[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22078]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 7, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 940844-4244; I.D. 082394C]
RIN 0648-AG75

 

West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Northwest Emergency Assistance Plan

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed program for financial assistance.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a program, the Northwest Emergency Assistance 
Plan (NEAP), that would provide $12 million of assistance to salmon 
fishermen in the Pacific Northwest who have been affected by a fishery 
resource disaster during 1992 through 1994, while providing 
conservation benefits to salmon resources. NMFS proposes that these 
disaster relief funds, which were made available under the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA), be applied toward the 
following three programs, administered by the following intermediaries: 
A vessel permit buyout program--Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife; and a habitat restoration program--Soil Conservation Service 
(SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and a data 
collection program--Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), 
both of which would provide jobs to commercial salmon fishermen. The 
intent is to provide assistance to those fishermen who have recently 
participated in the salmon fisheries, who were substantially reliant on 
West Coast salmon resources for their income, and who suffered an 
uninsured loss as a result of a significant reduction in income because 
of the resource disaster.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 22, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Stephen P. Freese, Northwest 
Emergency Assistance Plan, Trade and Industry Services Division, 
Northwest Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, BIN 
C15700, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Morehead, (301) 713-2358, or 
Stephen Freese, (206) 526-6113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 26, 1994, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) declared a 
fishery disaster and, with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
announced a $15.7 million emergency aid package for Oregon, Washington, 
and northern California. This aid is intended to alleviate the economic 
hardship imposed on individuals and communities by the collapse of 
salmon stocks in fishing areas along the Northwest coast. Included in 
this package is $12 million of aid that was made available, under the 
Secretary's declaration that a fishery resource disaster exists under 
section 308(d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, 16 
U.S.C. 4107(d), to undertake the NEAP program as described in this 
notice.
    In addition, $3 million is being administered by the Rural 
Development Administration (RDA) of USDA. Grants by RDA will be made to 
public bodies and private nonprofit corporations to finance development 
of small business enterprises in cities under 50,000 in population. The 
Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce 
is making $882,000 available, instead of the $700,000 originally 
announced as part of the $15.7 million aid package. Grants by EDA have 
been earmarked to communities for tourism development and to tribes for 
stream reclamation.
    In addition to the $15.7 million package, aid to salmon fishermen 
is also being provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and 
the Farmers Home Administration, in the form of loans and debt 
restructuring programs, and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) in the form of unemployment 
assistance, up to $14 million, to dislocated Washington and Oregon 
fishermen who are unemployed as a direct result of the continuing 
effects of El Nino on salmon fishing. A request for such aid for 
California fishermen is under review.
    On behalf of the Secretary, NMFS published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28838), to solicit 
public comment on issues to be considered in development and 
implementation of the $12 million NEAP program. The comment period, as 
modified on July 13, 1994 (59 FR 35674), closed July 15, 1994; comments 
received are responded to in this notice. At the time the ANPR was 
prepared, NMFS anticipated implementing the assistance program through 
rulemaking. However, because codification of the program is unnecessary 
to comply with statutory requirements, implementation will be achieved 
through procedures proposed in this notice. Following consideration of 
all comments received, NMFS will publish a notice of the final NEAP 
program in the Federal Register.
    In addition to the ANPR, NOAA's Office of Sustainable Development 
and Intergovernmental Affairs (SDI) arranged a series of eight town 
meetings designed to gather information about the effects of the 
decline in the salmon resources on local communities and fishermen. 
Meetings were held between June 1 and June 10, 1994, in Fort Bragg and 
Crescent City, CA; Coos Bay, Newport, Portland, and Astoria, OR; and 
Port Angeles and Westport, WA. More than 700 people attended the 
meetings and provided more than 37 hours of testimony.
    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comment on the 
limitations, terms, and conditions that the Secretary has determined 
are necessary to administer the program, within the conditions in 
section 308(d) of the IFA.

Fishery Resource Disaster

    Although West Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California) salmon 
stocks experience annual fluctuations in abundance, stock abundances in 
the last few years have been exceptionally low. West Coast salmon 
species are coho, chinook, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon. Landings of 
chinook and coho, have declined significantly, from roughly 6.2 million 
fish in 1988 to 2 million fish in 1993. Additional information 
regarding the declines in chinook and coho can be found in the ANPR and 
is not repeated here.
    Chinook salmon fisheries in the ocean waters off Washington and 
Oregon north of Cape Falcon were closed in 1994 by the Federal 
Government. Other salmon fisheries in the ocean waters off central and 
southern Oregon and northern California are at reduced levels and are 
closed to fishing for coho. It is predicted that 1994 ocean salmon 
landings, coastwide, will amount to only 289,000 chinook and zero coho. 
The fishing seasons for inside fisheries are the most restrictive ever 
imposed in many areas. Recent estimates of the 1994 ocean chinook and 
coho fisheries, compared to 1993 catches, indicate that, for the two 
species combined, cumulative catches through July are down 95 percent 
in Washington; down 76 percent in Oregon; and up 19 percent in 
California. California catches reflect increased availability of salmon 
off southern and central California, south of Point Arena. In general, 
California catches are significantly below 1988-89 catch levels, when 
environmental conditions were more favorable. Harvests of salmon off 
northern California have been extremely limited--commercial salmon 
fisheries are generally closed in this area for 1994, except for post-
peak season openings in September.
    Despite increasingly stringent management measures enacted in 
recent years to protect these salmon stocks, they have reached a 
critical stage of depletion, due in part to environmental conditions 
unfavorable to salmon survival that include: (1) An extended drought in 
California, in combination with the already depressed condition of 
northern California stocks; (2) less than normal snowpack throughout 
the western United States; (3) drought followed by extensive flooding 
in the State of Washington; and (4) poor upwelling, due to an extreme 
El Nino ocean warming event during 1992-1993, all of which are believed 
to have been responsible for extremely poor salmon survival.

