Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 16 to the Salmon Fishery Management Plan, 65673-65680 [2011-27346]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65673-65680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27346]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 101206604-1620-01]
RIN 0648-BA55


Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 
Amendment 16 to the Salmon Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of availability of 
a draft environmental assessment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 16 to the 
Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and 
Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 
California (Salmon FMP). Amendment 16, which was transmitted by the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on September 12, 2011, to 
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, brings 
the Salmon FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) as reauthorized in 2006, and the 
corresponding revised National Standard 1 Guidelines (NS1Gs) to end and 
prevent overfishing. This document also announces the availability for 
public review and comment of a draft environmental assessment (EA) 
analyzing the environmental impacts of implementing Amendment 16.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or 
before November 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0227, 
by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov. To submit

[[Page 65674]]

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the ``submit a 
comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0227 in the keyword search. 
Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and 
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
     Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, 
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070 
or to Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 
West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
     Fax: 206-526-6736 Attn: Peggy Mundy, or 562-980-4047 Attn: 
Jennifer Is[eacute].
    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above 
methods to ensure that they are received, documented, and considered by 
NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or 
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be 
considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and 
will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the 
sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business 
information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will 
accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish 
to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be 
accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 
formats only.
    Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a draft 
environmental assessment (Draft EA), a regulatory impact review (RIR), 
and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available for 
public review during business hours at the office of the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 
Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280, and are posted on its Web site 
(https://www.pcouncil.org). These documents are also linked on the NMFS 
Northwest Region Web site (https://www.nwr.noaa.gov). Copies of 
additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained 
from the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323, or 
Jennifer Is[eacute] at 562-980-4046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to include new requirements for 
annual catch limits (ACLs), accountability measures (AMs), and other 
provisions regarding preventing and ending overfishing and rebuilding 
fisheries. On January 16, 2009, NMFS published a final rule (74 FR 
3178) amending the National Standard 1 Guidelines (NS1Gs) to implement 
these new requirements. In response, the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (Council) convened an ad hoc Salmon Amendment Committee to 
develop alternatives for Amendment 16 to the FMP to address these new 
requirements. In June 2011, the Council adopted Amendment 16. The 
Council transmitted the amendment to NMFS on September 12, 2011. NMFS 
published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (76 FR 
57945, September 19, 2011) to notify the public of the availability of 
the amendment and invite comments. Concurrently with developing 
Amendment 16, alternatives were analyzed in a Draft EA.
    This proposed rule identifies changes to the regulations under 50 
CFR 660 subpart H to implement Amendment 16. The Council has deemed the 
proposed regulations to be necessary and appropriate as required by 
section 303(c) of the MSA. This document also announces the 
availability of the Draft EA for public review and comment. Key 
Components of Amendment 16.

Stock Classification

    Stocks ``in the fishery.'' Stocks in need of conservation and 
management measures in Council-area fisheries would be classified as 
``in the fishery'' under Amendment 16. Target stocks in Council-area 
fisheries are hatchery stocks and productive natural stocks with ocean 
distributions primarily within the Council area. Non-target salmon 
stocks include stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or 
depressed natural stocks. Under Amendment 16, all salmon stocks 
currently included in the FMP would be considered to be in the fishery 
except for Canadian Chinook, coho and pink stocks, and mid-Columbia 
River spring Chinook salmon. The Canadian stocks would be removed 
because they are managed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and their 
status is assessed by the Canadian government. The mid-Columbia River 
spring Chinook salmon would be removed because Council area fisheries 
have negligible impacts on the stock, and therefore they are not in 
need of conservation and management measures in fisheries under Council 
authority. Two stocks would be added to the FMP: Oregon coastal 
hatchery coho and Willapa Bay natural coho. Smith River Chinook salmon 
would also be identified as a separate stock from other ESA listed 
California Coastal Chinook stocks.
    Stock Complexes. Stock complexes are groups of stocks that are 
sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and 
vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impacts of management 
actions on the stocks are similar. Stock complexes may be formed to 
facilitate management requirements such as setting ACLs, or determining 
stock status. Three Chinook stock complexes would be specified in 
Amendment 16 for the purposes of specifying ACLs and AMs: Central 
Valley Fall (CVF), Southern Oregon Northern California (SONC), and far-
north migrating coastal (FNMC). The status of stocks in these complexes 
would be assessed individually.
    Internationally managed stocks. Amendment 16 identifies the FNMC 
Chinook complex; Washington coastal and Puget Sound coho; and Puget 
Sound pink salmon as exempt from the ACL and AM requirements in the MSA 
because these stocks are subject to management under an international 
agreement (Pub. L. 109-479, sec. 104(b), MSA Sec.  303 note). These 
stocks are managed in accordance with terms of the Pacific Salmon 
Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. While stocks managed under an 
international agreement can be exempted from the specification of ACLs, 
all other MSA 303(a) requirements apply, such as specification of 
maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and status determination criteria 
(SDC).

