[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 147 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41854-41875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 13

RIN 1024-AB99


Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska; Commercial Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: National Park Service, (NPS), Interior.

ACTION: Re-Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This re-proposed rule satisfies the requirement in Pub. L. 
106-31 for the Secretary of Interior to provide an opportunity for 
public comment of not less than 45 days. This rule implements section 
123 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for FY 1999 (``the Act''), as amended, and 
establishes special regulations for commercial fisheries within the 
marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park (NP), Alaska. This rule, in 
part, amends the general regulatory prohibition on commercial fishing 
activities in units of the National Park System, and instead, 
authorizes various existing commercial fisheries to continue in most 
marine waters of the park subject to a cooperatively developed state/
federal fisheries management plan consistent with the requirements of 
the Act. The rule limits commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay proper to 
pot and ring net fishing for Tanner crab, longlining for halibut, and 
trolling for salmon. The rule describes eligibility criteria that allow 
certain fishermen with a sufficient, reoccurring recent history of 
participation in Glacier Bay fisheries to continue fishing in Glacier 
Bay proper for their lifetimes. Moreover, the rule describes 
application requirements and procedures for those fishermen to follow 
to obtain a special use permit for lifetime access to a particular 
Glacier Bay proper fishery. The rule would close certain inlets and 
areas in the upper reaches of Glacier Bay proper to all commercial 
fishing by a variety of closure dates set forth in the Act, and would 
limit certain other areas only to winter season trolling for king 
salmon by qualifying fishermen. Additionally, the rule would reaffirm 
closure of all designated wilderness areas in the park to commercial 
fishing activities.
    Nothing in this rule is intended to modify or restrict non-
commercial fishing activities otherwise authorized under federal and 
non-conflicting state fishing regulations, nor to effect legislatively 
authorized commercial fishing activities within Glacier Bay National 
Preserve.
    In summary, section 123 of the Act laid out four major sets of 
directives on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park. First, 
it closed specifically identified areas of non-wilderness waters in 
Glacier Bay proper and all wilderness waters to all commercial fishing. 
Second, it established a process for ``grandfathering'' certain 
qualifying fisherman who would be allowed to continue fishing in the 
remaining waters of Glacier Bay proper under lifetime permits. Third, 
it clarified that the marine waters outside of Glacier Bay proper would 
remain open to commercial fishing. And fourth, it directed that the 
commercial fisheries that would be allowed to continue be managed in 
accordance with a cooperatively developed State/Federal fisheries 
management plan. This rule addresses the first three of these 
directives. The cooperative State/Federal fisheries management plan is 
being developed independent of this rule and will be announced at a 
later date.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted through September 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to Tomie Lee, Superintendent,

[[Page 41855]]

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 
99826.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tomie Lee, Superintendent, Glacier Bay 
National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska, 99827, 
telephone: (907) 697-2230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Establishment of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Glacier Bay 
National Park and Preserve is a 3.3 million acre, glacier-crowned, 
marine wilderness that stretches northward from Alaska's Inside Passage 
to the Alsek River, encircling the magnificent, saltwater Glacier Bay. 
The park derives its name and much of its biological and cultural 
significance from this great Bay, which harbors spectacular tidewater 
glaciers and a unique assemblage of marine and terrestrial life.
    Glacier Bay National Monument was established by presidential 
proclamation dated February 26, 1925. 43 Stat. 1988. The monument was 
established to protect a number of tidewater and other glaciers, and a 
variety of post glacial forest and other vegetative covering, and also 
to provide opportunities for scientific study of glacial activity and 
post glacial biological succession. The early monument included marine 
waters within Glacier Bay north of a line running approximately from 
Geikie Inlet on the west side of the bay to the northern extent of the 
Beardslee Islands on the east side of the bay. The monument was 
expanded by a second presidential proclamation on April 18, 1939. 53 
Stat. 2534. The expanded monument included additional lands and marine 
waters consisting of all of Glacier Bay proper; portions of Cross 
Sound, North Inian Pass, North Passage, Icy Passage, and Excursion 
Inlet; and Pacific coastal waters to a distance of three miles seaward 
between Cape Spencer to the south and Sea Otter Creek, north of Cape 
Fairweather.
    Glacier Bay National Monument was designated as Glacier Bay 
National Park and Preserve and enlarged in 1980 by the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 16 U.S.C. 410hh-1; see Sen. 
Rep. No. 413, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 163 (1979). The legislative history 
of ANILCA indicates that certain NPS units in Alaska, including Glacier 
Bay National Park, ``* * * are intended to be large sanctuaries where 
fish and wildlife may roam freely, developing their social structures 
and evolving over long periods of time as nearly as possible without 
the changes that extensive human activities would cause.'' Id. at 137; 
see Cong. Rec. H10532 (1980). Congress described the park as including 
the adjacent marine waters, and depicted the park accordingly on the 
official maps.
    In addition, ANILCA designated several marine areas within and near 
Glacier Bay proper as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation 
System. 16 U.S.C. 1132 note. These areas include upper Dundas Bay, 
Adams Inlet, the Hugh Miller Inlet complex, Rendu Inlet, and waters in 
and around the Beardslee Islands.
    Within the park's jurisdiction are over 600,000 acres of marine 
waters, including 53,000 acres of designated wilderness. As a result, 
Glacier Bay National Park is one of only a handful of conservation 
areas in the world that includes extensive saltwater habitat. It is 
also the largest marine area managed by the National Park Service 
(NPS). As such, it provides valuable opportunities to study and enjoy 
marine flora and fauna in an unimpaired state, and to educate the 
public about the biological richness of marine systems and relationship 
to adjacent glacial and terrestrial systems.