Comments and Responses

    Comments on the ANPR were received from 27 entities. Many of the 
comments described the hardships the salmon disaster has caused to 
individuals, Indian tribes, and communities. Several commenters stated 
that the proposed funds are inadequate. Several also expressed 
appreciation for the Department of Commerce's efforts. In addition, SDI 
received 59 letters from affected parties, mainly as a result of the 
series of town meetings held to get public input on ways to address the 
disaster. Correspondents included fishermen, trade associations, 
nonprofit organizations, state and local government officials and 
agencies (including the Governors of Oregon and Washington), and 
members of Congress.
    The ANPR requested comments on six specific questions. The 
following comments were received in response to those questions.
    1. What would be appropriate goals of the program? How might salmon 
abundance be increased through this program?
    Comments: An Indian tribe, two individual members of another tribe, 
and a charterboat operator indicated that the goal should be complete 
restoration of salmon stocks. The two tribe members suggested 
coordinating emergency mandates to achieve this goal. The Indian tribe 
stated that loss of the salmon fishery cannot be mitigated by awarding 
money, and the individual noted that financial aid to commercial 
fishermen will not increase salmon numbers.
    Another individual said that the program should destroy or modify 
dams to ensure salmon passage.
    Response: The goal of the proposed program is to compensate 
individual fishermen for their uninsured losses, while also protecting 
the long-term viability of the fishery resources.
    2. What should be additional eligibility criteria, within statutory 
constraints, to receive a grant?
    Comments: A coastal zone management association and a state senator 
said that grants should go to individuals actively engaged in the 
commercial salmon fishery (ocean troll, ocean charterboat, and lower 
Columbia River gillnet). A separate allocation should be made to each 
state, based only on commercial economic data reflecting the relative 
economic declines, e.g., base years of 1986-90 compared with El Nino 
years of 1991-93. Non-charterboat recreational data should not be 
included.
    The Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force commented that the 
maximum grant amount should be $15,000, not $100,000, to help more 
people; the $2 million ceiling for the past year's income, as contained 
in the IFA, is unrealistic; and, making fishermen eligible for 
unemployment compensation would be helpful.
    One fisherman stated that aid should go to dislocated fishermen 
first, and not to related businesses. Criteria should include being a 
participant in the Lower 48 salmon fishery for 50 percent or more of 
income, with priority given to those who do not have an alternate 
fishery to fall back on, and those who need to update safety equipment.
    Another fisherman suggested a buyout of $60,000 for current permit 
holders that have been active for the last 10 years, and a buyout of 
$20,000 for nonactive permit holders, defined as those who have not 
sold salmon within the last 3 years. Deckhands who can document work on 
a salmon troller within the last 3 years should receive a cash grant of 
$7,000. In addition, there should be a moratorium on fishing for 3 
years, in exchange for a $25,000 grant per year.
    A charterboat operator stated that criteria need to be consistent 
coastwide and that, to be eligible, fishermen should have at least 25 
percent (up to 50 percent) of income averaged over the last 5 years 
from salmon fishing. Also, salmon landing databases should be used to 
determine eligibility; meaningful levels of assistance should be 
provided to displaced ocean salmon fishermen prior to aid to inland 
participants; grants should be a minimum of $5,000; and qualification 
criteria should be generated by those directly involved in salmon 
fishing.
    A boat puller stated that boat pullers/boat hands should receive 
consideration for aid.
    One Indian tribe wrote to request that NMFS compensate each member 
of the tribe for the loss of the fishery.
    A businessman (non-fisherman) commented that owners of failed 
troller operations should not receive preference over owners of other 
small businesses that have failed due to the salmon disaster.
    A county economic development council commented that local 
government agencies should be eligible for assistance.
    Three Indian tribes commented that tribal governments should be 
eligible for grants under the program.
    An individual stated that aid should go only to those in commercial 
fishing for at least 10 consecutive years. Associations should not be 
eligible for awards, to prevent fishermen who are association members 
from getting double benefits.
    A tribal individual recommended eligibility for tribal members of 
one of the four treaty tribes along the Columbia River and its 
tributaries.
    Response: NMFS is proposing the following eligibility criteria: 
Participation in the commercial fishery in either 1992 or 1993; at 
least 50 percent of gross income from the commercial fishery in the 
base year, selected from 1986-1989, used to determine a loss; at least 
a 50 percent decline in commercial fishery income from the base year as 
compared to commercial fishery income in 1992 or 1993, whichever is 
greater; and, if single, 1993 gross income of less than $25,000, or if 
married, combined gross income of less than $50,000. Persons receiving 
a permit buyout would not be eligible for the jobs programs. The 
disaster relief funds are being made available under the IFA, which 
excludes government entities from receiving aid; tribal and local 
governments are ineligible for this program. However, individual tribal 
commercial fishermen are eligible to apply for the NEAP program.
    3. If fishing permits are relinquished, how can their further 
reissuance be handled by the states?
    Comments: A charterboat operator stated that the total number of 
permits should be reduced, beginning with the inactive permits. Under 
no circumstance should any new permits be issued.
    An individual suggested waiting until salmon numbers increase, and 
then giving first priority for new permits to former permit holders who 
relinquished theirs.
    A tribe member stated that this should be coordinated with the 
treaty tribes and other entities involved, after studying the natural 
and biological effects.
    Response: NMFS is proposing that, as a condition for receipt of 
buyout funds under this program, the administering authority must 
ensure that reissuance of purchased permits will not be allowed.
    4. What should be the basis for the valuation of the permits, and 
should inactive permits be valuated differently?
    Comments: A fisherman stated that permit value should relate to the 
current market value of Alaska troll permits that are for sale.
    A charterboat operator commented that this should be decided by 
industry as a function of criteria for a permit buyout. Valuation 
should logically reflect the level of activity in the fishery, i.e., 
greater value for the more active permits.
    An individual stated that all active permits should have the same 
value; inactive permits should be valueless.
    A tribal individual's response to this question was ``economic 
hardship, and education.''
    Response: NMFS is proposing not to set a value for permits, but to 
use a sealed bid process for conducting a permit buyout. However, in no 
case may a buyout recipient receive benefits in excess of 75 percent of 
the total uninsured losses incurred for the disaster period, or 
$100,000, whichever is less.
    5. What would be appropriate documentation to determine the extent 
of uninsured losses?
    Comments: One fisherman stated that a notarized statement from the 
vessel's captain should be required for determining aid to deckhands.
    Two commenters, a fisherman and a fisherman's wife, while not 
directly addressing this question, mentioned in their comments that 
they are willing to provide documentation such as tax records to 
demonstrate their need.
    A charterboat operator stated that salmon landing tickets, income 
tax records, logbooks, charter office schedule logs, etc., would be 
appropriate documentation. Grant recipients must be willing to sign 
affidavits that the information is accurate.
    An individual stated that applicants should provide a record of the 
number of fish caught in previous years and those presently caught, 
with a value assigned per fish species. Documentation should be in an 
affidavit, so that penalties could be imposed in case of perjury.
    A tribe member stated that there is no way to determine accurately 
the overall extent of uninsured losses, the funds are insufficient, but 
that a ``ballpark'' figure could be used to establish economic basis.
    Response: NMFS is proposing to consider any or all of the 
documentation suggested in the comments, and is also proposing to 
require an affidavit that the information provided is accurate.
    6. What should be the starting and ending dates of the disaster 
period for purposes of awarding grants, and what factors should the 
Secretary consider in determining these dates?
    Comments: A charterboat operator stated that the disaster period 
should begin as soon as administratively possible once criteria are 
decided on, and extend at least to the end of calendar year 1994.
    An individual stated the disaster period should begin on January 1, 
1995, and end ``when the fish numbers equal those existing in 1972.''
    A tribe member stated that, for the four treaty tribes, the 
problems began in 1977.
    A charterboat operator wanted assistance extended beyond 1994, 
until normal fishing seasons are established.
