Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 63047

Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26968 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG29

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on Proposed Critical Habitat for

the Mexican Spotted Owl; Availability

of Draft Economic Analysis and Draft

Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period, notice of availability.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce the

availability of the draft Economic

Analysis and draft Environmental

Assessment for the proposal to

designate critical habitat for the

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis

lucida) under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended. We are also

reopening the public comment period

for the proposal. The new comment

period will allow all interested parties

to submit comments on the draft

Economic Analysis, draft Environmental

Assessment, and any other aspect of the

proposed designation.

DATES: The comment period for this

proposal, which originally closed on

September 19, 2000, is reopened and

now closes on November 20, 2000.

Comments on the draft Economic

Analysis, draft Environmental

Assessment, and any other aspect of the

proposed designation must be received

by the closing date.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,

you may submit your comments and

materials to the Field Supervisor, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105

Osuna NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico,

87113. Copies of the draft Economic

Analysis and draft Environmental

Assessment are available from the

aforementioned address, or over the

internet at

http://ifw2es.fws.gov/library/.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above Fish and Wildlife

Service address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy

Nicholopoulos, Field Supervisor, New

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,

at the above address; telephone 505/

346–2525, facsimile 505/346–2542.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 21, 2000, we published in the

Federal Register a proposed rule to

designate critical habitat for the

Mexican spotted owl (65 FR 45336). The

comment period for the proposed

designation closed on September 19,

2000. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered

Species Act requires that we designate

or revise critical habitat based upon the

best scientific and commercial data

available and after taking into

consideration the economic impact, and

any other relevant impact, of specifying

any particular area as critical habitat.

We may exclude an area from critical

habitat if we determine that the benefits

of excluding the area outweigh the

benefits of including the area as critical

habitat, provided such exclusion will

not result in the extinction of the

species. Consequently, we have

prepared a draft economic analysis

concerning the proposed critical habitat

designation, which is available for

review and comment at the above

Internet and mailing addresses.

Approximately 5.5 million hectares

(13.5 million acres) of land fall within

the boundaries of the proposed critical

habitat in Arizona, Colorado, New

Mexico, and Utah. Proposed critical

habitat is primarily composed of Federal

lands. If this proposal is made final,

section 7 of the Act would prohibit

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat by any activity funded,

authorized, or carried out by any

Federal agency.

Public Comments Solicited

We solicit comments on the draft

Economic Analysis described in this

notice, the draft Environmental

Assessment, and any other aspect of the

proposed designation of critical habitat

for the Mexican spotted owl. The

comment period is extended to

November 20, 2000. Written comments

may be submitted to the Field

Supervisor at the above address. Our

final determination on the proposed

critical habitat will take into

consideration comments and any

additional information received by the

date specified above. All previous

comments and information submitted

during the comment period need not be

resubmitted.

Author

The primary authors of this notice are

the New Mexico Field Office staff (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

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

Nancy M. Kaufman,

Regional Director, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 00–26976 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No.; 000906253-0253-01; I.D.

061500E]

RIN 0648-AL51

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; West Coast

Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 14

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to

implement portions of Amendment 14

to the Fishery Management Plan for

Commercial and Recreational Salmon

Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington,

Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP).

Amendment 14, which was submitted

by the Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) on June 12, 2000, to

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)

for review and approval, brings the

Salmon FMP into compliance with the

Sustainable Fisheries Act’s (SFA) 1996

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

Amendment 14 includes designation of

essential fish habitat (EFH) and new

requirements to reduce bycatch, prevent

overfishing, and rebuild overfished

stocks. This proposed rule to implement

Amendment 14 would make minor

changes to language regarding

escapement and management goals;

implement a new recreational allocation

to the Port of La Push and adjust the

Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add

preseason flexibility for recreational

port allocations north of Cape Falcon;

and implement preseason flexibility in

63048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

setting recreational port allocation or

recreational and commercial allocations

North of Cape Falcon to take advantage

of selective fishing opportunities for

marked hatchery fish.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in

writing by December 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Donna

Darm, Acting Regional Administrator,

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand

Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115-

0070, fax: 206-526-6376; or to Rebecca

Lent, Regional Administrator,

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West

Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long

Beach, CA 90802-4213, fax: 562-980-

4018. Send comments regarding any

ambiguity or unnecessary complexity

arising from the language used in this

rule to Donna Darm or Rebecca Lent.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via email or Internet.