Management of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

    In addition to the national monument proclamations and relevant 
ANILCA provisions, the management of Glacier Bay National Park and 
Preserve has been governed by the NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1, 
et seq. The NPS Organic Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
manage national parks and monuments to ``conserve the scenery and the 
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide 
for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will 
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' Id. 
Section 1. This act further directs that ``[t]he authorization of 
activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and 
administration of [NPS areas] shall be conducted in light of the high 
public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be 
exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these 
various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall 
be directly and specifically provided by Congress.'' Id. Section 1a-1. 
The NPS national general regulations and policies prohibit the 
commercial extraction of any resources--including fish--for personal 
profit from areas of the National Park System, absent specific 
direction to the contrary from Congress. This regulatory prohibition on 
the commercial extraction of resources from national park areas forms 
the origins of the longstanding conflict regarding commercial fishing 
activities in the nonwilderness marine waters of Glacier Bay National 
Park.
    The NPS Organic Act authorizes the Secretary to implement ``rules 
and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and 
management of the parks, monuments and reservations under the 
jurisdiction of the National Park Service.'' Id. Section 3. The 
Secretary has additional specific authority to ``promulgate and enforce 
regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to 
waters located within areas of the National Park System, including 
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States * * *.'' Id. 
Section 1a-2(h).
    The designated wilderness areas within Glacier Bay NP, including 
the marine areas, are additionally governed by the Wilderness Act, Id. 
section Sec. 1131, et seq., which defines wilderness ``as an area where 
the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man 
himself is a visitor who does not remain.'' The Wilderness Act requires 
that wilderness be ``administered for the use and enjoyment of the 
American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future 
use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the 
protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness 
character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information 
regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.'' Id. Section 1131(a). 
Among other things, the Wilderness Act prohibits ``commercial 
enterprise * * * within any wilderness area * * * except as necessary 
to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the 
purpose of this Act * * *'' Id. Section 1133(c).
    In addition, Congress recently passed the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Act for FY1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), signed into 
law on October 21, 1998. Section 123 of this Act contained a series of 
compromises that were designed to provide final resolution of the 
dispute over the appropriateness of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay. 
Congress subsequently enacted legislation amending section 123 on May 
21, 1999 in order to provide further clarification of commercial 
fishing phase-out and compensation provisions. This rule is designed to 
implement the various provisions of section 123 of the Act, as amended 
by section 501 of the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
(Pub. L. 106-31, 113

[[Page 41856]]

Stat. 57). The requirements of the Act, as amended, are more fully 
described in a following section of this rulemaking.

Commercial Fishing History

    The marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park have been fished 
commercially since prior to the establishment of Glacier Bay National 
Monument. Commercial fishing continued under federal regulation after 
the national monument's establishment in 1925 and its subsequent 
enlargement in 1939.
    The Act of June 6, 1924, 43 Stat. 464, authorized the Secretary of 
Commerce to ``set apart and reserve fishing areas in any of the waters 
of Alaska * * * and within such areas may establish closed seasons 
during which fishing may be limited or prohibited * * *.'' The first 
Alaska Fishery Regulations of the Bureau of Fisheries, promulgated 
between 1937 and 1939, addressed fisheries in an area designated as the 
Icy Strait district including Glacier Bay National Monument. See 2 FR 
359 (February 12, 1937); 4 FR 927 (February 15, 1939). Those 
regulations, and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) between 1941 and 1959, set allowances for and 
restrictions on commercial fisheries in areas within the boundaries of 
Glacier Bay National Monument. See 6 FR 1252 (March 4, 1941), 50 CFR 
Part 222; 16 FR 2158 (1951), 50 CFR Part 117; 24 FR 2153 (March 19, 
1959), 50 CFR Part 115.
    Early NPS fishing regulations prohibited any type of fishing ``with 
nets, seines, traps, or by the use of drugs or explosives, or for 
merchandise or profit, or in any other way than with hook and line, the 
rod or line being held in the hand * * *.'' 6 FR 1627 (March 26, 1941), 
36 CFR 2.4. However, in conjunction with the aforementioned FWS 
regulations, the 1941 NPS regulations also stated that ``commercial 
fishing in the waters of Fort Jefferson and Glacier Bay National 
Monuments is permitted under special regulations.'' Id. NPS regulations 
continued to allow commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Monument 
through 1966 in accordance with special regulations approved by the 
Secretary. See 20 FR 618 (1955), 36 CFR 1.4; 27 FR 6281 (July 3, 1962).
    In 1966, NPS revised its fishing regulations so as to prohibit 
commercial fishing activities in Glacier Bay National Monument. 
Although the 1966 NPS regulations, unlike previous versions, only 
prohibited fishing ``for merchandise and profit'' in park fresh waters, 
these same regulations generally prohibited unauthorized commercial 
activities, including commercial fishing, in all NPS areas. See 31 FR 
16653, 16661 (December 29, 1966), 36 CFR Secs. 2.13(j)(2), 5.3. In 
contrast to earlier NPS regulations, the 1966 regulations did not 
contain specific authorization for commercial fishing in Glacier Bay 
National Monument.
    The 1978 NPS ``Management Policies'' reiterated that ``[c]ommercial 
fishing is permitted only where authorized by law.'' Furthermore, in 
1978, the Department of the Interior directed FWS to convene an Ad Hoc 
Fisheries Task Force to review NPS fisheries management. See 45 FR 
12304 (February 25, 1980). The task force concluded that the extraction 
of fish for commercial purposes was a nonconforming use of park 
resources.
    As already noted, in 1980, ANILCA designated Glacier Bay National 
Monument as Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, enlarged the area, 
and designated wilderness that included marine waters within the park. 
16 U.S.C. 410hh-1, 1132 note. ANILCA specifically authorized certain 
park areas where commercial fishing and related activities could 
continue, including the Dry Bay area of Glacier Bay National Preserve, 
but not in any area of Glacier Bay National Park. Id. section 410hh-4.
    The 1983 revision of the NPS general regulations included the 
current prohibition on commercial fishing throughout marine and fresh 
waters within park areas system-wide, unless specifically authorized by 
law. 48 FR 30252, 30283; 36 CFR 2.3(d)(4). The 1988 version of NPS 
``Management Policies,'' still current, reiterates this approach.
    However, in the 1980's NPS concluded that some commercial fishing 
would be tolerated and allowed to continue in Glacier Bay despite 
National Park Service general policies to the contrary. For example, 
the 1980, 1983 and 1985 Glacier Bay whale protection regulations 
implicitly acknowledged commercial fishing operations in Glacier Bay 
proper. 36 CFR 13.65(b). Also, the park's 1984 General Management Plan 
stated the following:

    Traditional commercial fishing practices will continue to be 
allowed throughout most park and preserve waters. However, no new 
(nontraditional) fishery will be allowed by the National Park 
Service. Halibut and salmon fishing and crabbing will not be 
prohibited by the Park Service. Commercial fishing will be 
prohibited in wilderness waters in accordance with ANILCA and the 
Wilderness Act.

    The General Management Plan defined ``traditional commercial 
fishing practices'' to include ``trolling, longlining and pot fishing 
for crab, and seining (Excursion Inlet only) in park waters * * *.'' 
General Management Plan at p.51. Finally, the 1988 Final Environmental 
Impact Statement concerning wilderness recommendations for Glacier Bay 
National Park referred to the continuation of commercial fishing in 
nonwilderness park waters.

Events Leading to This Rule

    The Wilderness Act has prohibited commercial fishing in the 
wilderness waters within Glacier Bay NP since 1980. Nevertheless, 
commercial fishing activities were allowed to continue through a policy 
of non-enforcement by park management in both wilderness and non-
wilderness marine waters of the park. Ultimately recognizing the need 
to conform Glacier Bay management practices with NPS national policies 
against commercial fishing in the Park System, there have been several 
attempts since 1990 to resolve this situation through proposed 
rulemaking, proposed legislation and negotiation.
    In 1990, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and American Wildlands filed 
a lawsuit challenging the NPS's failure to bar commercial fishing 
activities from Glacier Bay NP. Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Jensen, No. 
A90-0345-CV (D. AK.). In 1994, the U.S. District Court for Alaska 
concluded that ``there is no statutory ban on commercial fishing in 
Glacier Bay National Park provided, however, that commercial fishing is 
prohibited in that portion of Glacier Bay National Park designated as 
wilderness area.'' The District Courts' decision was affirmed in March 
1997 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
(Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Jensen, 108 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 1997)). 
Close to the time that the plaintiffs referenced above initiated the 
litigation, the State of Alaska's Citizens Advisory Commission on 
Federal Areas hosted a series of public meetings in local communities 
to discuss the issues. Following these meetings, NPS decided to draft a 
regulatory approach to resolving the issues.
    NPS published its first proposed rule on August 5, 1991 (56 FR 
37262). In essence, the 1991 proposed rule would have: (a) Clarified 
the statutory prohibition on commercial fishing in designated 
wilderness waters, and (b) phased out commercial fishing in other park 
waters over a seven year period. NPS held ten public meetings on the 
proposed rule, received over 300 comments, and drafted a final rule. At 
the State's request, however, the Department of the Interior refrained

[[Page 41857]]

from issuing a final rule in 1993, and instead agreed to discuss with 
state and Congressional staff the possibility of resolving the issues 
through a legislative approach.
    Between fall 1995 and spring 1996, officials from Glacier Bay 
National Park and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) co-
hosted several meetings in Southeast Alaska involving ``stakeholders'' 
interested in trying to resolve the commercial fishing controversy. The 
stakeholders included representatives of the commercial fishing 
industry; Native groups; and local, regional and national conservation 
organizations.