    Response: For the purposes of the NEAP program, NMFS is proposing 
that the disaster period begin on January 1, 1992, and end on December 
31, 1994. An ending date for the disaster is necessary in order to 
calculate the amount of the uninsured commercial losses eligible for 
disaster relief under the NEAP.
    In addition to comments responding to the ANPR questions, the 
following comments were received:
    Comments: Thirteen commenters, including two Indian tribes, a trade 
association, a coastal zone management association, the Pacific 
Fisheries Legislative Task Force, a state senator, four fishermen, two 
charterboat operators, and the California Department of Fish and Game 
(CDF&G), were in favor of direct grants to fishermen, for maintenance, 
moorage, safety improvements to vessels, or without any conditions for 
use. One of these commenters also recommended grants for facilities 
such as ports.
    Several of these comments contained specific recommendations 
regarding the allocation of grant funds among the three affected 
states; conditions for eligibility, emphasizing that grants should be 
provided to those most active in the Northwest salmon fishery and those 
most in need; minimum and maximum grant amounts; and organizations 
through which funds should be channeled. Two tribal governments 
requested direct aid under this proposal; one asked for funds for two 
specific programs; the other recommended tribal administration of grant 
funds. This latter tribe further recommended that 65 percent of the 
total aid go to Washington State, and of that allocation, 50 percent go 
to tribes in the State.
    Response: Given the scope and limited financial resources available 
for NEAP, NMFS has attempted to devise a program to address both short-
term individual needs and long-term needs of the industry and the 
resources. FEMA and the DOL program are accepting applications for 
direct grants from individuals affected by this situation. The IFA does 
not allow direct grants to tribal governments.
    Comments: Eight commenters supported a program to employ fishermen 
in habitat restoration efforts, including a coastal zone management 
association, a State senator, an Indian tribe, and CDF&G. A trade 
association stated that funds should be administered through the Salmon 
Stamp Fund in California and the PSMFC in Oregon and Washington, and 
opposed use of the SCS or RCD or community agencies. One charterboat 
operator supported habitat restoration jobs. Another charterboat 
operator and a fisherman, while supporting habitat restoration, noted 
these are costly long-term projects; the charterboat operator 
recommended that Congress give habitat restoration at least equal 
priority to Super Fund projects. The Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task 
Force expressed support for nonprofit and citizen group efforts in this 
area. A trade association opposed retraining on the grounds that only 
low-paying jobs were available.
    Response: NMFS concurs that a program employing fishermen to 
restore habitat would help address the short-term financial needs of 
the participants who lost income due to the disaster. NMFS also 
recognizes that habitat restoration is a long-term undertaking, but one 
that is needed to achieve recovery of the fishery. NMFS is proposing 
that the habitat restoration program be administered through the SCS, 
which has access to private lands in coastal areas where a need to 
restore habitat exists; an established track record in habitat 
restoration projects; and a history of working with Indian tribes.
    Comments: One fisherman, a trade association, a coastal zone 
management association, and a State senator supported employing 
fishermen to conduct at-sea surveys, stream monitoring and data 
collection to compensate for lost income.
    Response: NMFS concurs that a data collection jobs program would 
address some of the short- and long-term needs of the fishing industry 
and of the resource. Data collection jobs provide an option for those 
unable to do habitat restoration work. NMFS is proposing to use the 
PSMFC to administer the data collection jobs program.
    Comments: Two fishermen commented in support of a permit buyout, 
with one recommending that all of the funds be used for this purpose, 
after determining how many permits can remain in the fishery. An 
economic development council favored buyout of both permits and 
vessels, to be implemented only if additional funds are made available. 
A charterboat operator supported an unspecified buyout for ``businesses 
reliant on the salmon fishing.'' One individual noted that buying 
inactive permits is ineffective.
    A trade association strongly opposed permit buyouts, citing lack of 
funds and the need to buy out both vessels and permits. However, this 
group stated that a permit leaseback for a fixed time period might be 
necessary. A charterboat operator stated that permit buyouts or 
leasebacks are impossible at this funding level, and would not reduce 
future harvests, since only the least active would turn in their 
permits. He also noted that, since charterboats in Oregon and 
California are not under limited entry permits, reduction of the 
charter fleet would not reduce recreational effort. A coastal zone 
management association and a state senator stated that buyout or 
leaseback was an inappropriate use of the limited funds.
    Response: NMFS believes that a program to buy out fishing permits 
is needed to provide immediate relief to fishermen and to reduce the 
number of participants in the fishery. NMFS is proposing to allocate $4 
million to a buyout program. NMFS recognizes that permit buyouts would 
be feasible only in Washington at this time, since it is the only one 
of the affected states that currently has a limited entry system 
without a fixed number of permits. California and Oregon laws provide 
that new permits be issued to replace permits lost, in order to 
maintain an established number of existing permits.
    Comments: One fisherman supported a vessel buyout; another favored 
either a boat buyout or permit leaseback. A third fisherman was 
strongly opposed to vessel buyouts, citing lack of funds and his belief 
that Washington State is trying to eliminate the commercial industry in 
favor of recreational vessels. CDF&G also opposed a vessel buyout, as 
their State Code mandates restoration, not elimination, of fisheries.
    Response: NMFS believes that, given the limited resources for the 
NEAP program, the buyout program should apply to permits and not to 
vessels. Vessels could potentially be used in other fisheries. 
Relinquishing permits would have the desired effect of removing 
participants from the commercial fishery for salmon.
    Comments: A county economic development council supported efforts 
in development, diversification, and tourism promotion. However, two 
individuals involved in fishing opposed any funding of local 
governments, or businesses for tourism or other development projects. 
One of these expressed concern that tourism efforts would promote 
recreational opportunities in fisheries where commercial fishermen have 
been ``regulated off the stocks.''
    Response: EDA has allocated $882,000, primarily for tourism 
development activities in local communities and for reclamation 
projects in tribal communities. Tourism projects will not be funded 
under the proposed NEAP program, the purpose of which is to compensate 
individual commercial fishermen for uninsured losses suffered as a 
direct result of the West Coast salmon fishery disaster.
    Comments: Two individuals, one of these a member of an Indian 
tribe, commented that dams on spawning rivers are the main cause of the 
salmon disaster.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that there are factors other than natural 
causes that are responsible for the decline in the West Coast salmon 
resources. The proposed NEAP program is intended to address some of 
these factors, including habitat restoration.
    Comments: A fisherman, a member of an Indian tribe, and another 
individual questioned the quality of the data used by NMFS in the ANPR.
    Response: NMFS reviewed several studies that attempted to determine 
impacts of the disaster on various sectors. NMFS used the best data 
available at the time the ANPR was drafted.
    Comment: The Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 
provided an economic analysis of the impact of the salmon fishery, 
indicating that Washington's loss is approximately 65 percent of the 
total, and probably much greater when tribal impacts are considered.
    Response: After careful consideration of many factors, which are 
discussed elsewhere in this document, NMFS is proposing total target 
distributions among the affected states as follows: For Washington, 
$6.6 million; for Oregon and California, $2.7 million each.
    Comments: Two charterboat operators and a member of an Indian tribe 
made recommendations related to fishery management needs, including 
development of quotas and specific closure recommendations.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that there are many management issues to 
be considered in rebuilding the salmon stocks. However, such issues are 
beyond the scope of this action and should be raised in the appropriate 
fishery management forums.
    Comment: One Indian tribe noted that the conditions impacting the 
coho and chinook stocks also affect the availability of Fraser River 
sockeye to tribal fishermen.
    Response: The sockeye salmon fishery is not excluded from the 
proposed program; all five species of salmon in the West Coast 
fisheries are included.
    Comment: A member of an Indian tribe mentioned the increasing U.S 
interception of Canadian salmon.
    Response: The United States and Canada are continuing to negotiate 
on this issue.