Status Determination Criteria

    Under Amendment 16, SDC would be determined for natural stocks \1\ 
for which specification of these reference points is appropriate and 
possible, based on the best available science. SDC would be specified 
only for individual stocks, including indicator stocks within stock 
complexes, not for stock complexes as a whole. The proposed SDC 
incorporate the reference points identified in the MSA and NS1Gs; 
however, the proposed definitions of some of these reference points 
differ

[[Page 65675]]

slightly from those in the NS1Gs to accommodate the life history of 
Pacific salmon, whose reproduction is semelparous \2\ and for which a 
stock's full reproductive potential can be spread out over a multi-year 
period. These modified approaches are proposed in accordance with the 
provision allowing for flexibility in the application of NS1Gs (50 CFR 
600.310(h)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Natural stocks'' have at least some component of the stock 
that relies on natural production, although hatchery production and 
naturally spawning hatchery fish may contribute to abundance and 
spawning escapement estimates.
    \2\ Semelparous: reproducing once. All Pacific salmon species 
managed under the Salmon FMP are semelparous, spawning once before 
dying, as compared to iteroparous species, such as steelhead 
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), which can, potentially, spawn multiple times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Amendment 16, a stock would be considered subject to 
overfishing when the postseason estimate of the fishing mortality rate 
(F) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality threshold (MFMT), where the 
MFMT is generally defined as FMSY. The definitions of 
overfished, approaching overfished, and rebuilt rely on multi-year 
postseason estimates of spawning escapement \3\ to be assessed using a 
3-year geometric mean to determine status. Minimum stock size threshold 
(MSST) would be variable among stocks, with MSST defined for most 
stocks as 0.5*SMSY, but MSST for Sacramento River fall 
Chinook (SRFC), Klamath River fall Chinook (KRFC), Grays Harbor, 
Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute coho defined as 0.75*SMSY, and 
MSST for Puget Sound coho defined as the stock specific low/critical 
abundance breakpoint multiplied by one minus the low exploitation rate 
limit. The Puget Sound coho provisions are designed to be consistent 
with the conservation and management provisions developed through the 
Pacific Salmon Treaty. An approaching overfished determination would be 
made if the geometric mean of the two most recent postseason estimates 
of spawning escapement and the current preseason forecast of spawning 
escapement are below the MSST.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Escapement, or spawning escapement, refers to anadromous 
fish that survive the ocean and return to fresh water where they are 
available for in-river fisheries or spawning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual Catch Limits and Acceptable Biological Catch

    Under Amendment 16, specification of overfishing limit (OFL), ABC, 
and ACL reference points would be made on an individual stock basis as 
required based on the best available science. These reference points 
would not be specified for internationally managed stocks identified in 
the FMP (Pub. L. 109-479, sec. 104(b), MSA section 303 note). Hatchery 
stocks and ESA-listed stocks identified in the FMP would be managed to 
meet hatchery goals and ESA consultation standards, consistent with the 
NS1Gs, which provide the flexibility to consider alternative approaches 
for specifying ACLs and AMs for these types of stocks. Under Amendment 
16, the relevant stocks for specifying OFL/ABC/ACL reference points 
would be Sacramento River fall Chinook (SRFC) and Klamath River fall 
Chinook (KRFC) as indicator stocks for the CVF and SONC Chinook 
complexes respectively.
    Under Amendment 16, OFL, ABC and ACL would be specified as 
escapement levels for each stock. These OFL, ABC, and ACL escapement 
levels would be determined annually using exploitation rates (i.e., 
FMSY, FABC, and FACL) and abundance 
estimates for each stock. FABC incorporates a reduction from 
FMSY to account for scientific uncertainty in 
FMSY. FMSY and FABC are defined in 
terms of the total exploitation rate across all salmon fisheries 
(Federal and nonfederal jurisdiction). Impacts in non-salmon fisheries 
are included in the natural mortality assumptions used to estimate 
population parameters for salmon stocks; therefore, all fishing 
mortality sources are accounted for when reference points are 
specified. Amendment 16 would generally leave in place existing 
conservation objectives for stocks in the FMP; the notable exception 
would be Klamath River fall Chinook salmon, for which the spawning 
escapement component of the conservation objective would change from 
35,000 to 40,700 naturally spawning adults. Under the amendment, the 
fishery would be managed to meet the greater of either the ACL or the 
conservation objective in a given year.