The 1997 Proposed Rule

    The National Park Service introduced a new proposed rule for 
commercial fishing on April 16, 1997 (62 FR 18547). The 1997 proposed 
rule was intended to provide a further opportunity for public 
participation and discussion--including ongoing efforts with the State 
of Alaska--toward a comprehensive resolution of commercial fishing 
issues in the park. NPS also recognized that new regulations would be 
necessary to exempt any ongoing commercial fisheries from the general 
NPS regulatory prohibition found at 36 CFR 2.3(d)(4).
    This proposed rule varied significantly from the 1991 NPS proposed 
rule that would have phased out commercial fishing throughout the park 
after seven years. In general, the 1997 proposed rule: (a) Prohibited 
all commercial fishing in Glacier Bay proper but provided certain 
limited exemptions over a fifteen-year phase-out period for fishermen 
with a qualifying history of participation in four specified fisheries; 
(b) closed Glacier Bay proper to commercial fishing during the visitor 
use season; (c) allowed most commercial fisheries in the park's marine 
waters outside Glacier Bay proper to continue, subject to reexamination 
at the end of fifteen years; (d) implemented the statutory prohibition 
on commercial fishing in designated marine wilderness waters; and, (e) 
contemplated a management regime for those commercial fisheries allowed 
to continue that would be based upon a cooperatively developed 
fisheries management plan developed by NPS and the State, implemented 
through the Alaska Board of Fisheries, and subject to the Secretary of 
the Interior's authority to protect park resources and values. 
Moreover, the preamble of the proposed rule offered for public comment 
ideas for halibut and Dungeness crab studies, a Hoonah Tlingit cultural 
fishery, and additional protections for Lituya and Dundas bays. The 
full text of the 1997 proposed rule should be referred to for a 
complete description of the proposed actions and additional background 
information.
    NPS described several objectives for resolution of commercial 
fishing issues in the 1997 proposed rule and an accompanying 
Environmental Assessment (EA) published in April 1998 and discussed 
later in more detail in this document. These objectives included: 
preserving habitats and natural population structure and species 
distribution; allowing natural succession and evolutionary processes to 
proceed; maintaining biological and genetic diversity; minimizing 
visitor and vessel-use conflicts; protecting wilderness values; 
honoring Native cultural ties, and, expanding existing knowledge and 
understanding of marine ecosystems. NPS also sought to treat individual 
commercial fishermen fairly, and to develop an effective partnership 
with the State that would enhance understanding and conservation of 
fisheries and marine resources within the park.
    In October 1997 (62 FR 54409) NPS extended the public comment 
deadline from October 15th to June 1, 1998 to provide additional 
opportunity for comment on the proposed rule and pending EA.
    From November 1997 to February 1998 NPS sponsored 3 additional 
full-day public workshops in Juneau, Alaska to continue discussing the 
issues associated with the park's commercial fisheries. The first of 
these public workshops was noticed in the Federal Register (62 FR 
58932, October 31, 1997), while subsequent workshops were publicized in 
local media. These workshops contributed to the scoping process for the 
NPS EA.
    Scheduled concurrently with the NPS public workshops, the Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game sponsored 6 public meetings in Juneau from 
November 1997 to June 1998. This Glacier Bay Work Group, as it was 
termed, included several representatives of the commercial fishing 
industry, Native corporations and governments, and local, regional and 
national conservation groups. The meetings were open to and attended by 
various members of the public. NPS and DOI representatives attended all 
of the meetings. The objective of the work group was to reach an 
overall consensus agreement regarding commercial fishing activities in 
the park that could be reflected in either regulation or legislation. 
Considerable progress was made by the work group, under the State's 
leadership and in a good faith effort by all involved, to address a 
number of substantive and difficult issues. The group was unable to 
achieve a consensus agreement at conclusion of its last meeting in June 
1998 and collectively agreed to a final effort toward the goal of 
consensus in October and November--after the close of the summer 
fishing season. However, action on the part of Congress--by introducing 
the issue of commercial fishing into the legislative arena and passing 
the Act in October--interceded and resolved many issues considered by 
the work group. Notes from each of the State's work group meetings are 
included in the administrative record of this rulemaking.

The 1998 Environmental Assessment

    In April 1998, NPS released a comprehensive Commercial Fishing 
Environmental Assessment in support of the 1997 proposed rule for 
Glacier Bay. The EA described the proposed action (the 1997 proposed 
rule) and four other alternatives for managing commercial fishing 
activities in the marine waters of the park. Collectively, the EA's 
five alternatives described a broad range of potential strategies for 
managing commercial fishing activities in the nonwilderness marine 
waters of the park. Alternative One described the 1997 proposed rule. 
Alternative Two was considered the no action alternative because it 
would implement existing NPS regulations; this alternative described 
immediate closure of the park to all commercial fisheries. Alternative 
Three emphasized use of scientific information to protect resident and 
sensitive fisheries, while allowing harvest of more transitory species 
moving in and out of the park. Alternative Four described continuation 
of commercial fishing throughout the park, consistent with 
sustainability and habitat protection. Finally, Alternative Five 
described the 1991 proposed rule's seven-year phase-out of all 
commercial fisheries. Marine wilderness waters in the park were closed 
to commercial fishing under each of the alternatives, reflecting the 
Wilderness Act's prohibition on commercial fishing in wilderness 
waters, and the federal district and appellate court decisions.
    Following publication and distribution of the EA in April 1998, NPS 
held seven public hearings and seven open houses during May in six 
Southeast Alaska communities (Elfin Cove, Gustavus, Hoonah, Juneau, 
Pelican, and Sitka) and in Seattle to solicit comment on the EA and 
proposed rule. On June 1, 1998, NPS extended the public comment 
deadline for the EA and proposed rule to

[[Page 41858]]

November 15, 1998 (63 FR 30162). NPS held additional informal public 
meetings in Wrangell and Petersburg during September 1998 following 
requests from residents of those communities.