Proposed NEAP Program

I. Statutory Authority

    Section 308(d) of the IFA, codified at 16 U.S.C. 4107(d), 
authorizes the Secretary to award grants to persons engaged in 
commercial fisheries, for uninsured losses determined by the Secretary 
to have been suffered as a direct result of a fishery resource 
disaster. Set forth below are the conditions and definitions 
established by the Secretary to implement the programs described in 
part III.
    The IFA requires that ``the Secretary shall determine the extent, 
and the beginning and ending dates of any fishery resource disaster'' 
(16 U.S.C. 4107(d)(2)). Although there have been declining trends in 
landings from the salmon fisheries in recent years, a sharp decline did 
not occur until after 1991. This sharp decline coincided with an 
extreme El Nino ocean warming event during 1992-993. The 1994 season is 
the first season in which all ocean fisheries for coho were closed; the 
projected chinook harvest for ocean fisheries indicates a new record 
low will be achieved, eclipsing the previous record low in 1992. 
Therefore, for the purposes of the proposed NEAP program, the beginning 
and ending dates of the fishery resource disaster are January 1, 1992, 
and December 31, 1994, respectively.
    The extent of this disaster includes the waters and habitat 
associated with the salmon fisheries of northern California, Oregon and 
Washington.
Proposed NEAP Program