Copies of Amendments 14 and the

final supplemental environmental

impact statement (FSEIS)/regulatory

impact review (RIR)/initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (IRFA), along with

the appendices and the Review of 1999

Ocean Salmon Fisheries are available

from Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive

Director, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224,

Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher L. Wright at 206- 526-6140,

Svein Fougner at 562-980-4040, or Dr.

Donald O. McIsaac at 503-326-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Secretary approved the Salmon

FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C.

1801 et seq., in 1978. The Council has

amended the Salmon FMP 13 times

since 1978. The regulations are codified

at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H. The

Salmon FMP was amended annually

from 1979 to 1983; however, in 1984, a

framework amendment was

implemented that provided the

mechanism for making preseason and

inseason adjustments in the regulations

without annual amendments.

The Council prepared Amendment 14

to the Salmon FMP and submitted it on

June 12, 2000, for Secretarial review.

NMFS published a notice of availability

for Amendment 14 in the Federal

Register on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39584),

announcing a 60-day public comment

period, which ended on August 28,

2000. NMFS approved Amendment 14

on September 27, 2000.

Amendment 14 has multiple parts.

The major parts of the amendment

revise the Salmon FMP to bring it into

compliance with the 1996 SFA

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens

Act; establish a new recreational

allocation for the Port of La Push, WA,

and add flexibility to deviate from

specified recreational Port allocations

with the agreement of representatives

from the affected Ports; and establish

preseason flexibility to deviate from

commercial and recreational gear

allocations and recreational port

allocations North of Cape Falcon, OR in

order to access marked hatchery salmon

in selective fisheries.

With the approval by the Secretary,

Amendment 14 revises the Salmon FMP

to bring it into compliance with the

1996 amendments to the MagnusonStevens Act. The most significant

changes include a new definition of

optimum yield (OY); a bycatch

definition and new requirements to

reduce bycatch; new requirements

designed to prevent overfishing and

rebuild overfished stocks; and the

designation of EFH, with a discussion of

threats to EFH and recommended

measures to conserve and enhance EFH.

A new section in chapter 1 entitled

‘‘What this Plan Covers’’ was added to

the Salmon FMP to provide a clear

description of management actions

included in the document. In addition,

the amendment provides information on

fishery-specific stock impacts and

updates the fishery description to

reference new appendices.

Only some of the changes made by

Amendment 14 are intended to be

codified in the regulations. Specifically,

this proposed rule would make minor

changes to language regarding

escapement and management goals;

implement a new recreational allocation

to the Port of La Push and adjust the

Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add

preseason flexibility for recreational

port allocations North of Cape Falcon;

and implement preseason flexibility in

setting recreational port allocation or

recreational and commercial allocations

North of Cape Falcon to take advantage

of selective fishing opportunities.

The former Escapement and

Management goals section, § 660.410(a),

was changed to a new Conservation

Objectives section. The SFA

amendments require the Council to

manage each year to achieve the

maximum sustained yield (MSY) or

maximum sustainable production

(MSP), MSY proxy, or rebuilding

schedule. The control rule triggers an

overfishing concern when individual

stocks fail to meet conservation

objectives for three consecutive years (§

660.410(b)(1)). Conservation objectives

are summarized in Table 3-1 of the

Salmon FMP.

Amendment 14 establishes a

recreational allocation for the La Push

Port area separate from the Neah Bay

port area, and the Annual Actions

section (660.408(c)(v)) would be

modified accordingly. The La Push

subarea allocation would be set at 5.2

percent, which is approximately 20

percent of the former combined Neah

Bay/La Push allocation. This portion is

equal to the level provided to La Push

during the annual preseason process

beginning in 1990. In addition, during

years when there is an Area 4B add-on

fishery inside Washington internal

waters (which benefits only Neah Bay).