The FY1999 Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations Act and Amendment

    The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
Act for FY 1999 (Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681) (``the Act''), was 
passed by Congress and signed into law on October 21, 1998. Section 123 
of the Act contained a variety of specific statutory requirements for 
the management or phase out of commercial fishing in the marine waters 
of Glacier Bay National Park. Section 123 of the Act contained the 
following provisions:
    The Secretary of the Interior was directed to cooperate with the 
State of Alaska in the development of a management plan for the 
regulation of commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay National Park 
pursuant to existing state and federal statutes and any applicable 
international conservation and management treaties. This management 
plan is to provide for the continuation of commercial fishing in the 
marine waters within Glacier Bay National Park outside of Glacier Bay 
Proper, and in the marine waters within Glacier Bay Proper as specified 
in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of section 123. The management plan 
is also to provide for the protection of park values and purposes, 
prohibit any new or expanded fisheries, and provide for the opportunity 
for the study of marine resources.
    Section 123 limits commercial fisheries within Glacier Bay proper 
to ring or pot fishing for Tanner crab, longlining for halibut and 
trolling for salmon. That section limits participation in these 
commercial fisheries to the lifetimes of individual fishermen with a 
qualifying history, but notes that the qualifying criteria are to be 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Certain inlets or areas of 
inlets of Glacier Bay proper were closed immediately to all commercial 
fishing, or were limited to winter season king salmon trolling by 
qualifying fishermen. Section 123 also restated the statutory 
prohibition on commercial fishing within the park's designated 
wilderness areas. Last, Section 123 authorized compensation for 
qualifying Dungeness crab fishermen who had fished in designated 
wilderness waters of the Beardslee Islands and Dundas Bay.
    The congressional managers of this legislation suggested NPS `` 
extend the public comment period on the pending regulations (62 FR 
18547, April 16, 1997) until January 15, 1999, modify the draft 
regulations to conform to [section 123's] language and publish the 
changes in the final regulations.'' See H.R.4328 Conf. Rep. No.105-825, 
p.1213. Subsequently, the public comment period on the 1997 proposed 
rule and 1998 EA was reopened and extended until February 1, 1999 (63 
FR 68666, December 11, 1998; 64 FR 1573, January 11, 1999). The 1,400 
persons who had provided comment by December 1998 were mailed a copy of 
the Federal Register extension and invited to provide additional public 
comment in light of the new legislation. A second Federal Register 
notice (63 FR 68668, December 11, 1998) describing application 
procedures for the Dungeness crab commercial fishery compensation 
program authorized by the Act was published and distributed 
concurrently with the extension of the public comment deadline.
    On May 21, 1999 new legislation passed by Congress amending section 
123 of the Act was signed into law. This legislation, section 501 of 
the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-31), 
modified the Dungeness crab fishery compensation program and created a 
new compensation program for fishermen, processors, crewmembers, 
communities and others adversely affected by restrictions on commercial 
fishing activities in the park. Twenty-six million dollars were 
appropriated for compensation programs under section 501; this is in 
addition to $5,000,000 in compensation Congress had previously 
appropriated for qualifying Dungeness crab fishermen under section 123 
of the 1998 Act. Section 501 also established delayed implementation 
dates for the non-wilderness closures in Glacier Bay proper relative to 
ongoing halibut and salmon commercial fisheries in 1999. Finally, 
section 501 required the Secretary of the Interior to publish this 
rule, provide a forty-five day public comment period, and then publish 
a final rule no later than September 30, 1999. The prohibition on 
commercial fishing in designated wilderness was not affected by the 
amendments found in section 501.
    This rule implements the requirements of section 123, as amended, 
and establishes eligibility requirements and application procedures for 
qualifying fishermen to obtain a special use permit for lifetime access 
to the three commercial fisheries authorized to continue in Glacier Bay 
proper. Many ideas described in the 1997 proposed rule and the other 
four alternatives in the 1998 EA were resolved by the section 123 of 
the Act. Simultaneously with the publication of this rule, NPS intends 
to accelerate and expand its collaboration with the State of Alaska to 
develop a fisheries management plan for the park as contemplated by 
section 123 of the Act.

Analysis of Public Comments

Comment Period

    This rule reflects an extensive and lengthy public involvement 
process that began with the publication of the 1997 proposed rule on 
April 16, 1997 and ended with the close of the public comment period on 
the proposed rule and 1998 EA on February 1, 1999. The comment period 
for the proposed rule was extended four times and the comment period 
for the EA was extended three times over the course of twenty-one 
months to insure adequate opportunities for public involvement.
    NPS held seven public hearings during the month of May in the 
previously noted communities. Each public hearing was preceded by a 
two-hour open house question and answer period. NPS also established an 
Internet website that allowed the public to access information 
regarding the proposed rule and the EA, and provide public comment.
    The NPS recorded testimony at public hearings from 66 individuals 
and received 1,557 written public comments. Written comments included 
surface mail, faxes and electronic mail. NPS staff read all written 
public comments, reviewed the transcripts of public hearings, and 
prepared a summary document of substantive comments.

