[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50153-50154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20327]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R1-MB-2012-N167; FXMB12320100000P2-123-FF01M01000]
Special Purpose Permit Application; Hawaii-Based Shallow-Set
Longline Fishery; Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability
of a final environmental assessment (FEA) and finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) in our analysis of permitting actions in response to an
application under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended,
from the Pacific Islands Regional Office of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), Department of Commerce. NMFS applied for a
permit for the incidental take of migratory birds in the operation of
the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery, which targets swordfish.
After evaluating several alternatives in a draft environmental
assessment (DEA), we have determined that issuing a permit will not
result in significant impacts to the human environment.
ADDRESSES: You may download a copy of the FEA and FONSI on the Internet
at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/nepa.html. Alternatively,
you may use one of the methods below to request a hard copy or a CD-
ROM. Please specify the ``FEA/FONSI for the NMFS MBTA Permit'' on all
correspondence.
Email: pacific_birds@fws.gov. Include ``FEA/FONSI for the
NMFS MBTA Permit'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Mail: Please address requests for hard copies of the
documents to Nanette Seto, Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and
Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911
NE. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.
Fax: Nanette Seto, Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and
Habitat Programs, 503-231-2019; Attn.: FEA/FONSI for the NMFS MBTA
Permit.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nanette Seto, Chief, Division of
Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 503-231-6164 (phone); pacific_birds@fws.gov (email;
include ``FEA/FONSI for the NMFS MBTA Permit'' in the subject line of
the message). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
After receiving the permit application from NMFS, we provided a
public notice and summary background information and solicited public
comments on the DEA in January 2012 (77 FR 1501). We have now
considered comments, finalized our analysis, and selected an
alternative that meets the purpose and need of our action (issuance of
a permit under the MBTA). We have determined that issuing a permit will
not result in significant impacts to the human environment.
We evaluated several alternatives for the proposed issuance of a
permit under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for incidental take
of seabirds in the shallow-set longline fishery based in Hawaii. The
analysis of alternatives is documented in a final environmental
assessment (FEA), which is available to the public on our Web site or
by request (see ADDRESSES). Our need in conducting this evaluation was
to address an application received from NMFS for a permit to authorize
take of migratory birds (seabirds) in the shallow-set longline fishery
based in Hawaii. The purposes of our permitting action include: (1)
Ensuring that any permit issued meets the criteria established in our
regulations under MBTA and does not violate our statutory
responsibility to conserve migratory birds; (2) ensuring the Service
and NMFS meet their responsibilities under Executive Order 13186 to
protect migratory birds and avoid and minimize adverse impacts of our
actions to these birds; (3) identifying the mechanisms underlying the
take of migratory birds in the fishery; developing, in cooperation with
the Service, measures for NMFS and the fishery to implement that would
reduce that take or otherwise improve conservation benefit for birds;
and (4) minimizing unnecessary costs or burdens on the fishery itself,
or on NMFS in its role as regulator.
We analyzed three alternatives in the FEA:
[[Page 50154]]
1. No action. Under the No Action alternative, we would deny the
permit application and not issue a permit to NMFS. We rejected
consideration of a separate alternative of literally taking no action,
and not even responding to the permit application, because it is our
policy to process all applications received as quickly as possible (50
CFR 13.11(c)).
2. Issue permit as requested (selected alternative). The permit
would reflect the current operation of the fishery, including the
seabird-deterrent measures currently required by NMFS regulations and
the Service's Biological Opinion for the impacts of this fishery to the
endangered Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), with no
changes, regulatory or otherwise, to the operation of the fishery
during the permit period. No new regulations governing the operation of
the fishery would be proposed. The permit would authorize the observed
and reported take of specific numbers of each species, and would
include conditions requiring NMFS to analyze observer data and fishery
practices to elucidate how and when take is occurring now and identify
measures that could reduce this take in the future. In addition, NMFS
would be required to provide instruction regarding the importance of
seabird-data collection to observers and include specific discussion at
Protected Species Workshops for fishers of how and when seabird
interactions occur during shallow-set fishing. The permit would specify
requirements for reporting the progress on data analysis and
identification of additional potential measures for reducing take and
the extent of training and information-exchange activities. Reporting
would also describe research, if any is identified, needed to help
identify measures that could reduce this take in the future. Compliance
with these requirements would be considered in a future permit renewal.