Twenty-five percent of the numerical

value of that fishery shall be added to

the recreational allowable ocean harvest

north of Leadbetter Point prior to

applying the sharing percentages for

Westport and La Push. The increase to

Westport and La Push will be subtracted

from the Neah Bay ocean share to

maintain the same total harvest

allocation north of Leadbetter Point.

Therefore, La Push would receive 2.6

percent of the basic coho allocation plus

1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on.

Section 660.408(c)(v)(A) would be

modified to allow flexibility to deviate

from Salmon FMP subarea quotas in

order to meet recreational fishery

objectives, if those measures are agreed

to by representatives of the affected

ports. In addition, the regulation would

establish a Council process to deviate

from the non-Indian recreational and/or

commercial allocations north of Cape

Falcon to selectively harvest hatcheryproduced coho salmon, while not

increasing impacts to natural stocks.

Minor changes to the regulatory

language in 50 CFR part 660 necessary

to implement Amendment 14 would

also be made.

Classification

NMFS has determined that

Amendment 14 is consistent with the

national standards and other provisions

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable laws.

The Council prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

describing the economic impacts to

small entities of all the alternatives

considered in the this proposed rule. A

copy of the analysis is available from

the Council (see ADDRESSES). A

summary of the analysis follows:

The proposed rule would make five

changes to the existing regulations. Only

items 2-5 have regulatory effects that are

subject to analysis under Executive

Order 12866 and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA). The regulatory

changes include:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 63049

1. Minor changes to the description of

escapement and management goals.

2. Providing a specific recreational

allocation to the Port of La Push.

3. Adjusting the recreational port

allocations when there is an Area 4B

add-on fishery to account for the

specific allocation to the Port of La

Push.

4. Providing preseason flexibility for

recreational port allocations to allow for

deviation from subarea allocations to

meet recreational objectives, if agreed to

by representatives of affected ports.

5. Adding preseason flexibility for

setting recreational port allocations, or

recreational and commercial allocations

North of Cape Falcon, to selectively

target hatchery-origin stocks.

All of these changes address

management of coho and chinook

fisheries that operate in ocean waters

north of Cape Falcon, OR to the U.S.-

Canada Border (Cape Falcon is south of

the Columbia River mouth, between the

Ports of Garibaldi and Astoria, OR).

Therefore, this proposed rule directly

affects the non-tribal commercial troll

fisheries and recreational fisheries in

these waters. These fisheries are a

component of the North of Cape Falcon

Forum, in which Federal, state, and

Tribal co-managers work directly with

commercial and recreational harvesting

groups to resolve management and

allocation issues involving both ocean

and inside salmon fisheries in the

region. Inside fisheries occur in Puget

Sound, Washington coastal rivers and

estuaries, and the Columbia River.

Therefore, the Council’s decisions

concerning these non-tribal fisheries

indirectly affect Columbia River,

Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor gillnet

fisheries; Puget Sound, Washington

coastal and Columbia River tribal

fisheries; and Puget sound non-tribal

commercial and recreational fisheries.

In addition to coho and chinook, these

inside fisheries also harvest chum,

sockeye, and pink salmon. Management

of West Coast ocean salmon fisheries is

also subject to international catch

sharing agreements because West Coast

salmon stocks are among those

harvested in Alaska and Canadian

salmon fisheries. Salmon harvest

allocations and regulations also affect

salmon processors and wholesalers, as

well as associated support industries

including tourism, hotels, bait and

tackle shops, and marinas.