Overview of Public Comment

    The majority (75%) of the 66 individuals testifying at the public 
hearings (6 hearings were held in Southeast Alaskan communities and 1 
in Seattle) supported the continuation of commercial fishing in Glacier 
Bay National Park. The remaining individuals commenting at public 
hearings supported some form of commercial fishing phase-out. Slightly 
more than one-third (570) of the written comments indicated support for 
the NPS's preferred alternative and/or the proposed regulations. A few 
(25) commenters simply urged NPS to support a fair process to end 
commercial fishing. One hundred thirty-four individuals supported the 
preferred alternative and proposed regulations with a shorter phase-out 
period and 72 individuals wrote in support of a general, non-specific 
phase-out of

[[Page 41859]]

commercial fishing in park waters. A few individuals (14) supported 
Alternative Five that reflects the 1991 proposed regulations. Many 
comments were received (136) supporting Alternative Two that would 
close all fisheries immediately. Eleven percent (177 individuals) of 
commenters wrote letters that did not identify support for a particular 
alternative, but expressed general opposition to commercial fishing. 
Comments that supported reducing or eliminating commercial fishing in 
park waters indicated that commercial resource extraction is 
inappropriate in a National Park and expressed concern about potential 
impacts to the park's unique marine ecosystem and visitor experiences. 
Many noted that park waters should be managed for scientific study and 
public enjoyment.
    Ninety-seven individuals signed a petition supporting ongoing 
commercial fishing in park waters. An additional 432 individuals (28%) 
signed form letters and 132 commenters wrote general letters of support 
for ongoing commercial fishing. Commenters supporting ongoing 
commercial fisheries indicated that the fisheries were currently well 
managed by the State and were not negatively affecting park resources 
or visitors. Most commenters supporting commercial fishing stated that 
fishery closures would severely impact fishermen, their families, and 
local communities in Southeast Alaska.
    NPS Response: Congress passed the Act in October 1998, toward the 
end of what had already been an extended public involvement and comment 
period on the 1997 proposed rule and 1998 EA. Congress, in passing the 
Act, resolved a number of issues that had previously been presented for 
public comment. The new law contained comprehensive statutory 
requirements regarding management of commercial fisheries in the marine 
waters of the park. Congress further expanded and clarified the law in 
the amendment passed on May 21, 1999. This rule largely implements the 
requirements of the Act, as amended. All public comments have been 
analyzed, but many of them have been overridden by the enactment of 
legislation.

General Comments

    Numerous commenters expressed surprise that commercial fishing had 
been occurring in Glacier Bay National Park; most of these individuals 
indicated that they believed commercial fishing was inappropriate and/
or incompatible with the NPS mission as defined in the Organic Act. 
Many individuals noted that National Parks were ``special places'' 
where activities should be managed differently than elsewhere. Several 
commenters noted that commercial ventures of any kind are inappropriate 
in national parks and several mentioned that National Parks and the 
resources contained therein belong to all Americans and should not be 
harvested for private profit. Several commenters noted that most 
Alaskan waters were open to commercial fishing and recommended that 
Glacier Bay be set aside as one small closed area. Many commenters 
indicated that NPS should not allow commercial fishing until there was 
incontrovertible evidence that such activities would not harm park 
resources.
    On the other hand, NPS received many comments noting that 
commercial fishing had occurred for more than 100 years in park waters 
with no evidence of resource or visitor impacts. Several individuals 
noted that commercial fishing is allowed in other National Parks, so it 
could be allowed in Glacier Bay. Many individuals felt that other 
activities taking place in Glacier Bay including cruise ship traffic 
likely resulted in far more impact than commercial fishing.

Jurisdiction

    The State, the Alaska Trollers Association (ATA), the Citizens 
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA), Petersburg Vessel Owners 
Association (PVOA), and others said that the State rather than NPS 
holds jurisdiction over the marine waters of Glacier Bay. The State 
offered that the Submerged Lands Act, the Alaska Statehood Act and the 
Alaska Constitution all indicated that the State ``owns and therefore 
manages all water columns, shorelands, tidelands, and submerged lands, 
including the resources located within or on such lands and waters.'' 
They further noted, however, that ``the Act overcomes some of our 
jurisdictional concern'' because it clarifies that NPS may act as 
provided in the legislation as long as they work directly with the 
State to address issues.
    NPS Response: We acknowledge a legal disagreement with the State of 
Alaska and others who share the State's view over issues of ownership 
and jurisdiction with respect to the marine waters of the park. The 
establishment of Glacier Bay National Monument in 1925, and its 1939 
expansion to include the current marine boundaries, predate Alaska 
statehood by decades. Congress has recognized the park's marine 
boundaries and waters--and described the Secretary of the Interior's 
authority and responsibility to manage these marine waters for the 
purposes of the park--in several federal laws, the most recent example 
being passage of section 123 of the Act, as amended. Court cases on 
similar jurisdictional issues in Alaska and elsewhere clearly support 
the federal view. Importantly, this is the only national park area in 
Alaska that includes marine waters, and it is the largest marine area 
included in our National Park System.
    We concur with the State of Alaska's conclusion in its comments 
that the 1998 Act, as amended, should serve to resolve or redress many 
of the jurisdictional concerns and issues between the federal 
government and State of Alaska. The Act outlines appropriate roles and 
authorities for both the federal government and state with respect to 
management of commercial fisheries in the park. It provides both a 
requirement and an important opportunity for ongoing cooperation and 
collaboration between the state and federal government in the 
implementation of a jointly developed fisheries management plan. We 
will strive, working together with the State, to provide public 
opportunity to participate in the development of the fisheries 
management plan independent of this rulemaking. We believe that the 
best long-term remedy for jurisdictional issues is an effective state/
federal cooperative relationship that outlines and respects individual 
and collective agency roles and responsibilities, keeps lines of 
communication open, incorporates opportunities for public involvement 
in decision making processes, and, ultimately, serves to implement the 
letter and spirit of the Act, as amended. This is where we intend to 
devote our energies.

