Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 16 to the Salmon Fishery Management Plan, 81851-81860 [2011-33308]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81851-81860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 101206604-1758-02]
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: Final rule.

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

[[Page 81852]]

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule under authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 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). NMFS approved 
Amendment 16 on December 16, 2011. This final rule implements 
components of Amendment 16 that bring the Salmon FMP into compliance 
with the MSA as amended in 2007, and the corresponding revised National 
Standard 1 Guidelines (NS1Gs) to end and prevent overfishing. Amendment 
16 identifies stocks that are in the fishery, establishes status 
determination criteria (SDC), and specifies overfishing limits (OFLs), 
acceptable biological catch (ABC), and annual catch limits (ACLs). 
Amendment 16 also includes ``de minimis'' fishing provisions that allow 
for low levels of fishing impacts on stocks that are at low levels of 
abundance.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is also accessible on the Web site of NMFS' 
Northwest Region (https://www.nwr.noaa.gov). Electronic copies of the 
Environmental Assessment (EA) and current Salmon FMP, through Amendment 
16, are available on the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site 
(https://www.pcouncil.org/).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Mundy, Northwest Region Salmon 
Management Division, NMFS, (206) 526-4323 or Jennifer Is[eacute], 
Southwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, (562) 980-4046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council) developed Amendment 16 to bring the Salmon FMP into 
compliance with the 2007 MSA amendments and revised NS1Gs (74 FR 3178, 
January 16, 2009). The Council took final action on Amendment 16 in 
June 2011 and transmitted the amendment to NMFS on September 12, 2011. 
NMFS published a Notice of Availability of Amendment 16 in the Federal 
Register (76 FR 57945, September 19, 2011) to notify the public of the 
availability of the amendment and invite comments. Alternatives 
considered in the development of Amendment 16 were analyzed in a draft 
Environmental Assessment (EA). NMFS published a proposed rule and 
notice of availability of the draft EA in the Federal Register (76 FR 
65673, October 24, 2011) to notify the public and invite comments. NMFS 
received 10 comment submissions. The comments are summarized and 
responded to in the ``Response to Comments'' section of this rule.
    Amendment 16 reorganizes and classifies stocks in the FMP, 
establishes new status determination criteria, establishes a framework 
for defining reference points related to overfishing limits (OFL), 
acceptable biological catch (ABC), and annual catch limits (ACLs), and 
establishes appropriate accountability measures (AM) necessary to 
prevent the ACLs from being exceeded, and to mitigate any overages that 
may occur. Amendment 16 also sets a new conservation objective for 
Klamath River fall Chinook, and specifies de minimis fishing rate 
provisions to address management in years of low abundance. The details 
of Amendment 16 were described in the proposed rule (76 FR 65673, 
October 24, 2011) and are not repeated here. This final rule identifies 
changes to the regulations under 50 CFR 660 subpart H to implement 
Amendment 16 and describes changes made from the proposed rule.