II. Definitions

    For the purposes of the proposed NEAP program:
    Commercial fishermen are vessel owners, operators, or crew directly 
involved in the commercial fishery.
    Commercial fishery is defined as the salmon fishery off the coasts 
and in the state waters of Washington, Oregon, and California for 
purposes of either selling the salmon harvested or providing a vessel 
for hire that carries recreational fishermen to engage in fishing for a 
fee (e.g., charterboats and headboats). Subsistence fisheries do not 
fall under this definition.
    Commercial fishery income is earned income derived from 
participation in the commercial fishery.
    Gross income includes all income received in the form of money, 
goods, property, and services that is not exempt from Federal income 
tax.
    Loss is defined as a loss of income not subject to Federal or state 
compensation and determined by a multi-step procedure, as follows:
    1. The applicant (commercial fisherman) selects a base year from 
the years 1986 through 1989.
    2. The applicant determines his/her commercial fishery income from 
1992 and 1993, and selects whichever is greater.
    3. If the amount of the applicant's commercial fishery income from 
1992 or 1993, as selected in step 2 above, is less than the applicant's 
commercial fishery income from the base year, then a loss has occurred. 
The amount of the annual loss is the difference between the applicant's 
base year commercial fishery income and that from 1992 or 1993, as 
selected in step 2 above.
    4. The amount of the annual loss calculated in step 3 above is 
multiplied by three to determine the applicant's total loss for the 
disaster period.

    (Note: The Federal assistance programs announced in this notice 
are limited to compensation to commercial fishermen for uninsured 
losses that have not been addressed through compensation from other 
state or Federal programs.)

    Salmon means chinook (king) salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho 
(silver) salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink (humpback) salmon 
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum (dog) salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and 
sockeye (red) salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).