Economic Issues

    Many commenters--both those in support of and opposed to ongoing 
commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay--expressed concern that fishery 
closures would severely affect numerous individuals and communities. 
Commenters stated that commercial fishing is the largest employer in 
Southeast Alaska, that most private sector income in Southeast is 
derived from the seafood industry, and that the value of fisheries 
trickles throughout Southeast Alaska and the State. Many commenters 
mentioned that local fishing villages owe their existence to commercial 
fishing and depend on raw fish taxes. Commenters opposed to ongoing 
commercial fishing often cited their concern regarding economic impacts 
as a reason for recommending a gradual phase-out of commercial fishing. 
These individuals felt that a

[[Page 41860]]

phase-out would allow individuals and communities a transition period, 
thus reducing economic impacts.
    Several commenters said that previous actions or issues were 
already negatively impacting fishermen's economics (including the IFQ 
program, low prices for halibut and salmon, state closures of 
fisheries) and expressed concern that Glacier Bay closures represented 
an additional economic burden. Many commenters stated that closures 
would affect not only permit holders but also deckhands, vessel owners, 
processors and other local business. Several commenters felt that 
closing Glacier Bay to commercial fishing would devalue fishing permits 
and IFQ shares.
    NPS received numerous comments expressing concern for individual 
communities and/or businesses or individuals. For example, the cities 
of Petersburg, Wrangell, Coffman Cove and Pelican wrote comments 
stating that their communities would be severely impacted by fisheries 
closures. Individual commenters expressed concern that the community of 
Pelican could not survive if park waters were closed. One commenter 
recommended that NPS set up a Glacier Bay Economic Disaster Fund for 
communities such as Pelican that have a history of raw fish tax 
revenues from resources harvested in Glacier Bay.
    NPS Response: We expect that the Act, as amended, and the 
``grandfathering'' eligibility criteria described in this rule, will 
significantly reduce economic impacts to fishermen, communities, and 
others associated with the commercial fishing industry in Glacier Bay. 
Specifically, the Act authorizes existing commercial fisheries to 
continue in outer waters where well over 80% of the harvest from park 
waters occur: we support continuation of these locally important 
commercial fisheries. Additional harvest will continue in most of 
Glacier Bay proper during the life tenancy period of qualifying 
fishermen, supporting fishermen and communities for many years to come. 
Only about 18% of the park's marine waters (wilderness and non-
wilderness) will be immediately closed to commercial fishing pursuant 
to the closure schedules set forth in the Act, as amended; these closed 
waters have historically accounted for less than 10% of total 
commercial harvest in the park. Within Southeast Alaska, Glacier Bay 
proper has historically accounted for only 2-4% of the commercial 
halibut harvest; approximately 7-12% of commercial Tanner crab harvest; 
and an indeterminate, but presumably small percentage of the salmon 
harvest.
    We expect that some portion of the revenue previously harvested in 
the closed areas of the park will be recovered in Icy Strait and/or 
other Southeast waters: this is particularly likely in the halibut 
fishery with its individual quota system and eight month fishing 
season. Some fishermen not meeting the ``grandfather'' eligibility 
criteria for Glacier Bay proper will be displaced. However, these 
fishermen presumably have not established a regular or sustained 
dependence on Glacier Bay fisheries and are already fishing and 
established elsewhere. Moreover, the various compensation packages 
outlined in the Act, as amended, should alleviate economic impacts to 
Dungeness crabbers who commercially fished in designated wilderness as 
well as others directly and substantially dependent upon various 
fisheries in Glacier Bay proper.
    We recognize that wilderness water closures and eventual phase-out 
of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay proper--as required by Congress--
will have an adverse effect on some individuals and communities. 
However, it is important to note, as several commenters stated, that 
other external factors including changes in state regulations, 
establishment of the IFQ system for halibut, and international market 
forces have also affected fisheries-related incomes in Southeast 
Alaska. For example, declining fish tax revenues in recent years in 
small communities such as Hoonah and Pelican have not been the result 
of any commercial fishing changes within the park. Congress has 
appropriated a total of $31,000,000 through the 1998 Act and its 1999 
amendment to mitigate economic impacts to fishermen, crewmembers, 
processors, communities and others adversely affected by restrictions 
on commercial fishing within Glacier Bay.
    The State and the ATA were concerned that NPS has not made economic 
information compiled by an NPS paid contractor available to the public 
or included it in the 1998 Environmental Assessment analysis.
    NPS Response: Data used in the economic analysis presented in the 
1998 EA as well as in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis described 
below, came from landing information provided by the State of Alaska 
Commercial Fishery Entry Commission. We therefore believe that the data 
is readily available to the public at large. Moreover, by publishing 
this document as a rule with an additional 45-day public comment 
period, we will be providing the public with and additional opportunity 
to review and comment on the economic data associated with this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Many commenters including the Alaska State Legislature, ATA, PVOA, 
and the State felt that the certification of ``no significant economic 
impact'' under the Regulatory Flexibility Act was unfounded, that NPS 
had inaccurately analyzed the effects of the proposed regulation on 
small business entities and communities, and that NPS should complete a 
regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. The State believed that NPS certification of no significant impact 
was deficient because it did not include an adequate factual basis, did 
not provide any analysis to support the conclusion, and did not include 
public input on its assumption and conclusions. The State offered that 
the findings of this analysis must be made available for public review 
and comment before proceeding with a final rule.
    NPS Response: NPS and the Department of Interior have responded to 
these comments by completing a Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses of 
different eligibility criteria under consideration for participation in 
the three Glacier Bay fisheries authorized by section 123(a)(2) of the 
Act. Congress, in passing the Act, as amended, resolved various issues 
about commercial fishing in the park and precluded most decisions by 
the Secretary of the Interior except the grandfather eligibility 
criteria. Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis has 
focused only on these eligibility criteria. The analysis reviewed the 
effects of the Department's decision regarding eligibility criteria on 
the small businesses, organizations and communities in the Glacier Bay 
area. The analysis is summarized in this preamble.

