```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63047-63051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26935]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 63048]]

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 
Magnuson-Stevens 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, Sec.  
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 (Sec.  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 
hatchery-produced 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:

[[Page 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 non-tribal 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

[[Page 63050]]

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 Sec.  660.402, the definition ``Pacific Coast Salmon Plan'' 
is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  660.410, the section heading, paragraphs (a) and 
(b)(1) are revised to read as follows:

 Sec.  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
```