Response to Comments

    NMFS invited comments on Amendment 16, the related draft EA, and 
the proposed rule. Comments were received from 10 groups and 
individuals, including a letter of ``no comment'' submitted by U.S. 
Department of the Interior. Complete written comments are incorporated 
into Appendix J of the EA. Many comments were similar in substance, 
therefore, the comments are summarized and addressed below.
    Comment 1: Several comments received included requests to extend 
the comment period for up to 60 days.
    Response: NMFS determined that extension of the comment period for 
this action was not possible. The Council and NMFS are operating under 
a statutory deadline to implement an amendment to the FMP to bring it 
into compliance with the requirements of the MSA to implement annual 
catch limits and accountability measures in 2011. Additionally, under 
the MSA, NMFS has 95 days to approve or disapprove an FMP amendment. If 
NMFS did not take action within that 95-day period, the amendment would 
have been approved by default. The PFMC transmitted the Amendment 16 to 
NMFS on September 12; therefore, the 95-day period to approve or 
disapprove the amendment would have expired on December 16. Therefore, 
there was insufficient time to allow for a meaningful extension of the 
comment period. In addition, Amendment 16 has been in development in an 
open, public process since March 2009. There have been multiple 
opportunities to comment at public meetings throughout this process, 
and an ongoing opportunity to submit written comments. The Council 
developed Amendment 16 at its meetings in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 
and California of both the full Council and the Salmon Amendment 
Committee, all of which were open to the public and announced in the 
Federal Register. To facilitate those unable to attend Council meetings 
in person, the Council streams meetings live on the Internet.
    Comment 2: While habitat conditions in the Klamath River basin have 
been improving, the number of fish returning to spawn has been observed 
to decrease over time. For example, habitat restoration efforts have 
resulted in increased production of age 0+ Chinook in the Scott River. 
The reason for the decline in spawning adults is the decline in 
returning adults.
    Response: Amendment 16 should result in greater spawning escapement 
throughout the Klamath Basin, because managing for MSY spawning 
escapement will result in managing for an escapement of 40,700 natural 
area adult spawners rather than 35,000.
    Comment 3: The EA does not address all in-river tribal harvest, 
particularly that by the Karuk Tribe and occupants of the Resighini 
Reservation.
    Response: The EA assesses the impacts the proposed actions on the 
affected environment, which includes in-river harvest by the Yurok and 
Hoopa Valley Tribes (sections 4.1.2.2, 4.1.5.4, and 4.4.8). Additional 
information was added to the final EA in section 4.1.5.4 noting the 
rationale for de minimis fishing at low stock size to address minimal 
tribal needs. Thus, the EA adequately accounts for harvest by the Yurok 
and Hoopa Valley tribal members.
    The Karuk tribe and Resighini Rancheria do not have federally 
recognized fishing rights. The Karuk tribal dipnet fisheries, and 
fishing conducted by members of the Resighini Rancheria, are conducted 
in-river under state regulations (15 CCR Sec.  7.50(b)(91.1)), and are 
subject to the same season and bag limit restrictions as the in-river 
non-Indian recreational fisheries; tribal effort is thought to be minor 
compared to the recreational fishery. Fish caught in these fisheries 
may not be sold commercially, so there are no significant economic 
impacts. The biological impacts are reflected in spawning escapement, 
which is the basis for Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and status 
determination criteria (SDC) which are part of the proposed action

[[Page 81853]]