De minimis Fishing Provisions

    The de minimis fishing provisions that exist in the current FMP 
would be revised by Amendment 16 to allow for more flexibility in 
setting annual regulations when the conservation objectives for 
limiting stocks are projected not to be met, and provide opportunity to 
access more abundant salmon stocks that are typically available in the 
Council management area when the status of one stock may otherwise 
preclude all ocean salmon fishing in a large region, as is the case 
under the conservation alert in the current FMP. De minimis fishing 
provisions vary by stock and depend on the form and structure of the 
conservation objective. Amendment 16 describes de minimis fishing 
provisions that would be applied to SRFC and KRFC specifically. Under 
Amendment 16, de minimis fishing provisions would use a multi-step F-
based control rule that would allow some harvest at all abundance 
levels. As stock size declines, the allowable exploitation rate 
declines from FABC in order to achieve SMSY until 
F = 0.25. A constant maximum exploitation rate of 0.25 would be allowed 
until the potential spawner abundance reaches the midpoint between 
SMSY and MSST where F would be reduced in proportion to 
abundance to no more than 10 percent at MSST. At potential spawner 
abundance levels less than or equal to half of MSST the allowable 
exploitation rate would be further reduced to levels approaching zero 
as abundance approaches zero.

Changes to Regulations

    This proposed rule includes changes to the existing regulations at 
50 CFR 660.401 et seq. to implement Amendment 16 and additional 
updates. These are described below.

 Sec.  660.402--Definitions

    The definition of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan is updated to 
address recent amendments.

 Sec.  660.403--Relation to Other Laws

    References to the regulations governing the Pacific groundfish 
fishery are updated consistent with recent changes to 50 CFR part 660 
(75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010).

 Sec.  660.405--Prohibitions

    Language is added to allow flexibility in implementing fishery 
closures by inseason action to meet fishery management objectives. 
Specifically, under the proposed language fishery closures could be 
implemented at times other than at 2400 hours (midnight) in order to 
allow for more precise management of the fishery.
    Information on the Salmon Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation 
area is updated consistent with recent changes to 50 CFR part 660 (75 
FR 60868, October 1, 2010).

 Sec.  660.408--Annual Actions

    Language regarding annual specifications is modified to include 
ACLs and to state that they and other specifications and management 
measures are determined consistent with the FMP. The definition of 
``allowable ocean harvest levels'' is revised to specify that such 
levels must ensure that ACLs and conservation objectives are not 
exceeded. This section is also modified to allow for mark-selective 
fisheries and to define the term ``mark-selective.''

[[Page 65676]]

