Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61595 

County population of CTS does not pose 

significant takings implications. 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: October 14, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–21205 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[I.D. 101905C] 

Fisheries off the West Coast States 

and in the Western Pacific; Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery; Notice of 

Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement or Environmental 

Assessment for Fishing Conducted 

Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

environmental assessment (EA); 

announcement of public scoping period; 

request for written comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council), announces its intention to 

prepare an EIS or an EA in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts of the 

2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery specifications and management 

measures on the human, biological, and 

physical environment. 

DATES: Public scoping opportunities for 

the 2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery specifications and management 

measures EIS (or EA) will occur during 

meetings of the Council and its advisory 

bodies starting with the October 31–

November 4, 2005, Council meeting and 

continuing through the June 11–16, 

2006, when the Council is scheduled to 

determine their final preferred 

alternative (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). However, only written 

comments provided to the Council 

office through November 25, 2005, will 

be considered in a scoping document 

summarizing the public’s issues and 

alternatives raised by the public, which 

may be evaluated in the EIS (or EA). 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on suggested alternatives and potential 

impacts identified by I.D. 101905 by any 

of the following methods: 

• E-mail: (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov 

and write ‘‘2007–2008 groundfish 

specifications EIS’’ in subject line). 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 503–820–2299. 

• Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac, 

Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

The scoping document will be 

available on the Council’s website 

(www.pcouncil.org)or by written request 

from the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 

Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery 

Management Coordinator; phone: 503–

820–2280 and e-mail: 

John.DeVore@noaa.gov or Kathe Hawe, 

NMFS Northwest Region NEPA 

Coordinator; phone: 206–526–6161 and 

email: Kathe.Hawe@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Need for Agency 

Action 

There are more than 80 species 

managed under the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(groundfish FMP), eight of which have 

been declared overfished. The 

groundfish stocks support an array of 

commercial, recreational, and Indian 

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, ridgeback prawns, 

California halibut, and sea cucumber. 

The proposed action is needed to 

establish commercial and recreational 

harvests levels in 2007–2008 that will 

ensure groundfish stocks are maintained 

at, or restored to, sizes and structures 

that will produce the highest net benefit 

to the nation, while balancing 

environmental and social values. 

The Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to implement 

management measures consistent with 

the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) that constrain total fishing 

mortality during 2007–2008 within 

limits that maintain fish stocks at, or 

rebuild them to, a level capable of 

producing maximum sustained yield, or 

to a stock size less than this if such 

stock size results in long-term net 

benefit to the nation. 

These fishing mortality limits are 

harvest specifications that include 

acceptable biological catches (ABCs) 

and optimum yields (OYs) for 

groundfish species or species groups in 

need of particular protection; OYs may 

be represented by harvest guidelines or 

quotas for species that need individual 

management. Separate sets of ABCs and 

OYs will be specified for 2007 and 2008 

as part of the multi-year management 

cycle for groundfish. The allocation of 

commercial OYs between the open 

access and limited entry segments of the 

fishery is also part of the proposed 

action. 

The FMP, as amended by Amendment 

17, requires that the groundfish 

specifications be evaluated and revised 

as necessary every two years, with 

separate ABCs and OYs established for 

each of the two years in the biennial 

period. Management measures designed 

to achieve the OYs will be established 

for each year and, as in the past, may 

vary from period to period within any 

one year. These specifications and 

management measures will be 

published in the Federal Register of the 

first fishing year in the biennium (2007). 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 

groundfish FMP also require that NMFS 

implement actions to prevent 

overfishing and to rebuild overfished 

stocks. These specifications include fish 

caught in state ocean waters (zero to 

three nautical miles (nm) offshore) as 

well as fish caught in the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (3 to 200 nm offshore). 

Alternatives 

NEPA requires that agencies evaluate 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action in an EIS. The purpose and need 

for agency action determines the range 

of reasonable alternatives. A 

preliminary set of alternatives will be 

developed during the October 31–

November 4, 2005, Council meeting. 

Alternatives will be structured around a 

range of ABCs/OYs for assessed 

groundfish species. This range of ABCs/ 

OYs is based on stock assessments, 

including new assessments for 23 of the 

groundfish species managed under the 

FMP. 

For some species, ABC/OY ranges that 

would be used to develop alternatives 

may be based on consultations by the 

Council with state and federal agencies, 

Indian tribes, and the affected public on 

61596 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

the allocation of harvest opportunity 

between sectors. Allocation decisions 

can affect OYs because different sectors 

may catch fish of different ages, 

allowing different sustainable harvest 

levels. 

The Council will be asked to adopt a 

range of ABCs/OYs, and preferred OYs, 

if possible, during the October 31–

November 4, 2005, Council meeting. A 

range of alternative management 

measures will also be identified that 

will constrain total harvest mortality 

(across all fisheries intercepting 

groundfish) to within the preferred OYs. 