and are thoroughly analyzed in the EA. Information describing the Karuk 
and Resighini fisheries was added to section 3.4.6.4 of the EA.
    Comment 4: The EA fails to analyze the effects of in-river 
fisheries, which according to one commenter will have significant 
environmental effects that ``will result from the implementation of 
Amendment 16.'' Such effects according to the commenters include 
excessive pressure on certain stocks, use of gear that is selective for 
larger fish, and impacts to ESA-listed coho. The draft EA fails to 
analyze the effects of in-river fishing on ESA-listed species. The 
Council and NMFS should regulate in-river fisheries. Accountability 
measures are not adequate because they don't address in-river harvest.
    Response: Regulation of in-river fisheries is beyond the scope of 
Amendment 16, and therefore the EA is not required to address the 
impacts of in-river fisheries as effects of Amendment 16. Neither the 
Council nor NMFS have statutory authority to directly regulate in-river 
fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1800 et seq. The 
Council's jurisdiction is specifically limited to the area ``seaward'' 
of the west coast states (16 U.S.C. section 1852(a)(1)(F)). NMFS' 
authority to manage fisheries under the MSA is limited to the U.S. EEZ, 
and with respect to the proposed action is limited to approving or 
disapproving, and implementing the Council's action in Amendment 16 (18 
U.S.C. section 1854). As the commenters point out, federal, state, and 
tribal fishery managers coordinate their management of the salmon 
fisheries. Such coordination is necessary as salmon are impacted by 
fisheries under multiple management jurisdictions, and all of those 
impacts must be addressed to ensure that escapement goals are met and 
that the tribes can exercise their fishing rights. However, 
coordination with the entities that regulate in-river fishing does not 
bestow upon the Council and NMFS the statutory authority to impose 
regulations on that fishing. As the regulation of in-river fisheries is 
beyond the scope of this proposed action, and in any event is beyond 
the scope of the Council's and NMFS' jurisdiction under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the extent of NMFS' authority to implement and enforce the 
Endangered Species Act with respect to in-river fisheries is not 
relevant to the scope of effects of the proposed action analyzed in the 
EA for Amendment 16. In-river fisheries, however, are part of the 
Affected Environment, and a brief description of these fisheries was 
added to sections 3.4.4.4, 3.4.5.4, 3.4.6.4, and 3.4.7.4 of the EA. The 
analysis of the effects of Amendment 16 on biological resources was 
based on spawning escapement relative to the SDC, and therefore 
accounts for all mortality sources, including in-river fisheries 
(Tables 4-2 and 4-5 in the EA).
    Comment 5: The EA fails to include reasonable alternatives with 
respect to the Klamath Basin, specifically a spawning escapement target 
for KRFC higher than 40,700, regulating in-river harvest practices, and 
improving in-river accountability measures.
    Response: The additional alternatives identified are beyond the 
scope of actions identified in the purpose and need statement. The 
purpose and need for Amendment 16 was to bring the Salmon FMP into 
compliance with the amended MSA and NS1 guidelines, particularly 
requirements for ACLs, accountability measures, and to ensure objective 
and measureable status determination criteria, which requires 
management based on MSY. There were no analyses supporting spawning 
escapement objectives for any purpose other than consistency with MSY. 
As part of its issue scoping process, the Council directed that 
conservation objectives should be updated as part of the Amendment 16 
process only as necessary to comply with the purpose and need 
statement. As explained in response to Comment 4, the additional 
alternatives related to changing in-river harvest methods, timing, and 
accountability measures are not within the jurisdiction of the Council 
and NMFS to implement. In-river harvest is regulated by the State of 
California and the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes. The EA did 
contemplate and analyze effects from the amount of in-river harvest on 
the affected environment. Accountability measures are intended to 
ensure compliance with the established ACLs or to mitigate the adverse 
affects if there is non-compliance. Mortality from all sources, 
including all in-river fisheries, is accounted for in assessing 
compliance with ACLs because the metric is based on spawning 
escapement.
    Comment 6: The EA does not analyze impacts to Klamath sub-basin 
Chinook populations. The EA should address the disproportionate impact 
of fishery management on early spawners and propose approaches to 
quantify and minimize such impacts.
    Response: The effects of implementing Amendment 16 on sub-basin 
populations within the Klamath Basin are acknowledged and assessed by 
incorporating the analysis from Salmon FMP Amendment 15 into Amendment 
16 (section 4.1.5.4). There is insufficient information to analyze the 
effects of Amendment 16 on Klamath sub-basin populations beyond what is 
contained in the Amendment 15 analysis; to the extent there are 
``disproportionate effects'' these cannot be quantified.
    The focus of the comments seems to be on the adequacy of 40,700 
spawners as a management objective, and how that number was derived. 
The value of the MSY spawning escapement that is included in Amendment 
16 (40,700 natural area adult spawners) is based on what is currently 
the best available science. The MSA requires that management decisions 
be based on the best available science. The FMP as amended by Amendment 
16 provides a process for changing estimates of MSY if additional 
information suggests a better estimate is available, or sub-basin 
specific management objectives could be adopted; however, there is not 
sufficient information available on which to base such changes at this 
time.
    Comment 7: An escapement objective of 40,700 KRFC spawners is an 
improvement, but inadequate. Shasta River Basin needs at least 10,000 
spawners, and is unlikely to achieve that with an escapement of 40,700 
for the entire Klamath-Trinity system. The 40,700 escapement goal does 
not allow for reaching historical Chinook numbers in the Shasta River.
    Response: NMFS and the Council are unaware of any information 
supporting an objective of 10,000 spawners for the Shasta River. There 
is no identified objective for the Shasta River in the Salmon FMP, and 
there is insufficient information on which to base management of the 
fisheries to achieve an annual Shasta River-specific spawning 
escapement goal. Therefore, the Council manages Klamath Basin on an 
aggregate basis using the best available science. The currently 
available habitat is not capable of supporting historic fish abundance 
due to dam construction and habitat degradation throughout the Klamath-
Trinity Basin. As evidence, relatively large spawning escapements in 
recent years have not resulted in larger than average subsequent broods 
(Klamath River fall Chinook stock-recruitment analysis, STT 2005). The 
best available science indicates that 40,700 is an appropriate spawning 
escapement.
    Comment 8: The KRFC escapement objectives considered in the EA do 
not provide enough fish returning to allow those involved in habitat 
restoration efforts to see improvement in fish abundance.
    Response: The comment suggests that the escapement objective be set 
to