 Sec.  660.410--Conservation Objectives and ACLs

    Language relative to conservation objectives is updated, including 
treatment of ESA-listed stocks within annual specifications and 
management measures. Language is added stating that annual management 
measures will be designed to ensure that escapement levels reach or 
exceed ACLs.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with Amendment 16, other provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after 
public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A Draft EA has been prepared for Amendment 16; a copy of the Draft 
EA is available online at https://www.pcouncil.org/. The Draft EA 
includes a regulatory impact review (RIR) and preliminary regulatory 
flexibility analysis, NMFS has revised the RIR and drafted an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and is making available its 
revised RIR and IRFA for public review and comment.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at 
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY 
section of the preamble, and are not repeated here. The RIR and IRFA 
are available for public review and comment (see ADDRESSES). A summary 
of the analysis follows: The Salmon FMP (PFMC 2007) establishes 
conservation and allocation guidelines for annual management of salmon 
off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. This framework 
allows the Council to develop measures responsive to stock status in a 
given year. Section 3 of the current Salmon FMP describes the 
conservation objectives for Salmon FMP stocks necessary to meet the 
dual MSA objectives of obtaining optimum yield (OY) from a fishery 
while preventing overfishing. Each stock has a specific objective, 
generally designed to achieve MSY, maximum sustained production (MSP), 
or in some cases, an exploitation rate to serve as an MSY proxy.
    The Salmon FMP also specifies criteria to determine when 
overfishing may be occurring and when a stock may have become 
overfished. These conditions are referred to as a Conservation Alert 
and an Overfishing Concern, respectively. In addition, the Salmon FMP 
also specifies required actions when these conditions are triggered. 
The alternatives described in Section 2 are structured around the 
actions required when a Conservation Alert is triggered. This proposed 
action will bring the Salmon FMP into compliance with the MSA, as 
amended in 2007, and the revised NS1Gs, by developing and implementing 
ACLs and AMs to prevent overfishing on stocks in the fishery to which 
MSA section 303(a)(15) applies, ensure ``measurable and objective'' SDC 
for stocks in the fishery, and define the control rules under which de 
minimis fishing opportunity would take place consistent with NS1.
    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's ``Review 2010 Ocean Salmon 
Fisheries'' provides the following economic snapshot of the 2010 
fishery. Total 2010 ex-vessel value of the Council-managed non-Indian 
commercial salmon fishery was $7.15 million, which is the fifth lowest 
on record, but more than four times above its 2009 level of $1.5 
million. California had its first commercial salmon fishery since 2007. 
The 2010 ex-vessel value of the commercial fishery was 28 percent below 
the 2005-2009 inflation-adjusted average of $10 million and 88 percent 
below the 1979 through 1990 inflation-adjusted average of $59.3 
million. Based on Pacific Coast Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) 
data, a total of 641 vessels participated in the non-tribal West Coast 
commercial salmon fishery in 2010. This is more than double the number 
that participated in 2009 (313), and nearly triple the number in 2008. 
However the 2010 total was down 36 percent from 2007's total of 1,007 
vessels.
    The preliminary number of vessel-based ocean salmon recreational 
angler trips taken on the West Coast in 2010 was 182,900, a decrease of 
three percent from 2009, and 70 percent below the 1979 through 1990 
average. Compared with 2009, preliminary estimates of the number of 
trips taken in 2010 decreased by 37 percent in Oregon and 18 percent in 
Washington. California effort was up substantially since the sport 
fishery was not restricted to a 10-day fishery in the Klamath 
Management Zone as it was in 2009; however it was still severely 
depressed compared to historic levels. Recreational salmon fishing 
takes place primarily in two modes, (1) Anglers fishing from privately 
owned pleasure crafts, and (2) anglers employing the services of the 
charter boat fleet. In general, success rates on charter vessels tend 
to be higher than success rates on private vessels. Small amounts of 
shore-based effort directed toward ocean area salmon occur, primarily 
from jetties and piers. Coastwide, the proportion of angler trips taken 
on charter vessels in 2010 was relatively stable at 24 percent compared 
with 23 percent in 2009; however, underlying this trend was a decline 
in the proportion of charter trips in Oregon and increases in 
California and Washington. During 2010, the Review indicates that there 
were 465 charterboats that participated in the 2010 fishery.
    While some of the treaty Indian harvest was for ceremonial and 
subsistence purposes, the vast majority of the catch was commercial 
harvest. For all of 2010 the preliminary ex-vessel value of Chinook and 
coho landed in the treaty Indian ocean troll fishery was $1.8 million, 
compared with the ex-vessel value in 2009 of $1.0 million. According to 
a Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission representative, the tribal 
fleet consists of 40 to 50 trollers. The commercial entities directly 
regulated by the Pacific Council's Fishery Management Plan are non-
tribal commercial trollers, tribal commercial trollers, and 
charterboats. During 2010, these fleets consisted of 641 non-tribal 
trollers, 40 to 50 tribal trollers, and 465 charterboats.
    Total West Coast income impact associated with recreational and 
commercial ocean salmon fisheries for all three states combined was 
estimated at $25.5 million in 2010. This was 46 percent above the 
estimated 2009 level of $17.4 million. 2010 had the third lowest income 
impacts on record, with 2008 having the lowest on record at $7.5 
million and 2009 the second lowest (adjusted for inflation).
    The key components of Amendment 16 are administrative, as they are 
revisions to the key components of the process by which the Council and 
NMFS make decisions on how best to manage various stocks in the 
fishery. These key components include defining what stocks are in the 
fishery; how these stocks may be organized into stock complexes, the 
treatment of international stocks, revising the stock status 
determination criteria including definitions of overfishing, ABC, and 
ACL reference points; and revising de minimis fishing provisions to 
allow for more flexibility in setting annual regulations when the 
conservation objectives for limiting stocks are projected not to be 
met, and provide

