View Rule

Statement of Need: In December 2006, the U.S. Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which was signed into law by the President on January 12, 2007 (Public Law 109-479). Section 107 requires NMFS to better integrate and more closely align applicable environmental analytical procedures with the Magnuson Stevens Act’s fishery management process. Congress directed the Secretary, acting through NMFS, and in consultation with the regional fishery management councils (Councils) and CEQ, to revise and update agency procedures to comply with NEPA. Congress stated that the procedures shall: (A) conform to the [Magnuson-Stevens Act’s] time lines for review and approval of fishery management plans and amendments under this section; and (B) integrate applicable environmental analytical procedures, including the time frames for public input, with the procedure for the preparation and dissemination of fishery management plans, plan amendments, and other actions taken or approved pursuant to this Act in order to provide for timely, clear and concise analysis that is useful to decision makers and the public, reduce extraneous paperwork and effectively involving the public. 16 U.S.C. 1854(i)(1)(A) and (B). Moreover, Congress stated that the revised and updated procedures are to be the sole environmental impact assessment procedure for fishery management actions (e.g., FMPs, FMP amendments, or other actions taken or approved pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Act) used by the Councils or NMFS. 16 U.S.C. 1854(i)(2). Finally, Congress authorized and directed NMFS, in cooperation with CEQ and the Councils, to involve the affected public in the development of the revised procedures.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Alternatives: In the process of developing the proposed rule NMFS identified alternatives for possible fisheries-specific improvements in several general categories: form of NEPA documentation; roles and responsibilities of Councils and NMFS in the NEPA process; timing and flow of process; and other elements (experimental fishing, emergencies, page limits, and the range of alternatives to be analyzed). The NMFS preferred alternative as expressed in the proposed rule was developed after serious consideration of input received through extensive internal and external outreach. NMFS also considered the “No Action” alternative. Under the “no action” alternative, NMFS would not issue a final rule and the environmental review process for Magnuson-Stevens Act actions would proceed under the status quo.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The modifications to the NEPA procedures for fishery management actions are intended to allow for more efficient response to fishery management needs while ensuring continued compliance with NEPA requirements. Because these provisions would create a new approach to NEPA compliance, litigation challenges would be likely as implementation progressed. Additional costs may also be incurred, for example, where the conflict of interest provisions require use of a more expensive contractor. However, it is impossible to predict such additional costs, if any.

Risks: The risk of not taking action would be that NMFS would not meet its statutory mandate under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.