[[Page 81854]]

provide an adequate number of returning fish to demonstrate progress 
resulting from habitat improvement efforts in the Klamath. The 
criterion is subjective and it is not clear how it could be 
implemented. Text was added to the EA to note that a larger escapement 
goal could generally correlate to increased visibility of returning 
spawners in the Klamath Basin, and that there is likely a relationship 
between participation in habitat restoration efforts and returning 
adults, as well as between other aesthetic uses and returning adults 
(section 4.5.7).
    Comment 9: MSY for KRFC is based on recruitment as if all 
variability were a result of only inland conditions.
    Response: The MSY spawning escapement objective is based on both 
spawner/recruit relationship and an early life history survival term 
that accounts for both river out-migrant and early ocean entry 
survival; therefore, the estimate of MSY does not assume survival 
variability is only the result of inland conditions (Klamath River fall 
Chinook stock-recruitment analysis, STT 2005).
    Comment 10: Including first generation hatchery strays (e.g., Iron 
Gate Hatchery fish spawning in Bogus Creek and Trinity River Hatchery 
fish spawning downstream of the hatchery) in any estimate of ``natural 
spawners'' effectively props up natural spawning escapement estimates. 
First generation hatchery fish spawning naturally should be excluded 
from reported values for natural spawning escapement.
    Response: The spawner escapement portion of the KRFC conservation 
objective is, and has been, specified in terms of natural-area adults 
and not natural-origin adults. The spawner/recruit relationship used to 
specify MSY spawning escapement for KRFC is based on the best available 
science, and provides a statistically significant, scientifically 
defensible estimate of MSY spawning escapement.
    Comment 11: The EA does not analyze effects on marine nutrient 
cycle.
    Response: The marine nutrient cycle is identified as part of the 
affected environment (section 3.3) and assessed qualitatively in the EA 
(section 4.3.1).
    Comment 12: The draft EA's reliance on previous environmental 
review documents is inappropriate. Circumstances have changed, 
specifically regarding the effects of in-river fisheries and habitat 
improvements in the Klamath Basin.
    Response: Use of previous environmental documents is appropriate as 
long as they are properly incorporated by reference and up to date 
information is included in the EA or in the referenced documents. The 
documents referenced in Amendment 16 are all less than 10 years old, 
and many are updated annually, including the stock assessment and 
fishery evaluation, which assesses management effectiveness annually. 
The stock/recruitment analysis for KRFC (Klamath River fall Chinook 
stock-recruitment analysis, STT 2005) used more recent data than 2000 
to derive the 40,700 MSY spawning escapement estimate. The analysis was 
completed in 2005 and used data through 2004; the 2000 brood was the 
last complete brood available for that analysis. STT (2005) and the 
Amendment 15 EA (PFMC and NMFS 2007) were added to the list of 
documents incorporated by reference and text was added to the final 
Amendment 16 EA clarifying that the documents referenced in Section 
1.4.2 were incorporated by reference.
    The FMP describes a process for incorporating new scientific 
information and methodologies into the annual salmon management 
process, and Amendment 16 provides for reference points, including 
SMSY, to be changed in response to new information. Thus, if 
scientific information becomes available that warrants a 
reconsideration of reference points specific to the Klamath, this can 