[[Page 65677]]

opportunity to access more abundant salmon stocks that are typically 
available in the Council management area when the status of one stock 
may otherwise preclude all ocean salmon fishing in a large region. This 
action revises the process of how conservation and management decisions 
will be made; it contains no actual application of the methods to set 
ABC, ACL, or OFL or the management measures (e.g. closed seasons, area 
closures, bag limits, etc.) to keep the fishery within the ACL and 
other conservation objectives to assure that overfishing does not 
occur. As a result there are no immediate economic impacts to evaluate. 
These will occur when the new process is actually applied in future 
actions and the economic impacts will be evaluated then.
    However, the EA did undertake an economic analysis of the expected 
effects of the preferred action and options relative to ``No Action'' 
alternative and presented the following conclusions. The proposed 
alternatives for classifying the stocks in the FMP will have no 
economic impacts, as there are no biological implications to 
designating stocks ``in the fishery'' and ``ecosystem components,'' as 
compared with the no action Alternative. Proposed alternatives for SDC 
have no significant biological or economic impacts. The stocks have had 
low frequency of experiencing overfishing in the past and many of the 
current control rules clearly prevent fishing at or above 
FMSY. It has been rare that stock abundance or other 
constraints on the fishery have created opportunity for fishing above 
FMSY in other cases. Identifying clearer criteria with which 
to determine stock status will more clearly align with the MSA and 
NS1Gs, and can help managers implement timelier management responses 
and contribute to ensuring sustainable salmon stock levels to support 
the fishery, resulting in positive economic effects. The proposed 
alternatives for implementing ACLs, ABCs, and associated reference 
points (i.e., the ACL framework) are similar in nature to the effects 
of the proposed SDC, thus, have no significant biological or economic 
impacts. In the short term, fisheries may be constrained in a given 
year to prevent overfishing, but such actions will provide long-term 
benefits from more sustainable salmon populations to support harvest 
and recreational opportunities.
    Proposed alternatives to identify AMs have no significant 
biological or economic impacts, compared to the no action alternative. 
Many of the proposed AMs identified are actions that exist in the FMP 
currently and are administrative in nature (e.g., notification). 
Proposed alternatives for de minimis fishing are not expected to result 
in significant biological or economic effects. However, providing for 
de minimis fishing will afford more opportunities for harvest, 
consistent with National Standard 8, and achieve optimum yield for the 
fishery consistent with NS1. Therefore, there are projected positive 
economic benefits of the proposed action by allowing some minimal 
harvest of weaker stocks in an effort to harvest healthier, abundant 
stocks in the mixed stock fishery.
    The commercial entities directly regulated by the Pacific Council's 
Fishery Salmon Management Plan are non-tribal commercial trollers, 
tribal commercial trollers, and charterboats. During 2010, these fleets 
consisted of 641 non-tribal trollers, 40 to 50 tribal trollers, and 465 
charterboats. A fish-harvesting business is considered a ``small'' 
business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual 
receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For marinas and charter/party 
boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of 
$6.5 million. All of the businesses that would be affected by this 
action are considered small businesses under SBA guidance. Tribal and 
non-tribal commercial salmon vessel revenues averaged approximately 
$13,000 in 2010 (Review of 2010 Ocean Salmon Fisheries). Charterboats 
participating in the recreational salmon fishery in 2000 had average 
revenues ranging from $7,000 to $131,000, depending on vessel size 
class (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission study). These figures 
remain low, and NMFS has no information suggesting that these vessels 
have received annual revenues since 2000 such that they should be 
considered ``large'' entities under the RFA. As these average revenues 
are far below SBA's thresholds for small entities, NMFS has determined 
that all of these entities are small entities under SBA's definitions.
    The economic analysis does not highlight any significant impact 
upon small businesses. The key components of Amendment 16 are 
administrative, as they are revisions to the key components of the 
process by which the Council and NMFS make decisions on how best to 
manage various stocks in the fishery. As a result there are no 
immediate economic impacts to evaluate. These will occur when the new 
process is actually applied in future actions and the economic impacts 
will be evaluated then. Consequently, the regulations being proposed 
are not expected to meet any of the tests of having a ``significant'' 
economic impact on a ``substantial number'' of small entities. 
Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA. Through the rulemaking process 
associated with this action, we are requesting comments on this 
conclusion.
    This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-
keeping, requirements.
    No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this action.
    NMFS has issued ESA biological opinions that address the impacts of 
the Council managed salmon fisheries on listed salmonids as follows: 
March 8, 1996 (Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook and sockeye), 
April 28, 1999 (Oregon Coast natural coho, Southern Oregon/Northern 
California coastal coho, Central California coastal coho), April 28, 
2000 (Central Valley spring Chinook), April 27, 2001 (Hood Canal summer 
chum 4(d) limit), April 30, 2004 (Puget Sound Chinook), June 13, 2005 
(California coastal Chinook), April 28, 2008 (Lower Columbia River 
natural coho), and April 30, 2010 (Sacramento River winter Chinook, 
Lower Columbia River Chinook; and listed Puget Sound yelloweye 
rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio). NMFS reiterates its 
consultation standards for all ESA listed salmon and steelhead species 
in their annual Guidance letter to the Council. In 2009, NMFS consulted 
on the effects of fishing under the Salmon FMP on the endangered 
Southern Resident Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment (SRKW) and 
concluded the salmon fisheries were not likely to jeopardize SRKW 
(biological opinion dated May 5, 2009).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed 
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials 
from the area covered by the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 
U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In 
addition, a Tribal representative served on the committee appointed by 
the Pacific Council to develop Amendment 16.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.