3. Issue permit with additional conditions to conduct research and
to increase conservation benefit to seabirds. Rather than analyze
existing and future observer data and elicit additional information
from observers and fishers (as in Alternative 2), Alternative 3 would
require research and field trials of new deterrent methods and
technologies or those already in use in the industry to develop means
to reduce take in the fishery during the 3-year term of the permit.
Alternative 3 is otherwise the same as Alternative 2.
Internal Scoping and Public Involvement
We solicited comments on an internal draft of the EA from other
programs within the Service, and provided responses in a final draft EA
(DEA) that was available to the public from January 10 through February
9, 2012 (77 FR 1501). During the public comment period, we received a
total of eight comment letters: One from a federal agency, one from a
Fishery Management Council, one from a fishery industry organization,
two from conservation organizations, and three from private citizens.
The final EA incorporates minor changes to address technical comments
and provides narrative responses to substantive comments. Some of these
comments touch on policy and legal questions that are raised or implied
by, but that do not themselves affect, our permitting action. However,
none of the commenters provided additional information that (1) changed
the outcome of our analysis or (2) required a finding that our action
would have a significant impact.
Impact Analysis
The Impacts Analysis in the EA considered direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the alternatives on seabirds, the fishery and
economic environment, and cultural resources. We found that none of the
alternatives would have significant impacts to any of these aspects of
the human environment. The alternatives would not have significant
adverse impacts to seabirds, because the take of seabirds in this
fishery is low. Laysan and Black-footed albatrosses comprise roughly 99
percent of all take of migratory birds in the fishery. The projected
take of these species in each year of the 3-year term of a permit, and
the slightly greater amount of annual take that would be authorized in
a permit (a total of no more than 191 Black-footed and 430 Laysan
albatrosses over the 3-year permit term), would constitute less than 1
percent of the total estimated breeding population of each species each
year. This level of take does not contribute substantially to the
cumulative total take of these seabirds estimated to occur each year in
all North Pacific longline fisheries. The other three seabird species
analyzed in the FEA are the Sooty Shearwater, Northern Fulmar, and the
endangered Short-tailed Albatross. The shearwater and fulmar are
represented by one individual bird each in the data on observed take in
the fishery. We would authorize take of no more than 10 birds annually
of each of these two species. Although no Short-tailed Albatrosses have
been reported taken in the fishery, impacts of the fishery to this
species have been evaluated under the Endangered Species Act, and take
at a rate of one bird every 5 years has been authorized in the
Service's Biological Opinion.
The beneficial impacts of the action involve only seabirds. These
beneficial impacts are minor. Although either Alternative 2 or 3 would
result in improved information about sources of take in the fishery and
means of reducing take, neither would result in an additional reduction
in take in the fishery during the 3-year permit term. However, the
long-term goal of this (and any subsequent) permitting action is the
eventual further reduction of seabird take in this fishery.
The alternatives do not have a significant impact on the fishery or
economic environment. Although the alternatives variously may result in
slight changes in costs to NMFS (for example, to analyze data or
conduct field trials), none of the alternatives would result in any
major change in the operation of the fishery. No cultural resources as
defined under the National Historic Preservation Act are significantly
affected by the alternatives because the fishery operates in the 200-
mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and on the high seas, far from
historic sites.
Determination
Alternative 2 will meet fully the purposes and needs of the
proposed permitting action described above (and described in more
detail in Chapter 1 of the FEA). This alternative also represents
initial steps toward the long-term goal of reducing take of seabirds in
this fishery. We determine that implementation of Alternative 2 does
not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment under the meaning of section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such,
an environmental impact statement is not required.
Authority
We provide this notice under section 668a of the Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Dated: July 20, 2012.
Jason Holm,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2012-20327 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P