The economic effects that these

proposed regulations would have are

described in the Pacific Fishery

Management Council’s ‘‘Amendment 14

to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (May

2000)’’ and supporting documents

including ‘‘Appendix B - Description of

the Ocean Salmon Fishery and Its Social

and Economic Characteristics (August

1999),’’ ‘‘Review of 1999 Ocean Salmon

Fisheries (February 2000) and

‘‘Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast

Salmon Plan (1997) [Errata].’’ A

summary of the economic impacts of

this proposed rule follows:

A fish harvesting or hatchery business

is considered a small business if it is

independently owned and operated, it

does not dominate its field of

operations, and if it has annual receipts

that are not in excess of $3 million. For

charter/party boats, a small business is

one with annual receipts that are not in

excess of $5 million. The proposed

changes to existing salmon regulations

directly affect the operations of nontribal commercial ocean troll and

charter boat vessels. Although total

salmon and non-salmon fishery revenue

is not discussed, for commercial ocean

troll and charter boat sectors the

economics of this industry suggest that

they are considered small entities under

the RFA thresholds for a single firm.

During 1997, the north of Cape Falcon

ocean recreational salmon harvest was

31,200 coho and the non-tribal

commercial harvest was 0 coho and

6,400 chinook. Ocean recreational

private and charter boat trips numbered

approximately 102,000 in 1997, and the

57 vessels that participated in the ocean

commercial troll fishery landed $1.2

million of salmon. Approximately 82

charter boats operated out of the major

ports, including Neah Bay, La Push,

Westport, Ilwaco, and Astoria,

associated with north of Cape Falcon

ocean fisheries. These charter vessels

undertook a total of approximately

14,000 angler trips in 1997, and fished

for salmon, tuna, bottomfish, sturgeon.

About 70 of these vessels are considered

salmon charter boats. The combined

regional income produced by the north

of Cape Falcon salmon fisheries was

approximately $2.1 million in 1997.

Approximately $200,000 of that amount

was generated by commercial trolling,

and recreational charter and private boat

trips generated the remainder.

The economic effects of the proposed

regulations are expected to be generally

positive. The proposed regulatory

changes are intended to reallocate fish

among small entities with the intent of

increasing overall harvest. The Port of

La Push regulations formalize practices

that have been employed for a number

of years; La Push would receive 2.6

percent of the basic coho allocation plus

1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on.

Flexibility to deviate from subarea

allocations in order to meet recreational

objectives is expected to result in only

positive economic effects because such

management decisions require approval

by representatives of affected ports.

Flexibility in setting preseason

recreational port allocations or

recreational and commercial allocations

north of Cape Falcon for selective

fishing on hatchery stock coho would

likely lead to positive economic effects

on ocean fisheries because such

measures result in increased fishing

opportunities when such fish are

available. These selective fisheries are

open primarily in August and

September, although the Council may

consider opening selective fisheries at

other times. Compared to the original

allocation scheme the selective fishery

regime does not increase the mortality

of natural stocks. Other allocation

objectives (i.e., treaty, Indian, or ocean

and inside allocations) are addressed

during the negotiations in the North of

Cape of Falcon Forum.

The general effects of the proposed

regulatory changes are to provide

flexibility to the Council’s decision

making processes and allow increased

fish harvest levels, when possible,

through pre-season allocation setting

procedures. User groups (non-tribal

ocean troll and ocean recreational

fisheries) participate directly in the

consultative processes, so it is unlikely

that any single group will suffer

economically while some or all user

groups may benefit. The consultation

process is designed to provide the

maximum economic benefits to all user

groups.

The intended effect of this proposed

rule is to employ management measures

that minimize impacts to species,

stocks, or size/age classes of concern,

while maximizing access to harvestable

fish. This is accomplished through

management measures including gear

restrictions, time/area closures, and

catch or retention restrictions that allow

fishermen to harvest marked hatchery

salmon and release natural-origin fish.

Analysis of 1996 fishery information

shows that selective ocean coho harvest

could be increased by over 300 percent

without impacting natural stocks.

Without such selective fisheries, total

salmon harvest would have to be

sharply reduced to protect depressed

natural stocks. These procedures also

allow managers to make in-season

trades between ocean fisheries and other

fisheries, and between user groups in

order to increase harvest opportunities

for all user groups.