[[Page 65678]]


    Dated: October 18, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

    1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.

    2. In Sec.  660.402, revise the definition for ``Pacific Coast 
Salmon Plan'' 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 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; the Salmon FMP has been subsequently amended at 
irregular intervals. Other names commonly used include: Pacific Coast 
Salmon Fishery Management Plan, West Coast Salmon Plan, West Coast 
Salmon Fishery Management Plan.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  660.403, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.403  Relation to other laws.

* * * * *
    (b) Any person fishing subject to this subpart who also engages in 
fishing for groundfish should consult Federal regulations in subpart C 
through G for applicable requirements of that subpart, including the 
requirement that vessels engaged in commercial fishing for groundfish 
(except commercial passenger vessels) have vessel identification in 
accordance with Sec.  660.20.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  660.405, revise paragraph (b) and the introductory text 
of paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.405  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (b) The fishery management area is closed to salmon fishing except 
as opened by this subpart or superseding regulations or notices. All 
open fishing periods begin at 0001 hours and end at 2400 hours local 
time on the dates specified, except that a fishing period may be ended 
prior to 2400 hours local time through an inseason action taken under 
Sec.  660.409 in order to meet fishery management objectives.
    (c) Under the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at Sec.  
660.330, fishing with salmon troll gear is prohibited within the Salmon 
Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for 
commercial salmon troll vessels to take and retain, possess, or land 
fish taken with salmon troll gear within the Salmon Troll YRCA. Vessels 
may transit through the Salmon Troll YRCA with or without fish on 
board. The Salmon Troll YRCA is an area off the northern Washington 
coast. The Salmon Troll YRCA is intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. 
The Salmon Troll YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting specific 
latitude and longitude coordinates under the Pacific Coast Groundfish 
regulations at Sec.  660.70.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  660.408,
    a. Revise paragraph (a);
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), 
(j), (k), (l), (m), and (n) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), 
(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively;
    c. Add a new paragraph (b);
    d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (c), (d)(1)(ii), 
(d)(1)(v)(B), (d)(1)(vi), (d)(2)(iv), (e), (g), (i)(2), (k), (l)(2), 
(l)(4), and (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.408  Annual actions.

