MSRA Environmental Review Requirement

1
MSRA Environmental Review Requirement
2
Section 107 Requirements

• Revise and Update Procedures
• Consult with CEQ and Councils, involve public
• Sole environmental impact assessment procedure
  for MSA actions

3
Implementation Process

• Meetings with CEQ
• The CCC Strawman
• Council-based process for conducting NEPA
  analysis through 3 meeting schedule
• NOAA Fisheries Trigger Questions

4
Status

• Comment Period on NOAA Fisheries Outreach ended
  4/20/07
• Each council has conducted Listening Session on
  the Strawman
• Some Councils have provided comments on the
  Strawman and Trigger Questions

5
Timeline Ahead

• May 7 - 11, CCC Meeting
• July 11, publish proposal
• 90 day public comment period
• January 2008, publish final

6
Overview of Public Comments

• Over 1600 form letters opposing the CCC Strawman
• 8 Individualized Letters
• 2 Group Letters from Environmental Groups
• Fisheries Survival Fund
• Marine Conservation Alliance
• Pacific Marine Conservation Council
• Marine Fish Conservation Network
• Alaska DFG
• New England Aquarium

7
Hot Topics

• Need/Authority for Change
• Roles of Councils and NOAA Fisheries
• Complying with NEPA through the Council Process
• Reasonable Alternatives
• Conducting Analysis of Appropriate Scale
• Eliminating EA/EIS Distinction
• 30 Day Comment Period on DEIS
• Scientific Research
• Emergency Actions
• Coordination with Other Applicable Laws

8
Need/Authority for Change

• Disagreement about
• Legislative Intent to change process
• Whether there is a need for change I.e.,
  whether current procedures to comply with NEPA
  are adequate to meet management needs

9
Roles of Councils and NOAA Fisheries

• Opposing opinions about whether Councils or NOAA
  Fisheries should have the lead in developing the
  NEPA analysis and identifying alternatives
• MCFN approach NOAA Fisheries prepare DEIS and
  delivers to council, Council votes, then 45 day
  comment period runs during preparation for
  transmittal.

10
Complying with NEPA through the Council Process

• Disagreement about appropriateness, public
  access, and conflicts of interest.
• Suggested improvements relative to using the
  Council process for NEPA compliance included
• Add locations for more accessible meetings
• Allow submission of written comments, not just
  oral testimony
• Use electronic outreach
• Await public input before selecting alternatives
• Do not constrain public input
• Be clear in FR notice about scoping information

11
Reasonable Alternatives

• General Agreement that "reasonable alternatives"
  must achieve objectives
• Varied suggestions for new definitions of what a
  reasonable alternative is
• Several comments stated that "no action" should
  not mean "no fishing."
• A suggestion about what to do if a council
  selects an alternative not specifically analyzed

12
Analysis of Appropriate Scale

• General Agreement that different actions warrant
  different levels of analysis
• Some comments linked this to EA/EIS question
• Recommendation to use CEQ regulations as guidance
• Recommendation to sort based on type of action
  (FMP versus regulation, framework, etc.)
• Two commenters opposed standardized criteria --
  preferred case-by-case

13
Eliminating EA/EIS Distinction

• Retain the EA/EIS distinction
• 4 commenters support retaining - a "known
  quantity" for scaling
• New language could mean litigation and
  uncertainty
• Eliminate the Distinction
• Fisheries Survival Fund noted that this could
  stop litigation about whether the EA or EIS
  should have been prepared, but wanted to ensure
  there would be some form of scaling the analysis
  to appropriate level

14
30 Day Comment Period on DEIS

• Opposing view points about the need for shorter
  or longer comment periods on DEIS
• Suggestions
• Retain 45 day minimum
• Set 45 days as the maximum
• Give agency flexibility to set at 15, 30, or 45
• Align with public review of FMP and rule

15
Scientific Research

• Eliminate need for stand-alone NEPA analysis of
  scientific research permits
• Consider statutory amendments to exempt
  scientific research permits from NEPA analysis
• Alternatively, exempt these permits from NAO
  procedures

16
Emergency Actions

• Most commenters felt that the current process is
  adequate when an EA is sufficient
• Other suggestions re EIS
• Consult early with CEQ.
• Include environmental analysis "cognizant of time
  constraints."
• An EA should suffice due to limited timeframe and
  ability to prepare EIS for longer-term action.
• Treat ER as an "interim final rule," when APA is
  waived. Accept comments post-effectiveness and
  re-consider.
• NEPA should not apply when there is no discretion
  for alternatives

17
Coordination with Other Applicable Laws

• Recommendation to review Draft Operational
  Guidelines and RSP findings with the public
• Frontloading -- Some commenters noted that agency
  involvement too late in the process is not
  desirable
• Questions about how ESA analysis fits into new
  environmental review procedure

18
Timeline Ahead

• May 7 - 11, CCC Meeting
• July 11, publish proposal
• 90 day public comment period
• January 2008, publish final