[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 100 (Monday, May 24, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29482-29485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11663]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[I.D. 051004B]


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 comments; preliminary notice of public scoping 
meetings.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific 
Council) announce their intent to prepare an EIS in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to analyze proposals 
that provide dedicated access privileges for participants in the non-
tribal Pacific Coast groundfish trawl fishery.

DATES: Public scoping meetings will be announced in the Federal 
Register at a later date. Written comments will be accepted at the 
Pacific Council office through August 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, on issues and alternatives, 
identified by [I.D. number] by any of the following methods:
    E-mail: [email protected]. Include [I.D. number] 
and enter ``Scoping Comments'' in the subject line of the message.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    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: Steve Freese, (Northwest Region, NMFS) 
phone: 206-526-6113, fax: 206-526-6426 and email: 
[email protected]; or Jim Seger, Pacific Fishery Management 
Council, phone: 503-820-2280, fax: 503-820-2299 and email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This Federal Register document is available on the Government 
Printing Office's website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index/html.

Description of the Proposal

    The proposed alternatives to the status quo, which will be the 
subject of the EIS and considered by the Pacific Council for 
recommendation to NMFS, are programs that provide dedicated access 
privileges for participants in the non-tribal Pacific Coast groundfish 
trawl fishery. The main dedicated access privilege alternative the 
Pacific Council is considering is an individual fishing quota (IFQ) 
program for the Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry trawl fishery 
off Washington, Oregon and California. A trawl IFQ program would change 
management of harvest in the trawl fishery from a trip limit system 
with cumulative trip limits for every 2-month period to a quota system 
where each quota share could be harvested at any time during an open 
season. A trawl IFQ program would increase fishermen's flexibility in 
making decisions on when and how much quota to fish. Status quo (no 
action) will also be considered along with dedicated access privilege 
and other reasonable alternatives that may be proposed to address 
issues identified in the problem statement.
    At the request of the Pacific Council, NMFS published an Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a Trawl Individual Quota 
Program and to Establish a Control Date (69 FR 1563, January 9, 2004). 
This control date for the trawl IQ program is intended to discourage 
increased fishing effort in the limited entry trawl fishery based on 
economic speculation while the Pacific Council develops and considers a 
trawl IQ program. Although the control date notice discussed the 
development of the trawl IQ program, NMFS and the Pacific Council also 
plan to consider other dedicated access alternatives.

General Background

    The Council implemented a Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP) in 1982. Groundfish stocks are harvested in 
numerous commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries in state and 
Federal waters off the West Coast. The non-tribal commercial seafood 
fleet taking groundfish is generally regulated as three sectors: 
Limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and directed open 
access. Groundfish are also harvested incidentally in non-groundfish 
commercial fisheries, most notably fisheries for pink shrimp, spot and 
ridgeback prawns, Pacific halibut, California halibut, and sea 
cucumbers (incidental open access fisheries).
    Despite the recently completed buyback program, management of the 
West Coast groundfish trawl fishery is still marked by serious 
biological, social, and economic concerns; and discord between 
fishermen and managers and between different sectors of the fishery, 
similar to those cited in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's April 
2004 preliminary report. The trawl fishery is viewed as economically 
unsustainable given the current status of the stocks and the various 
measures to protect these stocks. One major source of discord and 
concern stems from the management of bycatch, particularly of 
overfished species as described in the draft programmatic bycatch DEIS. 
The notice of availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on February 27, 2004 (69 FR 9314). The DEIS is available from 
the Pacific Council office (see ADDRESSES). After reviewing the draft 
programmatic bycatch DEIS the Pacific Council adopted a preferred 
alternative for addressing bycatch that included IFQ programs. The 
alternatives to status quo to be evaluated in the dedicated access EIS 
are amendments to the FMP and associated regulations to address these 
concerns through the use of dedicated access privileges. The concerns 
are described in more detail in the following problem statement:
    As a result of bycatch problems, considerable harvest opportunity 
is being forgone in an economically stressed fishery. The trawl 
groundfish fishery is a multispecies fishery in which fishers exert 
varying and limited control of the mix of species in their catch. The 
optimum yields (OYs) for many overfished species have been set

[[Page 29483]]