    (a) General. NMFS will annually establish specifications and 
management measures or, as necessary, adjust specifications and 
management measures for the commercial, recreational, and treaty Indian 
fisheries by publishing the action in the Federal Register under Sec.  
660.411. Management of the Pacific Coast salmon fishery will be 
conducted consistent with the standards and procedures in the Salmon 
FMP. The Salmon FMP is available from the Regional Administrator or the 
Council. Specifications and management measures are described in 
paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section.
    (b) Annual catch limits. Annual Specifications will include annual 
catch limits (ACLs) determined consistent with the standards and 
procedures in the Salmon FMP.
    (c) Allowable ocean harvest levels. Allowable ocean harvest levels 
must ensure that conservation objectives and ACLs are not exceeded, as 
described in Sec.  660.410. The allowable ocean harvest for commercial, 
recreational, and treaty Indian fishing may be expressed in terms of 
season regulations expected to achieve a certain optimum harvest level 
or in terms of a particular number of fish. Procedures for determining 
allowable ocean harvest vary by species and fishery complexity, and are 
documented in the fishery management plan and Council documents.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Deviations from allocation schedule. The initial allocation 
may be modified annually in accordance with paragraphs (d)(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 (d)(1)(ix) and (x) of this section. 
Total allowable ocean harvest will be maximized to the extent possible 
consistent with treaty obligations, state fishery needs, conservation 
objectives, and ACLs. Every effort will be made to establish seasons 
and gear requirements that provide troll and recreational fleets a 
reasonable opportunity to catch the available harvest. These may 
include single-species directed fisheries with landing restrictions for 
other species.
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) Chinook distribution. Subarea distributions of Chinook will be 
managed as guidelines based on calculations of the Salmon Technical 
Team with the primary objective of achieving all-species fisheries 
without imposing Chinook restrictions (i.e., area closures or bag limit 
reductions). Chinook in excess of all-species fisheries needs may be 
utilized by directed Chinook fisheries north of Cape Falcon or by 
negotiating a preseason species trade of Chinook and coho between 
commercial and recreational allocations in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(1)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (vi) Inseason trades and transfers. Inseason transfers, including 
species trades of Chinook and coho, may be permitted in either 
direction between commercial and recreational fishery quotas to allow 
for uncatchable fish in one fishery to be reallocated to the other. 
Fish will be deemed uncatchable by a respective commercial or 
recreational fishery only after considering all possible annual 
management actions to allow for their harvest that are consistent with 
the

[[Page 65679]]