Insufficient data preclude a

quantitative analysis; however, the

Council’s qualitative cost-benefit

summary in support of Executive Order

12866 assesses the direct and indirect

economic effects of the proposed

63050 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

regulatory changes. This analysis shows

that these changes would allow

increased numbers of recreational and

charter boat salmon fishing trips;

however, recreational catch rates and

retained catch rates would decline. The

ocean troll fishery quotas would not be

directly reduced as a result of proposed

regulatory changes, but cost per unit of

harvest may increase because of the

selective fishery regulations. Indirect

economic effects on inside fisheries may

be positive or negative, depending on

which selective fisheries are employed

in the ocean and inside fisheries. The

State of Washington has adopted

selective fishing practices for inside

coho fisheries. Selective practices for

inside chinook fisheries are still under

development because of the difficulty in

modeling selective fishery impacts on

chinook stocks. However, ocean

harvests of inside chinook stocks are

minimal and managing such stocks will

be primarily driven by Endangered

Species Act (ESA) requirements and

State of Washington decisions

concerning the future of its fisheries.

In developing these regulations the

Council tried to minimize impacts on

small entities. For example, the Council

was aware of the allocative effects of

selective fisheries on small entities

participating in ocean fisheries, and

developed regulations to enhance

selective fishing options in August and

September. This limits the amount of

reallocation between inside and outside

fisheries and therefore reduces impacts

on such small entities. The public is

invited to comment on the IRFA and the

economic analysis, whether there are

additional economic impacts that

should be considered, and whether

there are ways to reduce any adverse

effects on small entities.

The proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for the

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The NMFS Northwest Region has

completed a Section 7 informal

consultation under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) on the effects of

Amendment 14 on listed salmon stocks.

Amendment 14 does not by itself

authorize any fishing or other activity

that would result in the take of listed

fish. It modifies certain aspects of the

current Salmon FMP but in no way

affects the existing Salmon FMP

requirements that management

measures comply with NMFS ESA

consultation standards for listed

species. Three of the Amendment 14

components (overfishing, EFH, and

bycatch) will result in neutral effects or

in more conservative management of

non-listed salmon stocks, and should

therefore provide greater protection to

natural stocks of listed and non-listed

species. While there are some

uncertainties regarding the effects of

selective fisheries on naturally

spawning stocks, NMFS retains the

authority and responsibility for ensuring

that annual management measures

developed under the Salmon FMP

comply with ESA consultation

standards, and that analysis of these

measures is based on the best available

science. The remaining elements of the

amendment, including recreational

allocation, definition of OY, and various

editorial changes will have no effect on

management of listed stocks.

Based on these considerations, NMFS

concluded that Amendment 14 and its

implementing regulations are not likely

to adversely affect any of the salmon

stocks presently listed under ESA or

their critical habitat.

The Council prepared an FSEIS for

Amendment 14. The FSEIS has been

incorporated in the Amendment 14

document and may be obtained from the

Council (see ADDRESSES). A notice of

availability of the FSEIS was published

on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49237).

The President has directed Federal

agencies to use plain language in their

communications with the public,

including regulations. To comply with

this directive, we seek public comment

on any ambiguity or unnecessary

complexity arising from the language

used in this rule (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Administrative practice and

procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,

Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives,

Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Clarence Pautzke,

Acting Assistant Administrator, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50

CFR part 660 as follows:

PART 660— FISHERIES OFF WEST

COAST STATES AND IN THE

WESTERN PACIFIC

1. The authority citation for part 660

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 660.402, the definition ‘‘Pacific

Coast Salmon Plan’’ is added in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 660.402 Definitions.

* * * * *

Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PCSP or

Salmon FMP) means the Fishery

Management Plan, as amended, for

commercial and recreational ocean

salmon fisheries in the Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ)(3 to 200 nautical

miles offshore) off Washington, Oregon,

and California. The Salmon FMP was

first developed by the Pacific Fishery

Management Council (PFMC or Council)

and approved by the Secretary in 1978.