at low levels that place a major constraint on the industry's ability 
to fully harvest the available OYs of the more abundant target species 
that occur with the overfished species, wasting economic opportunity. 
Average discard rates for the fleet are applied to projected bycatch of 
overfished species. These discard rates determine the degree to which 
managers must constrain the harvest of targeted species that co-occur 
with overfished species. These discard rates are developed over a long 
period of time and do not rapidly respond to changes in fishing 
behavior by individual vessels or for the fleet as a whole. Under this 
system, there is little direct incentive for individual vessels to do 
everything possible to avoid take of species for which there are 
conservation concerns, such as overfished species. In an economically 
stressed environment, uncertainties about average bycatch rates become 
highly controversial. As a consequence, members of fishing fleets tend 
to place pressure on managers to be less conservative in their 
estimates of bycatch. Thus, in the current system there are 
uncertainties about the appropriate bycatch estimation factors, few 
incentives for the individual to reduce bycatch rates, and an 
associated loss of economic opportunity related to the harvest of 
target species.
    The current management regime is not responsive to the wide variety 
of fishing business strategies and operational concerns. For example, 
historically the Pacific Council has tried to maintain a year-round 
groundfish fishery. Such a pattern works well for some business 
strategies in the industry, but there has been substantial comment from 
fishers who would prefer being able to pursue a more seasonal 
groundfish fishing strategy. The current management system does not 
have the flexibility to accommodate these disparate interests. Nor does 
it have the sophistication, information, and ability to make timely 
responses necessary to react to changes in market, weather, and harvest 
conditions that occur during the fishing year. The ability to react to 
changing conditions is key to conducting an efficient fishery in a 
manner that is safe for the participants.
    Fishery stock depletion and economic deterioration of the fishery 
are concerns for fishing communities. Communities have a vital interest 
in the short- and long-term economic viability of the industry, the 
income and employment opportunities it provides, and the safety of 
participants in the fishery.
    In summary, management of the fishery is challenged with the 
competing goals of: controlling bycatch, taking advantage of the 
available allowable harvests of more abundant stocks (including 
conducting safe and efficient harvest activities in a manner that 
optimizes net benefits over the short- and long-term), increasing 
management efficiency, and responding to community interest.
    In consideration of this statement of the problem, the following 
goals have also been identified for improving conditions in the 
groundfish trawl fishery.
     Provide for a well-managed system for protection and 
conservation of groundfish resources.
     Provide for a viable and efficient groundfish industry.
     Increase net benefits from the fishery.
     Provide for capacity rationalization through market 
forces.
     Provide for a fair and equitable distribution of fishery 
benefits.
     Provide for a safe fishery.

Preliminary Identification of Alternatives

    NEPA requires preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The 
Pacific Council and NMFS are seeking information from the public on the 
range of alternatives and on the environmental, social, and economic 
issues to be considered.
    Based on the above problem statement, goals and objectives, and 
consistent with the Pacific Council's preferred alternative in the 
programmatic bycatch EIS, the Pacific Council has identified IFQs for 
the trawl fishery as one of the main types of alternatives to status 
quo that it will consider. The Pacific Council has begun developing 
specific provisions for IFQ alternatives. Under IFQs, total harvest 
mortality is controlled by allocating an amount to individual fishers 
and holding those individuals responsible for ensuring that their 
harvest or harvest mortality does not exceed the amount they are 
allocated.
    The EIS will identify and evaluate other reasonable and technically 
feasible alternatives that might be used to simultaneously address 
capacity rationalization and the other problems and goals specified 
here. The Pacific Council is interested in public comment on 
alternatives to dedicated access privilege programs that address the 
problems surrounding and goals for this issue. The Pacific Council is 
also interested in receiving comments on different types of dedicated 
access privilege programs that should be considered and specific 
provisions that should be included in the alternatives.
    According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's April 2004 
preliminary report (pp. 232-236), there are several different types of 
dedicated access privileges:
    IFQs allow each eligible fisherman to catch a specified portion of 
the total allowable catch. When the assigned portions can be sold or 
transferred to other fishermen, they are called individual transferable 
quotas.
    Community quotas grant a specified portion of the allowable catch 
to a community. The community then decides how to allocate the catch.
    Cooperatives split the available quota among the various fishing 
and processing entities within a fishery via contractual agreements.
    Geographically based programs give an individual or group dedicated 
access to the fish within a specific area of the ocean.
    There are also systems that allocate the right to buy fish. Such 
systems are often referred to as individual processing quotas (IPQs). 
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) does not allow NMFS to implement IPQs. Congress has also 
prohibited the Department of Commerce and the Councils, via the 
Department's 2004 appropriations bill, from establishing or even 
considering IPQs (except in crab fisheries off Alaska). Therefore, they 
will not be considered in this EIS.
    Not included in the proposed scope for this action are the two 
other nontribal commercial seafood harvester sectors: the limited entry 
fixed gear fleet and the open access fleets. The limited entry fixed 
gear fleet already operates under an IFQ program for sablefish, a 
species that dominates the groundfish economic activity for most 
vessels in this fleet. Including consideration of the fixed gear fleet 
in the development of a trawl IFQ program could increase the complexity 
of developing the program. The directed open access fleet has yet to be 
well identified. Identification of this fleet will likely be a major 
and controversial task in its own right, even without concurrent 
inclusion of the fleet under an umbrella IFQ program covering all 
sectors of the West Coast commercial seafood harvesting industry. 
However, this notice does not preclude further consideration of IFQ for 
other sectors of the fleet (open access and fixed gear).
    At the end of the scoping process and initial Pacific Council 
deliberations, the Pacific Council may recommend specific alternatives 
and options for analysis. Depending on the alternatives selected, 
Congressional action may be

[[Page 29484]]

required to provide statutory authority to implement a specific 
alternative preferred by the Council. Lack of statutory authority to 
implement any particular alternative does not prevent consideration of 
that alternative or option in the EIS (40 CFR 1502.14(2)).