III. Program Descriptions

A. Vessel Permit Buyout Program
    This program is intended to compensate commercial fishermen for 
uninsured lost income and to aid the long-term viability of the fishery 
resource by reducing fishing effort on the stocks. Federal support for 
a buyout program stems from recommendations for reducing long-term 
effects on the salmon resources, such as the recommendations of the 
Snake River Salmon Recovery Team, which was appointed by NMFS to 
develop, independently, a recovery plan for Snake River sockeye, 
spring/summer chinook, and fall chinook under the Endangered Species 
Act, and to take into account the conservation of other species in the 
Columbia River Basin. Federal support for this particular type of 
buyout system is also based on a review of various academic and 
governmental reports concerning past experiences with various buyout 
programs, and on discussions with state officials, some of whom have 
experience with past buyout programs. Given the high number of slightly 
active permit holders, a buyout program predicated on removing the 
maximum number of permits in order to reduce capacity is appropriate 
for the salmon fisheries.
    The buyout program is generally modeled after the 1983-1986 Oregon 
Columbia River Gill Net Salmon Fleet Reduction Program Oregon Program. 
The Oregon program had low administrative costs and was instituted 
quickly; it avoided the difficult, contentious, and time-consuming task 
of assessing the market value of vessels and gear. The Oregon program 
was based on the premise that fishermen, rather than the government, 
are in the best position to determine suitable alternative uses or 
buyers for vessels after permits are sold. Also, the inherent 
difficulties in reducing effort by attempting to buy out the most 
productive vessels are avoided. There are many reported instances where 
``highliners'' (the most successful vessels) have been bought out at a 
high price, only to return to the fleet via the purchase of a low-
priced permit from a marginal producer. Consequently, the effort-
reduction goals of the vessel buyout programs have been thwarted.
    NMFS will enter into cooperative agreements with qualified 
government entities that will serve as administrative intermediaries. 
If more than one government entity wants to participate in this 
program, NMFS may select a primary administrative intermediary to 
undertake the administration of the entire program. Qualified 
government entities are those governments that administer limited-entry 
commercial salmon fisheries and can ensure that permits bought out will 
not be replaced.
    Offers to sell gillnet or troll permits from commercial fishermen 
who participate under limited entry systems of qualified government 
entities will be solicited by the administrative intermediary. These 
commercial fishermen will need to demonstrate an uninsured loss as a 
result of the fishery resource disaster, as defined for the purposes of 
NEAP.
    Permits will be selected for buyout based on a sealed bid process. 
Starting with the lowest offers, permits will be purchased until the 
funds are exhausted. Maximum purchase prices for these permits will be 
limited to amounts that ensure that the offerer (commercial fisherman) 
will not be receiving total benefits from this and any other program 
that exceed 75 percent of his or her uninsured and otherwise 
uncompensated commercial fishery loss resulting from this fishery 
resource disaster, and in no case more than $100,000 per individual. 
The administrative intermediary, in consultation with NMFS, reserves 
the right to reject any and all bids.
    Only Washington State has indicated a strong interest in a buyout 
program and currently has a limited entry program that meets the 
program requirements. Therefore, NMFS proposes that Washington State 
would function as the sole administrative intermediary. However, if 
another state or tribal governmental entity has in place an appropriate 
limited-entry system and wants to participate in the buyout program, 
NMFS will consider expanding the program accordingly. Washington State, 
in consultation with NMFS, shall design a permit buyout program that is 
consistent with state and Federal management and grant regulations, 
including a ``permit offer'' application that allows assessment of the 
uninsured loss of the applicant, any receipt of benefits by the 
applicant from all other assistance programs associated with this 
disaster, and the gross income of the applicant in 1993 (or, if 
married, the combined gross income of both spouses). The administrative 
costs charged by Washington State shall be kept at a minimum; such 
costs should not exceed 7.5 percent of the total funds distributed for 
this program.
    Based on estimates developed by the Washington Department of Fish 
and Game, approximately $4 million would be required to reduce the 
Washington State troll and gillnet fleets by 50 percent each, based on 
an allocation of $1 million for troll permit purchases and $3 million 
for gillnet permit purchases. It is anticipated that the final 
development of this program can be initiated in early October 1994.
B. Habitat Restoration Program
    There is considerable support among commercial fishermen for a 
habitat restoration program that would hire eligible commercial 
fishermen (i.e., those who suffered uninsured losses as a result of the 
West Coast salmon fishery disaster), both tribal and non-tribal, at a 
``living wage'' to perform work that has a long-term beneficial impact 
on the habitat of the salmon. Generally, ``living wages'' are wages 
commensurate with the prevailing rate for similar work conducted in a 
specific locality. Depending on the locality and the skills required, 
living wage may range up to $10-$15 per hour. The types of work 
fishermen might do under this program would involve the operation of 
backhoes and skiploaders, and undertaking the necessary plantings of 
vegetation. Generally, fishermen will need 1 to 2 days of training. 
Commercial fishermen who meet the eligibility criteria would be hired 
on a first-come, first-served basis by contractors associated with 
projects that have been solicited and approved by the administrative 
intermediary.
    Habitat restoration projects are to take place in areas 
geographically accessible to displaced fishermen, which include the 
coastal counties from Mendocino County, CA, to Whatcom County, WA; 
Clallam County, WA; and counties bordering on Puget Sound or the 
Columbia River. If in close commuting distance, projects can be 
undertaken in other counties, if they contain habitat important to the 
salmon resources associated with the fishery resource disaster.
    NMFS intends to enter into an agreement with the SCS to serve as 
the administrative intermediary for the habitat restoration program. 
The SCS would enter into agreements with the appropriate state 
conservation agency, conservation commission, or association of 
conservation districts, who, in turn, would develop: A grant 
solicitation process, including guidelines for making a grant 
application; a grant application review process; deadlines for grant 
applications; and a monitoring and evaluation process. Each state 
conservation agency, conservation commission, or association of 
conservation districts would develop agreements with state employment 
departments to establish a program to determine the eligibility of 
commercial fishermen according to the criteria described elsewhere in 
this notice.
    NMFS has selected the SCS as the administrative intermediary 
because it has the necessary expertise, experience, and other desirable 
features, as well as the ability to implement this program quickly by 
making use of existing governmental organizations, while avoiding 
duplication of effort. The SCS has an established relationship with 
conservation districts, which have project selection networks that 
extend to the local level and can be used for soliciting proposals. SCS 
provides technical assistance to the conservation districts through its 
district offices, which are widely distributed and are typically at the 
county level. Many of these conservation districts have previously 
received Federal grants, and arrangements are in place to receive 
grants under this project. For each district, there are approximately 
five officials who are landowners and are either appointed or elected 
via the general election process. These officials make recommendations 
concerning private lands. The SCS reviews these recommendations and 
provides technical expertise in the areas of forestry, range 
management, conservation, agronomy, etc.
    The SCS has significant expertise in habitat restoration and 
enhancement on private lands and on the grounds contracting capability. 
This is important, since almost all Federal funding has gone toward 
restoration of habitat on public lands. The SCS has demonstrated the 
capability and the flexibility to work with diverse organizations and 
proposal applicants, such as other Federal agencies, state agencies, 
and local governments. The SCS is already involved in the prevention of 
soil erosion through its watershed identification, habitat restoration, 
preservation, and enhancement projects in Oregon, California, and 
Washington. The SCS is also already aware of Northwest salmon habitat 
issues, as evidenced in working relationships with the Bonneville Power 
Administration and the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council), and 
has initiated a program for habitat restoration in response to the 
Council's comprehensive strategy for salmon and steelhead restoration 
in the Columbia River Basin.
    A number of SCS studies have already been developed that might be 
submitted for the review process. For example, in the California 
Trinity River District, there is a project that may employ up to 75 
fishermen. A similar project, which could employ another 40 fishermen, 
has been developed for the Garcia River.
    While it is NMFS' intention and desire to make financial assistance 
available as soon as possible, it should be noted that, due to the 
season and the need for project review, planning, and implementing, it 
is unlikely that many fishermen will start receiving wages in this 
program prior to April 1, 1995. Every effort to expedite the program 
will be made.
C. Data Collection Jobs Program
    Commercial fishermen have voiced considerable interest in a jobs 
program associated with collecting information or performing tasks that 
would be of use to scientists and fishery managers. Under this proposed 
program, eligible commercial fishermen, both tribal and non-tribal, 
would be hired on a first-come, first-served basis, at a ``living 
wage,'' up to $10-15 per hour, to perform various tasks by contractors 
associated with approved projects. Examples of these tasks include 
collecting tissue samples for genetic research, measuring parameters of 
the ocean environment (temperature, upwelling, etc.), performing 
baseline surveys of habitat, participating in test fisheries to 
determine ocean fish distribution, and assisting hatchery technicians 
in collecting information or in improving hatchery operations. 
Commercial fishing vessels may also be chartered to do research. For 
some tasks, as with the habitat restoration program, training of 
fishermen will be required.
    Proposals would be competitively solicited by the administrative 
intermediary from states, tribes, academia, and industry or 
conservation organizations for projects to be considered under this 
data collection jobs program. These proposals would be ranked according 
to criteria established in section IV of this announcement. To ensure 
that this program complements the habitat restoration program and does 
not duplicate other Federal assistance programs, representatives from 
NMFS and SCS will be members of this review panel. Priority will be 
given to projects that provide the greatest benefits to displaced 
fishermen; address the sustainability or rebuilding of anadromous 
species, especially threatened or endangered salmon stocks; address 
Federal, Pacific Fishery Management Council, PSMFC, or state fishery 
research needs; are based on sound scientific methodology; and have low 
administrative costs. Applicants must demonstrate ability to manage and 
account for Federal funds.
    NMFS has chosen the PSMFC as the administrative intermediary for 
the data jobs program in the three affected states. The PSMFC is an 
interstate fisheries commission established by Federal statute in 1947. 
It is a federally authorized forum, wherein its member states 
(California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska) can legally enter 
into agreements and programs extending beyond state boundaries. The 
PSMFC is run by 15 Commissioners (three per member state), who include 
the state fishery agency director, a state legislator, and an appointee 
by the Governor from each state. The goal of the PSMFC is ``to promote 
the conservation, development and management of Pacific coast fishery 
resources through coordinated regional research, monitoring, and 
utilization.''
    The Commissioners have set as one of the objectives of the PSMFC 
the facilitation of research and management projects relating to 
interstate fisheries. To achieve this objective, they have directed the 
PSMFC staff to provide administrative, fiscal, and field coordination 
and support for interstate and state/Federal research, data collection 
and management projects.
    NMFS proposes the PSMFC as the administrative intermediary because 
PSMFC goals, objectives, and organizational structure coincide largely 
with the implementation needs of this program. The PSMFC has a good 
track record of project administration, and experience with project 
coordination with the three states and the tribes. Because of its 
proven fiscal ability and low overhead, PSMFC regularly serves as a 
primary contractor on grants, projects, and contracts for states and 
other organizations. The PSMFC is in an ideal position to implement the 
Data Collection Jobs Program, because it already has knowledge of 
state, Federal, tribal and industry research priorities (recreational 
and commercial) as coastwide data collection efforts and research are 
at the very core of the PSMFC's objectives. Additionally, the PSMFC is 
well respected by fishermen because of its capabilities in reaching 
consensus and coordinating efforts between the states. As a coordinator 
of the individual state catch statistics systems, which include salmon 
landings by individual commercial fishing vessels, PSMFC should be able 
to verify much of the information that fishermen will need to provide 
to PSMFC showing that they meet the eligibility criteria.
    The short-term benefits of this program would be to provide 
compensation to fishermen for uninsured lost income due to the closed 
or restricted salmon seasons. The long-term advantages would be to 
improve collection of information important to sustaining salmon 
stocks. An additional benefit is that it could foster a better 
understanding between fishermen, scientists, and fishery managers. The 
timing of the actual employment of fishermen will depend on the 
planning and proposal selection process, as well as the best seasons in 
which to undertake research.