serve as a basis for reevaluation of those reference points.
    Comment 13: Maximum sustainable yield is not adequate to achieve 
optimum yield, which should take into consideration the need for those 
living inland in the Klamath Basin to see spawner returns that reflect 
recovery efforts.
    Response: The scope of Amendment 16 did not include revising the 
current definition of achieving OY for salmon; therefore, considering 
alternatives for OY was not appropriate as part of this action. The FMP 
currently defines OY on a coast-wide stock and fishery aggregate basis. 
Changing the conservation objective of one stock to address OY would 
not be appropriate given the current definition of OY.
    Comment 14: The EA does not analyze the impacts of fishing, 
particularly in-river fishing practices, on ESA-listed species.
    Response: The EA considers the effects of the proposed action on 
listed species. As stated in the EA (section 3.2), the effects of 
alternatives on ESA-listed salmon are assessed along with target salmon 
stocks (section 4.1). To address impacts on ESA-listed species, NMFS 
undertakes ESA Section 7 consultations. NMFS has issued several 
biological opinions on the FMP covering salmonid and non-salmonid 
species that are affected by the ocean salmon fisheries and fisheries 
are managed to meet standards set forth in those opinions. The proposed 
action would not change this aspect of the salmon FMP. As discussed in 
response to Comment 4, regulation of in-river fishing is beyond the 
scope of Amendment 16, therefore the effects of in-river fishing on 
ESA-listed species are not effects of this action.
    Comment 15: Objection to setting the lower end of the current 
conservation objective for SRFC (i.e., 122,000) as SMSY, 
this effectively changes the conservation objective from a range of 
122,000 to 180,000 to a single value of 122,000.
    Response: The form of the harvest control rule adopted requires a 
single value of SMSY upon which to calculate annual 
management measures, so a single value was adopted based on the 1984 
framework amendment. There was no supporting analysis to suggest that a 
different value was appropriate, and such an analysis was beyond the 
scope of Amendment 16. The conservation objective as stated in the FMP 
(Appendix I of the EA) was unchanged at 122,000-180,000 adult spawners 
and is not changed by the definition of SMSY, which is used 
to determine the point at which SRFC are overfished, rebuilt, and when 
de minimis fishing provisions apply. Defining SMSY does not 
remove the Council and NMFS' ability to structure management measures 
to target higher escapement levels in response to year-specific 
conditions. A list of considerations for implementing de minimis 
fisheries is included in the FMP language (Appendix I) and has been 
added to the EA (section 2.5.1.6) and the regulatory text at Sec.  
660.410 (b).
    Comment 16: Managing to the low end of the SRFC conservation 
objective is not appropriate given that the low end was established due 
to migratory restrictions imposed by Red Bluff Diversion Dam. The 
reasonable and prudent alternative in NMFS' 2009 Biological Opinion for 
the Central Valley Project would require that gates be raised year-
round on the dam in order to improve passage. As a consequence, NMFS 
should set SMSY at 180,000 adult spawners.
    Response: There was no scientific support for choosing 180,000 as 
SMSY. The SMSY value used in the EA is based on 
the best available science. Amendment 16 provides a mechanism for 
updating reference points based on new scientific information, when 
that becomes available.
    Comment 17: Even the high end of the SRFC conservation objective 
range (180,000) may not be appropriate under

[[Page 81855]]