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 dedicated access privilege EIS. 
Pacific Council and NMFS staff conducted an initial screening to 
identify potentially significant impacts resulting from implementing 
one of the proposed alternatives to status quo, as well as the 
continuation of status quo, no action. These impacts relate to the 
likelihood that there will be a substantial shift in fishing 
strategies, the configuration of the groundfish fleet, and fishery 
management and enforcement activities as a result of the implementation 
of a program meeting the specified goals. Impacts on the following 
components of the biological and physical environment may be evaluated 
(1) Essential fish habitat and ecosystems; (2) protected species listed 
under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act and 
their critical habitat; and (3) the fishery management unit, including 
target and non-target fish stocks. Socioeconomic impacts 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) 
fishing communities. Analysis of the effects of the alternatives on 
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.

Related NEPA Analyses

    Certain complementary and closely related actions are likely to be 
required to implement a dedicated access privilege program. As 
described herein, implementation of an IFQ program or an alternative 
dedicated access privilege program for the trawl fishery will be a two-
step process. The first step is to design the basic program and its 
major elements (e.g. allocation of shares among participants, 
monitoring and reporting requirements, needed species to be allocated, 
etc.). With this notice, the Council and NMFS are seeking comments on 
this first step. The second step is to determine the amounts of each 
species that are to be allocated to the trawl and other sectors. Such 
allocations would be evaluated in a separate but related process 
supported by a separate but connected NEPA analysis.
    Implementation of an IFQ alternative would require an allocation of 
available harvest between the commercial trawl fisheries and other 
fishing sectors (inter-sector allocation). This allocation would be 
needed to annually set the amount of fish that would be partitioned 
between participants in the trawl IFQ fishery. An inter-sector 
allocation may be based on an allocation formula or on a determination 
of the needs of a fishery for each management cycle. The only species 
now allocated between trawl and other sectors is sablefish. For a trawl 
IFQ program to succeed, the Council may need to quantify allocations 
for other species between the trawl sector and other fishing sectors. 
Allocation questions raise issues beyond developing a dedicated access 
privilege program. Thus, a second but related NEPA analysis will be 
undertaken, particularly as intersector allocations may be useful for 
managing the fishery even if an IFQ program is not adopted. This second 
NEPA analysis will be about the potential costs and benefits to all 
fisheries from developing specific commercial and recreational 
allocations and, within the commercial allocations, developing specific 
sub-allocations to the open access, trawl, and fixed gear fisheries.
    The Council's Allocation Committee will be meeting to discuss the 
need for intersector allocations and criteria for making such 
allocation decisions. These meetings will be open to the public and 
announced in a separate Federal Register document. At approximately the 
time the Council approves a set of alternatives to be analyzed in the 
dedicated access privileges EIS, it will likely initiate formal scoping 
for a NEPA document to cover the intersector allocation issue. In the 
meantime, comments on the intersector allocation issue should be 
addressed to the Council office [email protected] (enter 
``Intersector Groundfish Allocation'' in the subject line). Potential 
outcomes of the allocation decision and impacts of that decision on the 
IFQ program would be considered in the cumulative effects section of 
the EIS on dedicated access privileges for the trawl fishery.

Scoping and Public Involvement

    Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of 
issues to be addressed and for identifying the notable 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 Pacific 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, including necessary intersector 
allocations.
    Some preliminary public scoping of IFQ alternatives has been 
conducted through the Council process. Such preliminary scoping is 
consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines (46 FR 
18026, 51 FR 15618). The results of this preliminary scoping are being 
used to develop a scoping document that will help focus public comment. 
Public scoping conducted thus far includes Council meetings held 
September 2003 (68 FR 51007) and November 2003 (68 FR 59589), and Ad 
Hoc Trawl Individual Quota Committee meetings held in October 2003 (68 
FR 59358) and March 2004 (69 FR 10001). To provide additional 
preliminary information for the public scoping document, a group of 
enforcement experts will meet in Long Beach, CA, May 25 and 26, 2004, 
and a group of analysts will meet in Seattle, WA, June 8 and 9, 2004. 
Times and locations for these meetings will be announced in the Federal 
Register and posted on the Council website (www.pcouncil.org). The 
public scoping document will be completed and released at least 30 days 
prior to the end of the scoping period.

[[Page 29485]]

 Copies will be available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES) or 
from the Council website (www.pcouncil.org).
    Written comments will be accepted at the Council office through 
July 31, 2004 (see ADDRESSES).
    Public scoping meetings will be announced in the Federal Register 
at a later date and posted on the Council website. There will be a 
public scoping session held June 13, 2004, in Foster City CA, in 
conjunction with the June 2004 Council meeting. The exact time and 
location for the meeting will be provided in the Federal Register 
notice announcing the June 2004 Council meeting.

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

    Dated: May 18, 2004.
Galen R. Tromble,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 04-11663 Filed 5-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S