The Salmon FMP was amended on

October 31, 1984, to establish a

framework process to develop and

implement fishery management actions.

Other names commonly used include:

Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery

Management Plan, West Coast Salmon

Plan, West Coast Salmon Fishery

Management Plan.

* * * * *

3. In § 660.408, the first two sentences

in paragraph (c)(1)(ii), paragraph

(c)(1)(v), paragraph (c)(1)(v)(A), and the

last sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) are

revised; paragraph (c)(1)(viii) is

redesignated as paragraph (c)(1)(ix), and

paragraph (c)(1)(ix) is redesignated as

paragraph (c)(1)(x) and a new paragraph

(c)(1)(viii) is added to read as follows:

§ 660.408 Annual actions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Deviations from allocation

schedule. The initial allocation may be

modified annually in accordance with

paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) through (viii) of

this section. These deviations from the

allocation schedule provide flexibility

to account for the dynamic nature of the

fisheries and better achieve the

allocation objectives and fishery

allocation priorities in paragraphs

(c)(1)(ix) and (x) of this section. * * *

* * * * *

(v) Recreational allocation. The

recreational allowable ocean harvest of

chinook and coho derived during the

preseason allocation process will be

distributed among the four major

recreational subareas as described in the

coho and chinook distribution in this

section. The Council may deviate from

subarea quotas to meet recreational

season objectives based on agreement of

representatives of the affected ports

and/or in accordance with Section

6.5.3.2 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan

with regard to certain selective fisheries.

Additionally, based upon the

recommendation of the recreational

Salmon Advisory Subpanel

representatives for the area north of

Cape Falcon, the Council will include

criteria in its preseason salmon

management recommendations to guide

any inseason transfer of coho among the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 63051

recreational subareas to meet

recreational season duration objectives.

(A) Coho distribution. The preseason

recreational allowable ocean harvest of

coho north of Cape Falcon will be

distributed to provide 50 percent to the

area north of Leadbetter Point and 50

percent to the area south of Leadbetter

Point. In years with no fishery in

Washington State management area 4B,

the distribution of coho north of

Leadbetter Point will be divided to

provide 74 percent to the subarea

between Leadbetter Point and the

Queets River (Westport), 5.2 percent to

the subarea between Queets River and

Cape Flattery (La Push), and 20.8

percent to the area north of the Queets

River (Neah Bay). In years when there

is an Area 4B (Neah Bay) fishery under

state management, 25 percent of the

numerical value of that fishery shall be

added to the recreational allowable

ocean harvest north of Leadbetter Point

prior to applying the sharing

percentages for Westport and La Push.

The increase to Westport and La Push

will be subtracted from the Neah Bay

ocean share to maintain the same total

harvest allocation north of Leadbetter

Point. Each of the four recreational port

area allocations will be rounded to the

nearest hundred fish, with the largest

quotas rounded downward if necessary

to sum to the preseason recreational

allowable ocean harvest of coho north of

Cape Falcon.

* * * * *

(vi) Inseason trades and transfers. * *

* Inseason trades or transfers may vary

from the guideline ratio of four coho to

one chinook to meet the allocation

objectives in paragraph (c)(1)(ix) of this

section.

* * * * *

(viii) Selective Fisheries. Deviations

from the initial gear and port area

allocations may be allowed to

implement selective fisheries for

marked salmon stocks as long as the

deviations are within the constraints

and process specified in Section 6.5.3.2

of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.

* * * * *

4. In § 660.410, the section heading,

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) are revised to

read as follows:

§ 660.410 Conservation objectives.

(a) The conservation objectives are

summarized in Table 3-1 of the Pacific

Coast Salmon Plan.

(b) * * *

(1) A comprehensive technical review

of the best scientific information

available provides conclusive evidence

that, in the view of the Council, the

Scientific and Statistical Committee,

and the Salmon Technical Team,

justifies modification of a conservation

objective; except that the 35,000 natural

spawner floor for Klamath River fall

chinook may only be changed by FMP

amendment.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–26935 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510–22 –S