the ``doubling goal'' of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
(CVPIA).
    Response: As noted in response to the previous comments, the 
SMSY value used in the EA is based on the best available 
scientific information. The conservation objective for SRFC is not 
changed by this action. The ``doubling goal'' of the CVPIA does not 
create any specific standards that make a revision to the conservation 
objective for SRFC necessary or appropriate.
    The purpose and need for Amendment 16 was to bring the Salmon FMP 
into compliance with the MSA, which requires management based on MSY. 
There is no analysis supporting any specific spawning escapement 
objective for any purpose other than MSY. Also as noted in response to 
Comment 16, setting a specific value for SMSY does not 
remove the Council's ability to structure fisheries to achieve the 
conservation objective for SRFC.
    Comment 18: De minimis fishing provisions could be 
counterproductive to the ``doubling goal'' of the CVPIA.
    Response: All of the de minimis fishing alternatives are based on 
management for MSY. Managing for MSY will result in optimal production 
that the habitat can support. Estimates of MSY are based on long-term 
average escapement, and some years with escapement below 
SMSY are expected. The low exploitation rates allowed under 
the de minimis fishing provisions will not significantly affect 
achievement of MSY in the long-term, as they are expected to occur 
infrequently. In applying the de minimis control rules, the Council and 
NMFS must consider a number of factors related to the continued 
productivity of the stock, and de minimis exploitation rates must not 
jeopardize the long term capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a 
continuing basis. As habitat is improved, estimates of MSY should be 
reviewed and revised if appropriate to account for the increased 
capacity of spawning habitat.
    Comment 19: Relying on abundance of hatchery stocks to support de 
minimis fisheries is potentially harmful to genetic and phenotypic 
diversity in Central Valley Chinook. Statement in EA that egg transfers 
between hatcheries is viable mitigation for low spawner abundance is 
flawed.
    Response: Hatchery policy is set by CDFG and USFWS, and is 
therefore outside the scope of Amendment 16. Conservation objectives 
for hatchery stocks are set by those entities and annual salmon 
management measures are crafted to meet them. Amendment 16 retains the 
provision to allow conservation objectives for hatchery stocks to be 
modified as hatchery policies change.
    Comment 20: Contrary to analysis in the EA, San Joaquin River fall-
run Chinook could suffer significant impacts under de minimis fishing 
provisions.
    Response: Exploitation rates under de minimis fishing conditions 
are, by definition, intended to avoid significant impacts. San Joaquin 
fall Chinook are expected to experience the same ocean exploitation 
rates, and the same or lower freshwater exploitation rates, as SRFC; 
therefore the EA correctly assessed the risk to San Joaquin fall 
Chinook. In addition, the alternatives for de minimis fisheries include 
consideration of the list of factors currently in the de minimis 
provision for Klamath River Fall Chinook, adopted as part of Amendment 
15. These include the status of sub-stocks and the status of co-mingled 
stocks. A list of considerations for implementing de minimis fisheries 
is included in the FMP language (Appendix I) and has been added to the 
EA (section 2.5.1.6) and the regulatory text at Sec.  660.410 (b).
    Comment 21: The draft EA does not ``discuss the interplay between 
ocean harvest and freshwater management'' and should do so.
    Response: The interaction of ocean and inside fisheries is 
described in the annual Review of Ocean Fisheries document (PFMC 
2011a), which was referenced in the description of the affected 
environment and incorporated by reference. Language was added to the EA 
to emphasize the incorporation by reference (section 1.4.2). The 
analysis of alternatives in Amendment 16 included effects of inside 
fisheries on spawning escapement, and described the relationship 
between escapement from ocean fisheries and allowable harvest of tribal 
and recreational river fisheries in the Klamath Basin.
    Text has been added to the EA to note that a larger escapement goal 
could generally correlate to increased visibility of returning 
spawners, and that there is likely a relationship between participation 
in habitat restoration efforts and returning adults, as well as between 
other aesthetic uses and returning adults (section 4.5.7).
    Comment 22: ``Producers'' (communities and entities where salmon 
spawn and rear and are produced) should be included in harvest 
management and should have positions on the PFMC and Klamath Fishery 
Management Council (KFMC).
    Response: The Klamath Act, which established the KFMC, expired on 
October 1, 2006, and was not reauthorized by Congress. Funding for this 
program was eliminated and the charter for the KFMC was discontinued. 
The non-agency PFMC members are nominated by governors of the four 
states and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. Most appointed 
positions are held by representatives of fishery sectors, but that is 
not a requirement and the PFMC has appointed members that are not 
associated with commercial, recreational, or tribal fishery sectors. 
People interested in appointments need to contact the office of their 
state Governor (for additional information see 50 CFR 600.215). The 
Council also has advisory bodies with positions reserved for general 
public and environmental groups. These advisory bodies include the 
Salmon Advisory Subpanel and the Habitat Committee, and other ad hoc 
committees. People interested in appointments to advisory bodies need 
to follow PFMC procedures for nomination (https://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-and-committees/current-vacancies/).
    Comment 23: The EA fails to incorporate adaptive management--KRFC 
escapement should be reviewed and updated.
    Response: Adaptive management is inherent in all fishery management 
plans and the MSA process, as informed by new information and science. 
Escapement of all managed salmon stocks is reviewed and updated 
annually in the Review of Ocean Fisheries (SAFE) document (e.g., PFMC 
2011a). In addition, a process for review and updating of stock 
specific conservation objectives is provided in Amendment 16 and the 
Salmon FMP. As part of its issue scoping process, the Council directed 
that conservation objectives should be updated as part of the Amendment 
16 process only as necessary to comply with the purpose and need 
statement. However, the Council noted that development and review of 
conservation objectives for stocks should be pursued through the Salmon 
Methodology Review process on a priority basis as adequate information 
becomes available.
    Comment 24: The Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribes submitted comments 
focused primarily on Klamath River fall Chinook. The tribes generally 
supported Amendment 16 including most aspects of the control rule and 
the proposal to increase the SMSY based conservation 
objective to 40,700. However, both tribes expressed concern that the 
control rule for Klamath River fall Chinook and the resulting allowance 
for non-zero de minimis exploitation rates at low abundance levels 
could adversely affect sub-stocks. The tribes' comments refer to the 
analysis done in conjunction with Amendment 15 that highlighted the