IV. Eligibility Criteria

    For purposes of the proposed habitat restoration and data 
collection programs under NEAP, job applicants must meet all of the 
following eligibility criteria to receive assistance:
    1. The applicant must show an uninsured loss.
    2. In the base year used by the applicant in determining loss, the 
applicant must have earned at least 50 percent of gross income from the 
commercial fishery.
    3. The applicant must have earned commercial fishery income in 
either 1992 or 1993.
    4. The applicant's 1992 or 1993 commercial fishery income, 
whichever is greater, must have declined by at least 50 percent from 
the applicant's commercial fishery income from the base year selected.
    5. If single, the applicant's 1993 gross income must have been less 
than $25,000. If married, the applicant's 1993 gross combined income of 
the applicant and his/her spouse must have been less than $50,000.
    No person may receive financial assistance under NEAP that exceeds 
75 percent of any uninsured and otherwise uncompensated commercial 
fishery loss resulting from the fishery resource disaster, and no 
person may receive more than $100,000 in the aggregate for all losses 
resulting from the disaster.
    The intent of these criteria is to provide the available assistance 
to those commercial fishermen who have been most heavily dependent on 
salmon fishing and who have suffered the greatest losses. In order to 
comply with the requirements of the IFA, an uninsured loss must be 
shown. The second criterion is intended to determine those applicants 
that have been dependent on the commercial fishery for most of their 
livelihood. The third criterion is intended to limit eligibility to 
those who commercially fished during the disaster period. The final two 
criteria are intended to focus the available financial assistance on 
those commercial fishermen who have suffered the greatest losses due to 
the disaster and who do not have significant income from other sources.
    In applying for any of the proposed programs, a commercial 
fisherman must submit documentation, including salary, earnings, or 
crew-share statements and affidavits that demonstrate eligibility.
    NMFS believes the proposed eligibility criteria are reasonable. Two 
studies that produced socio-economic profiles on non-tribal Oregon 
trollers and California fishermen (the majority of which were salmon 
fishermen) for 1988 found: The average commercial fisherman received 34 
to 56 percent of total family income from salmon fishing; total family 
income ranged from $50,000 to $54,000; 78 to 82 percent were married; 
if married, there were 2.8 children to support, with less than 50 
percent of their spouses working; and West Coast salmon fishermen had a 
weekly income of $1,200 to $1,500 from salmon landings. Oregon trollers 
who fish in Alaska may earn 45 percent of their income from Alaskan 
salmon. The percentage of trollers who fish off Alaska is not 
available. A third study showed that more than one-third of the 
Washington fleet may have Alaskan salmon permits. This fleet appears to 
harvest off Alaska two to three times the value of the entire 
Washington State commercial landings, based on a review of 1985 and 
1988 statistics.
    The proposed criteria also appear reasonable based on an analysis 
of fish ticket data for non-tribal and non-charterboat vessels for all 
species of fish landed in California, Washington, and Oregon. Of the 
12,009 vessels that earned at least $1 in any of the years 1986 through 
1993, only 2,879 appear to meet the proposed eligibility criteria. 
During 1993, these vessels collectively earned $9 million in West Coast 
salmon revenues, averaging almost $4,000 each, compared to a peak year 
average of $24,268. Data on non-fishing and Alaska fishing income are 
unavailable, but, when that income is included, it is expected to 
reduce the number of vessels that would meet the proposed eligibility 
criteria below 2,879. Assuming that crew size for trollers and 
gillnetters averages 1.4 crew members per vessel, potentially 4,700 
fishermen may be eligible for the jobs program under the first four 
proposed criteria.
    Approximately 519 charterboats are licensed in Washington, Oregon, 
and California. If charterboats have an average crew size of 2.4, 
approximately 1,200 individuals could potentially apply for aid. 
California charterboats have been classified as either active--those 
that landed more than 100 salmon, or casual--those that landed from 1 
to 100 salmon. Based on 1993 landings, 47 percent of the California 
charterboat fleet was designated casual. If casual charterboats are not 
likely to meet the proposed eligibility criteria, then applying the 53-
percent estimate for active charterboats to the entire charterboat 
fleet within the area of the fishery disaster suggests that 
approximately 600 charterboat operators and crew members may be 
eligible to receive financial assistance under the proposed NEAP 
program.
    In Washington State, 2,000 tribal fishermen made landings in 1993, 
compared to 3,000 in 1990. This decline is largely attributed to salmon 
fishery closures. The current tribal population is approximately 
17,500. Information supplied by the Northwest Indian Fisheries 
Commission suggests that tribal revenues from salmon catches in Puget 
Sound declined by $13 million, comparing averages for 1990-92 to 1993. 
According to 1990 Bureau of Census data, Native Americans in the State 
of Washington had an average per-capita income of $6,646 in 1990. 
Tribal salmon catches in the other states indicate that there may be 
fewer than 500 additional tribal fishermen along the remaining coast. 
This is an uncertain estimate; NMFS specifically requests information 
on tribal participation in commercial salmon fisheries in response to 
this notice.

