects of the fishery on groundfish EFH. However, because 
EFH did not extend beyond 3500 meters, NMFS disapproved that section of 
the amendment. The MSA contains several discretionary authorities that 
the Council may use to close these waters, regardless of their 
designation as EFH [MSA sections 303(b)(2)(A), 303(b)(2)(B), and 
303(b)(12)]. The Council is considering using those authorities to 
prohibit all bottom-contact gear in waters deeper than 3500 meters 
unless an exempted fishing permit is issued. At the present time, 
fishing with such gear at these depths is neither technically nor 
economically feasible; however, the Council and

[[Page 5104]]

NMFS view this as a precautionary measure that may help to protect 
these pristine and highly sensitive habitats.

Alternatives

    NEPA requires that agencies evaluate, in addition to the preferred 
alternative, a range of reasonable alternatives that addresses the 
purpose of and need for the agency action. The Council adopted a 
preliminary range of alternatives for analysis and public review at its 
meeting in September 2015 and is scheduled to review that range at its 
April 9-14, 2016, meeting.
    Alternatives to address EFH Components: Each of the EFH components 
has its own set of alternatives. The Council identified 15 action 
alternatives for analysis to modify the existing EFHCAs that prohibit 
bottom trawling. They include seven proposals received from various 
groups of stakeholders and Federal agencies. The proposals can be 
viewed at: www.pcouncil.org/2013/08/26497/gf-efh-received-proposals/. 
The seven proposals currently under consideration were submitted by:
    1. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary--a proposal that 
addresses EFHCAs within the Sanctuary.
    2. Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (now the 
Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary)--a proposal that 
addresses EFHCAs within the Sanctuary.
    3. Fishermen's Marketing Association--a proposal to make a small 
change to the EFHCAs adjacent to the Eel River Canyon.
    4. Oceana, National Resources Defense Council, and Ocean 
Conservancy--a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.
    5. Marine Conservation Institute--a coast-wide proposal for 
modifying the EFHCAs.
    6. Greenpeace--a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.
    7. Northern and Central Collaborative Working Groups--a coast-wide 
proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.
    In addition to these seven proposals, the Council preliminarily 
identified other action alternatives for analysis. They are:
    8. Reopening those areas identified in the seven proposals 
described above. This alternative would not designate new areas for 
closure to bottom trawling. This is a coast-wide alternative.
    9. Designating new EFHCAs within the current trawl RCAs, based on 
priority habitats. This is a coast-wide alternative.
    10. Each of the six coast-wide alternatives (4 through 9) include 
changes to the EFHCAs within the usual and accustomed fishing areas 
(U&As) of the four Coastal Treaty Tribes in Washington (Ho, Makah, 
Quileute, and Quinault). These tribes are co-managers of the fishery 
resources within their U&As, and NMFS has a treaty-trust responsibility 
to address their concerns regarding our management decisions. 
Therefore, for each of these alternatives listed above (numbers 4-9), 
another alternative will be analyzed that excludes changes in the U&As.
    The remaining EFH components each have a single action alternative. 
They are:
     Use the best scientific information available to revise 
the descriptions of the habitat requirements for each species and life 
stage in Appendix B to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_B2.pdf and http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_B3.pdf).
     Use the best scientific information available to revise 
the description of the adverse effects of fishing on EFH in Appendix C, 
part 2, to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_C2.pdf).
     Use the best scientific information available to revise 
the description of the non-fishing activities that may adversely affect 
EFH, and potential conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or 
mitigate those adverse effects in Appendix D to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_D.pdf).
     Update the research and information needs for 
understanding the EFH requirements of the species managed under this 
FMP.
     Update the process to review and revise the groundfish EFH 
components of the FMP.
     Make minor clarifications and corrections to the EFH 
language in the FMP.
    Alternatives to adjust the Trawl RCAs: The Council preliminarily 
identified three action alternatives for making adjustments to the 
trawl RCAs. They are:
    1. Complete removal of the existing RCAs. This alternative would 
remove the RCAs along the entire West Coast, restoring access to all of 
the areas that were previously closed to minimize the bycatch of 
overfished species.
    2. Retaining a subset of the existing RCAs to protect overfished 
species. This alternative would restore access to some, but not all, of 
the areas that were closed to minimize bycatch of overfished species. 
The specific areas that would remain closed have not yet been 
identified.
    3. Retaining a larger subset of the existing RCAs to protect 
overfished species and act as a catch-control mechanism for non-
overfished species of groundfishes. The specific areas that would 
remain closed have not yet been identified.
    Alternative to prohibit bottom-contact gear in water deeper than 
3500 meters: The Council preliminarily identified a ``no action'' 
alternative that would not use the discretionary authorities and one 
action alternative that would prohibit bottom-contact gear in waters 
deeper than 3500 m, the seaward limit of EFH, out to the full extent of 
the U.S. exclusive economic zone. Waters that meet this description 
occur off the coast of California only, south of the Gorda Escarpment, 
and are shown on the map of groundfish EFH at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/groundfish/map-gfish-efh.pdf. An exempted fishing permit would be required before 
any bottom-contact fishery could start up in these waters.

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. If, during the preparation of 
this EIS, NMFS determines that a finding of no significant impact can 
be supported, it may prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issue 
a retraction of this notice. Alternatively, NMFS may still continue 
with the preparation of an EIS. Information and analysis prepared for 
this action also may be used when scoping future groundfish actions to 
help decide whether to prepare an EA or EIS.

Request for Comments

    NMFS provides this notice to: (1) Advise the public and other 
agencies of its plans to analyze effects related to the action, and (2) 
obtain suggestions and information that may be useful to the scope of 
issues and the full range of alternatives to include in the EIS.
    NMFS invites comment from all interested parties to ensure that the 
full range of issues related to Amendment 28 is identified. NMFS is 
specifically inviting comments on the proposed alternatives described 
above. In addition, NMFS invites comments on the types of habitats that 
should be prioritized for protection from the adverse effects of 
fishing gear. Comments should be as specific as possible.

[[Page 5105]]

    Written comments concerning the proposed action and the 
environmental review should be directed to NMFS as described above (see 
ADDRESSES). All comments and materials received, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be 
released to the public.

Public Scoping Process

    Public scoping will be conducted through this notice. Further 
participation by the public will occur throughout the Council's 
decision-making process. All decisions during the Council process 
benefit from written and oral public comments delivered prior to or 
during the Council meeting. These public comments are considered 
integral to scoping for developing this EIS. Council meetings that 
offer opportunities for public involvement include the April 9-14, 
2016, meeting in Vancouver, Washington (Hilton Vancouver Washington, 
301 W. 6th Street, Vancouver, WA 98660). Future opportunities for 
public involvement have yet to be determined but will be posted in the 
Council Briefing Book (on the Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/briefing-books/) prior to the 
meeting. For further information on these meetings, visit the Council's 
Web site, http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/future-meetings/.

Special Accommodations

    The Council meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities.
    Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] 
or (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Emily H. Menashes,
Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01759 Filed 1-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P