[[Page 81856]]

increased risk to sub-stocks as abundance falls below approximately 
20,000 adult spawners. Both tribes support use of the control rule in 
most part, but requested that de minimis fishing be reduced to zero 
when abundance is less than \1/2\ SMSY or 20,350 (Yurok 
Tribe) or 22,000 (Hoopa Valley Tribe). As an alternative, the Yurok 
Tribe requested that the final rule be modified to include qualitative 
considerations similar to those used in Amendment 15 indicating that 
there would be little or no harvest opportunity when abundance is 
projected to be below \1/2\ SMSY.
    Response: The effects of implementing Amendment 16 on sub-basin 
populations within the Klamath Basin, including the de minimis fishing 
provisions, are acknowledged and considered in the EA by incorporating 
the analysis from Salmon FMP Amendment 15 into Amendment 16. The 
control rule proposed in Amendment 16 is more prescriptive than that 
contained in Amendment 15. Unlike Amendment 15 the control rule defines 
maximum allowable exploitation rates at all abundance levels. The de 
minimis provisions were designed, in part, to account for impacts in 
fall season fisheries that sometimes occur before the status of the 
returning brood is known. In addition, the control rule lists several 
qualitative considerations that the Council must consider when 
recommending de minimis exploitation rates in a given year. The first 
of these considerations relates to genetic concerns and the effect to 
sub-stocks at low abundance. Another consideration, and one reason for 
providing qualitative considerations for some limited harvest at low 
abundance, relates to a recognition of the minimal needs for tribal 
fisheries. NMFS believes that the effect of these considerations are 
largely coincident with the views expressed by the tribes and that in 
fact there would be little or no opportunity for harvest at abundance 
levels that are on the order of 20,000 fish or less. It is worth noting 
that there has never been a forecast of abundance as low as 22,000. 
Nonetheless, NMFS has added language to the final rule in response to 
the tribes' request to emphasize this expectation.
    The Council considered alternative versions of the control rule 
that would have reduced de minimis fishing to zero at various levels of 
abundance. However, the Council ultimately recommended an alternative 
that allowed for consideration of some limited, non-zero harvest at low 
abundance coupled with the qualitative considerations that would be 
used for making the necessary recommendations. NMFS' decision here is 
whether or not to approve Amendment 16, including the de minimis 
fishing provisions, based on assessment of whether the amendment is 
consistent with the MSA and other applicable law. NMFS cannot, in this 
action, modify the Amendment. NMFS believes that the control rule 
recommended for Klamath River fall Chinook through Amendment 16, 
including the de minimis fishing provisions, are consistent with the 
requirements of the MSA, including the requirement to maintain the 
capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis, and other 
applicable laws. As noted above, NMFS has modified the regulatory text 
in this final rule to emphasize our expectation that there will be 
little or no harvest when abundance is very low. The distinction 
between the zero levels of fishing that the tribes request under rare 
circumstances, and the single digit exploitation rates that might be 
allowed under Amendment 16 is inconsequential from a biological 
perspective and does not affect the general conclusion regarding the 
capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis.