V. Program and State Funding Targets

    NMFS anticipates that the proposed NEAP program would result in the 
following distribution of available financial assistance among the 
affected states and programs: 55 percent of available funds would be 
distributed to the State of Washington and 22.5 percent of available 
funds would be distributed to each of the States of Oregon and 
California.

Northwest Emergency Assistance Plan

        Proposed Program and State Funding Targets Within States        
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Habitat       Data            
                                Permit  restoration  collection   State 
                               buyout                             total 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA...........................      4.0         1.6         1.0       6.6
CA...........................      0.0         2.2         0.5       2.7
OR...........................      0.0         2.2         0.5       2.7
                              ------------------------------------------
    Total....................      4.0         6.0         2.0     12.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMFS emphasizes that these are ``target'' distributions, not fixed 
percentages, and are flexible; redistributions could be made, if 
increased total benefits can be achieved. The final distribution would 
depend on the needs of the commercial fishermen. For example, should 
other governmental entities besides Washington State want to 
participate in the proposed buyout program, a portion of the buyout 
funds currently proposed to be distributed to Washington would have to 
be redistributed. In the project selection phase of the habitat 
restoration program, it may be recognized that total benefits will be 
greater by shifting more of the projects toward one state than another. 
However, there is a need to distribute initially a sufficient amount of 
funds to operate the programs effectively in each state.
    Program distributions are largely based on the following 
considerations: Habitat needs are found in all three states, and 
habitat restoration is critical to increase the long-term 
sustainability of salmon resources; only Washington State has indicated 
a willingness to participate in a permit buyout program; and fishermen 
have voiced desires to participate in programs to collect needed 
habitat, conservation, and management information.
    Because additional listings of West Coast salmon stocks under the 
Endangered Species Act are expected, and closures of salmon fisheries 
are likely to continue as a result, a phase-down of the fishing 
industry via a buyout program is needed. A phase-down of the industry 
needs to be initiated to increase the long-term economic health of the 
industry, as suggested by the Snake River Recovery Team (Snake River 
Salmon Recovery Team: Final Recommendations to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, May 1994).
    Information on landings, commercial revenues, recreational 
expenditures, and estimates of jobs associated with the various sectors 
of the industry were reviewed. Recognizing various uncertainties, this 
information was reviewed in the context of: The definition of 
commercial fisherman, as defined by the IFA; the realization that coho 
and chinook are the prime species associated with the fishery resource 
disaster; and the availability of alternative opportunities to 
commercial fishermen.
    Because of the large Puget Sound and tribal fisheries, available 
data and information imply that fishermen in Washington State should 
have the greatest share of the funds, given the State's share of the 
industry. Providing equal shares to California and Oregon is partially 
based on economic analyses developed for the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council. Trends in estimated community/local personal income impacts of 
the California and Oregon fisheries were compared. Comparing 1986-90 
averages to 1993 levels indicates that Oregon has had a greater loss 
(approximately $50 million) compared to California (approximately $42 
million). So, while California has a larger fishery, Oregon appears to 
have had a greater loss on a percentage basis. In addition, commercial 
fishermen in Oregon may have fewer alternative fishing opportunities 
than those who reside in California and Washington. Northern California 
commercial fishermen can fish on salmon stocks for which fishing has 
not been prohibited, while many Washington vessels have permits to fish 
off Alaska.
    The state targets do not necessarily reflect the ultimate 
distribution of benefits. For example, should only Washington State 
vessel permit holders participate in the buyout program, commercial 
fishermen from all three states would benefit, because there would be 
fewer commercial fishermen competing for shared salmon resources. In 
addition, the results of the proposed jobs program in each state are 
expected to provide coastwide benefits.

Classification

    This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes 
of E.O. 12866.
    This action proposes a financial assistance program that would 
contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. The necessary information collection forms and specific 
reporting requirements have not been identified at this time, and will 
need to be developed in conjunction with the intermediaries 
administering the program. When the requirements have been established, 
NMFS will submit them to OMB for approval prior to their 
implementation.

    Dated: September 2, 1994.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 94-22078 Filed 9-2-94; 1:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P