If a preferred OY is not decided for a 

given stock during the October 31–

November 4, 2005, Council meeting, 

then the range of OYs for that stock will 

be analyzed in the NEPA document 

coincident with the analysis of 

management measure alternatives. 

Restrictive management measures, 

intended to rebuild overfished species, 

have been adopted and implemented 

over the past several years for most 

commercial and recreational fishing 

sectors. Management measures intended 

to control the rate at which different 

groundfish species or species groups are 

taken in the fisheries include trip limits, 

bag limits, size limits, time/area 

closures, and gear restrictions. Large 

area closures, called Groundfish 

Conservation Areas or Rockfish 

Conservation Areas, intended to reduce 

bycatch of overfished species, were first 

implemented in late 2002. These closed 

areas will continue to be a key feature 

of alternatives considered in the EIS to 

manage groundfish fisheries in 2007–

2008. A second important type of 

measure used to manage groundfish is 

the cumulative landing limit. These 

restrict the total weight of fish by 

species or species group that any one 

vessel may land during the limit period, 

which is normally two months. 

Different cumulative landing limits are 

established for areas north and south of 

40°10′ N lat. (near Cape Mendocino, 

California) and for limited entry trawl, 

limited entry fixed gear, and open 

access fishery participants. 

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. The EIS 

evaluates a range of reasonable 

alternatives (described above) to 

determine their likely impacts on the 

human environment and identify 

significant impacts. Council and NMFS 

staff will conduct initial screening to 

identify the potentially significant 

impacts of the range of alternatives that 

will be developed. Issues considered in 

the EIS for 2005–2006 harvest 

specifications are likely to be relevant to 

the EIS for 2007–2008 harvest 

specifications. (These include the effects 

of fishing on essential fish habitat, 

protected species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, the 

sustainability of overfished and nonoverfished groundfish stocks, and 

socioeconomic impacts to individuals 

and communities involved in the use of 

groundfish resources). 

Public Scoping Process 

Public scoping will primarily occur 

early in 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 (or EA). A preliminary range of 2007 

and 2008 harvest specifications and 

management measures will be decided 

at the October 31–November 4, 2005, 

Council meeting in San Diego, CA at the 

Hyatt Regency Islandia, 1441 Quivira 

Road, San Diego, CA 92109 (858–792–

5200). The Council is expected to refine 

the range of management measures at 

their March 5–10, 2006, meeting in 

Seattle, WA at the Seattle Marriott 

Hotel-Sea Tac, 3201 S 176th Street, 

98188–4094; telephone 206–241–2000 

or 800–314–0925. The Council is 

expected to decide final 2007 and 2008 

harvest specifications, further refine the 

range of management measures, or 

decide their preferred alternative at 

their April 2–7, 2006 meeting in 

Sacramento, California at the Double 

Tree Hotel, 2001 Point West Way, 

95815–4702; telephone 916–929–8855 

or 800–222–8733. The Council is 

expected to decide or refine their 

preferred alternative at their June 11–16, 

2006, meeting in Foster City, California 

at the Crowne Plaza Mid Peninsula, 

1221 Chess Drive, 94404; telephone 

800–227–6963 or 650–570–5700. Public 

comment may be made under the 

agenda items when the Council will 

consider these proposed actions. The 

agendas for these meetings will be 

available from the Council website or by 

request from the Council office in 

advance of the meeting (see ADDRESSES). 

Written comments on the scope of 

issues and alternatives may also be 

submitted as described under 

ADDRESSES. 

NMFS invites comments and 

suggestions on the scope of the analysis 

to be included in the draft EIS (DEIS) or 

draft EA (DEA) (both hereafter referred 

to as the NEPA document). The scope 

includes the range of alternatives to be 

considered and potentially significant 

impacts to the human environment that 

should be evaluated in the NEPA 

document. In addition, NMFS is 

notifying the public that, in conjunction 

with the Council, it is beginning a full 

environmental analysis and decisionmaking process for this proposal, so 

interested or affected people may know 

how they can participate in the 

environmental analysis and contribute 

to the final decision. 

A NEPA document will be prepared 

for comment later on in the process. The 

comment period on the NEPA document 

will be 45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

notice of availability appears in the 

Federal Register, if this is an EIS. It is 

very important that those interested in 

this proposed action participate at that 

time. To be the most helpful, comments 

on the NEPA document should be as 

specific as possible and may address the 

adequacy of the statement or merits of 

the alternatives discussed. It is also 

helpful if comments refer to specific 

pages or chapters of the NEPA 

document. Comments may also address 

the adequacy of the NEPA document or 

the merits of the alternatives formulated 

and discussed in the NEPA document. 

(Reviewers may wish to refer to the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA CFR 

1503.3 in addressing these points.) 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are accessible to 

people with physical disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Carolyn Porter 

503–820–2280 (voice) or 503–820–2299 

(fax), at least 5 days prior to the 

scheduled meeting date. 

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

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21301 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S