Changes From Proposed Rule

    This final rule includes changes to the existing regulations at 50 
CFR 660.401 et seq. to implement Amendment 16 and additional updates. 
These are largely unchanged from the proposed rule; those that have 
changed from the proposed rule are described below.
     Sec.  660.408--Annual actions
    Language reinforcing that ACLs are not to be exceeded even when de 
minimis control rules apply has been added.
     Sec.  660.410--Conservation objectives, ACLs, and de 
minimis control rules
    Section title is changed and language added to include additional 
considerations for implementation of de minimis control rules and to 
clarify the relationship between de minimis control rules, ACLs and 
conservation objectives.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is 
consistent with Amendment 16, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An EA has been prepared for Amendment 16; a copy of the EA is 
available online at https://www.pcouncil.org/. The EA includes a 
regulatory impact review.
    NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for 
this action to assess its impact on small entities. The FRFA 
incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 
prepared for the draft EA, summarizes the significant issues raised by 
the public comments in response to the IRFA, responds to those 
comments, and summarizes of the analyses completed to support the 
action. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a 
summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), follows.
    Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP 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 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 under Amendment 16 also specifies criteria to 
determine when overfishing may be occurring and when a stock may have 
become overfished. The Salmon FMP also specifies required actions when 
these conditions are triggered. Amendment 16 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

[[Page 81857]]

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 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, they 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

[[Page 81858]]

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 a 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 are not expected 
to meet any of the tests of having a ``significant'' economic impact on 
a ``substantial number'' of small entities. The comments that NMFS 
received on this final rule are discussed above. None of these comments 
addressed the IRFA. There are no additional projected reporting, 
record-keeping, and other compliance requirements of this final rule 
not already envisioned within the scope of current requirements. 
References to collections-of-information made in this action are 
intended to properly cite those collections in Federal regulations, and 
not to alter their effect in any way. 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). NMFS previously concluded that 
Pacific Coast salmon fisheries would have no effect on ESA-listed North 
American green sturgeon (biological opinion dated April 30, 2007) or 
Pacific eulachon (biological opinion dated April 30, 2010). These 
biological opinions are available online (https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/ESA-Consultations/Biological-Opinions.cfm).
    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.

    Dated: December 22, 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 amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

0
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.

0
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.
* * * * *

0
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.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  660.405, revise paragraphs (b) and (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.
* * * * *

[[Page 81859]]


0
5. In Sec.  660.408,
0
a. Revise paragraph (a);
0
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;
0
c. Add a new paragraph (b);
0
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 met, as described 
in Sec.  660.410, except that where the de minimis fishing control 
rules described in Sec.  660.410(c) apply, conservation objectives may 
not be met, provided ACLs are met. 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 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

[[Page 81860]]

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.
    (l) * * *
    (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.


0
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:
* * * * *

0
7. Revise Sec.  660.410 to read as follows:


Sec.  660.410  Conservation objectives, ACLs, and de minimis control 
rules.

    (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, or where the 
de minimis control rules described in paragraph (c) of this section 
apply.
    (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 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.
    (c) De minimis control rules. Klamath River fall Chinook and 
Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon have the same form of de minimis 
control rule described in the FMP, which allows for limited fishing 
impacts when abundance falls below SMSY. The c