harvest management objectives specific in the fishery management plan 
including consideration of single species fisheries. Implementation of 
inseason transfers will require consultation with the pertinent 
commercial and recreational Salmon Advisory Subpanel representatives 
from the area involved and the Salmon Technical Team, and a clear 
establishment of available fish and impacts from the transfer. Inseason 
trades or transfers may vary from the guideline ratio of four coho to 
one Chinook to meet the allocation objectives in paragraph (d)(1)(ix) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Oregon coastal natural coho. The allocation provisions in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section provide guidance only when coho 
abundance permits a directed coho harvest, not when the allowable 
harvest impacts are insufficient to allow coho retention south of Cape 
Falcon. At such low levels, allowable harvest impacts will be allocated 
during the Council's preseason process.
* * * * *
    (e) Management boundaries and zones. Management boundaries and 
zones will be established or adjusted to achieve a conservation purpose 
or management objective. A conservation purpose or management objective 
protects a fish stock, simplifies management of a fishery, or promotes 
wise use of fishery resources by, for example, separating fish stocks, 
facilitating enforcement, separating conflicting fishing activities, or 
facilitating harvest opportunities. Management boundaries and zones 
will be described by geographical references, coordinates (latitude and 
longitude), depth contours, distance from shore, or similar criteria.
* * * * *
    (g) Recreational daily bag limits. Recreational daily bag limits 
for each fishing area will specify number and species of salmon that 
may be retained. The recreational daily bag limits for each fishing 
area will be set to maximize the length of the fishing season 
consistent with the allowable level of harvest in the area.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) Commercial seasons. Commercial seasons will be established or 
modified taking into account wastage of fish that cannot legally be 
retained, size and poundage of fish caught, effort shifts between 
fishing areas, and protection of depressed stocks present in the 
fishing areas. All-species seasons will be established to allow the 
maximum allowable harvest of pink salmon, when and where available, 
without exceeding allowable Chinook or coho harvest levels and within 
conservation and allocation constraints of the pink stocks.
* * * * *
    (k) Selective fisheries--(1) In general. In addition to the all-
species seasons and the all-species-except-coho seasons established for 
the commercial and recreational fisheries, species selective fisheries 
and mark selective fisheries may be established.
    (2) Species selective fisheries. Selective coho-only, Chinook-only, 
pink-only, all salmon except Chinook, and all salmon except coho 
fisheries may be established if harvestable fish of the target species 
are available; harvest of incidental species will not exceed allowable 
levels; proven, documented selective gear exists; significant wastage 
of incidental species will not occur; and the selective fishery will 
occur in an acceptable time and area where wastage can be minimized and 
target stocks are primarily available.
    (3) Mark selective fisheries. Fisheries that select for salmon 
marked with a healed adipose fin clip may be established in the annual 
management measures as long as they are consistent with guidelines in 
section 6.5.3.1 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.
* * * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) The combined treaty Indian fishing seasons will not be longer 
than necessary to harvest the allowable treaty Indian catch, which is 
the total treaty harvest that would occur if the tribes chose to take 
their total entitlement of the weakest stock in the fishery management 
area, assuming this level of harvest did not create conservation or 
allocation problems for other stocks.
* * * * *
    (4) If adjustable quotas are established for treaty Indian fishing, 
they may be subject to inseason adjustment because of unanticipated 
Chinook or coho hooking mortality occurring during the season, catches 
in treaty Indian fisheries inconsistent with those unanticipated under 
Federal regulations, or a need to redistribute quotas to ensure 
attainment of an overall quota.
* * * * *
    (o) Reporting requirements. Reporting requirements for commercial 
fishing may be imposed to ensure timely and accurate assessment of 
catches in regulatory areas subject to quota management. Such reports 
are subject to the limitations described herein. Persons engaged in 
commercial fishing in a regulatory area subject to quota management and 
landing their catch in another regulatory area open to fishing may be 
required to transmit a brief report prior to leaving the first 
regulatory area. The regulatory areas subject to these reporting 
requirements, the contents of the reports, and the entities receiving 
the reports will be specified annually.
    6. In Sec.  660.409, revise paragraph (b)(2) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.409  Inseason actions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Fishery managers must determine that any inseason adjustment in 
management measures is consistent with fishery regimes established by 
the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Commission, conservation objectives and 
ACLs, conservation of the salmon resource, any adjudicated Indian 
fishing rights, and the ocean allocation scheme in the fishery 
management plan. All inseason adjustments will be based on 
consideration of the following factors:
* * * * *
    7. Revise Sec.  660.410 to read as follows:


Sec.  660.410  Conservation objectives and ACLs.

    (a) Conservation objectives. Annual management measures will be 
consistent with conservation objectives described in Table 3-1 of the 
Salmon FMP or as modified through the processes described below, except 
where the ACL escapement level for a stock is higher than the 
conservation objective, in which case annual management measures will 
be designed to ensure that the ACL for that stock is met.
    (1) Modification of conservation objectives. NMFS is authorized, 
through an action issued under Sec.  660.411, to modify a conservation 
objective if--
    (i) 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 or
    (ii) Action by a Federal court indicates that modification of a 
conservation objective is appropriate.
    (2) ESA listed species. The annual specifications and management 
measures will be consistent with NMFS consultation standards or NMFS 
recovery plans for species listed under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Where these standards differ from those described in FMP Table 
3-1, NMFS will describe the ESA-related standards for

[[Page 65680]]

the upcoming annual specifications and management measures in a letter 
to the Council prior to the first Council meeting at which the 
development of those annual management measures occurs.
    (b) Annual catch limits. Annual management measures will be 
designed to ensure escapement levels at or higher than ACLs determined 
through the procedures set forth in the FMP.

[FR Doc. 2011-27346 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P