Grandfather Eligibility Requirements for Continued Fishing in Glacier 
Bay Proper

    NPS received numerous general comments that ongoing fisheries 
should be limited to those individuals with a ``history'' of fishing in 
Glacier Bay or ``dependent on'' Glacier Bay fisheries. The Wilderness 
Society and many individuals wrote in support of the proposed 6 of 10-
year eligibility requirements and asked NPS not to relax this 
requirement. The Wilderness Society further stated that NPS bears the 
burden of proving that criteria selected will not result in resource 
impacts during the phase-out period. While NPCA did not specify 
criteria, they offered that ``two days or several months of fishing in 
the Bay over a period of a

[[Page 41861]]

decade should not be considered adequate for demonstrating historical 
dependence.'' A few individuals recommended stringent criteria 
including: only individuals who fished prior to 1990 should be allowed 
to continue, only individuals with a familial history of 100+ years of 
fishing should be allowed to continue, and only individuals older than 
50 years should be allowed to continue. One commenter felt that fishing 
six years was not a serious enough commitment to be entitled to 
continue fishing.
    Conversely, numerous other commenters recommended more liberal 
eligibility criteria. The State, ATA and numerous individuals supported 
criteria that would allow any individual holding a Commercial Entry 
Permit (including T series, B series, S05, S15, and K series permits) 
with a history of fishing the waters of Glacier Bay to continue. A few 
individuals supported criteria that would allow any fishermen with a 
permit for a fishery that occurs in the Bay to fish there. Several 
individuals suggested that NPS use fishermen's catch history 
(percentage of landings) from Glacier Bay rather than number of years 
as a base for eligibility criteria. Several commenters believed that 
NPS should use different criteria for different fisheries. One 
commenter recommended that 3 of 5 years be used to determine 
eligibility for the Tanner crab fishery because this fishery had only 
recently become commercially valuable. Several individuals commented 
that their children and grandchildren should be eligible to continue 
fishing. One commenter recommended that grandfather rights should be 
100% transferable with no expiration date, but NPS should be able to 
buy this right as well as the associated limited entry permit.
    Many commenters felt that stringent criteria (including the 
proposed 6/10 years) would be unfair and difficult to implement. 
Individuals stated that fishermen typically ``lumped'' fish landings on 
a fish ticket, reporting landing locations based on where they caught 
most fish on a given trip. In these cases, fish tickets would not 
necessarily reflect fishing effort in Glacier Bay. One commenter 
indicated that fish ticket information was frequently changed by the 
processor and was therefore not accurate. Several individuals were 
concerned that the 6 of 10-year criteria would eliminate many young 
fishermen who often have very limited experience fishing elsewhere and 
large investments to support. A few individuals said that some 
fisheries were closed during the 10-year period being considered, so 
perhaps no fishermen could qualify for those fisheries. A few 
individuals felt that strict criteria would displace many fishermen out 
of Glacier Bay proper, resulting in crowding in Icy Strait which could 
effect both commercial and recreational catch there. One commenter said 
that stringent criteria would lower the number of fishermen qualifying 
resulting in a ``bonanza'' for remaining fishermen. One commenter 
stated that the proposed criteria would reward individuals who reported 
landings for 2 permit holders on a given boat (typical when a 
crewmember wishes to qualify for an upcoming limited entry fishery and 
must report landings to do so).
    Commenters indicated that lenient criteria would not increase 
fishing pressure on Glacier Bay because individual fishermen have 
typical fishing locations and would be unlikely to shift into the Bay 
if they had not fished there previously. One commenter felt that the 
number of permits reporting landings in the park had remained stable in 
past years and would not be expected to increase in the future.
    Many individuals stated that the criteria did not address the needs 
of crewmembers or individuals that leased vessels to permit holders. A 
few individuals said that crew (in particular family members) invested 
considerable time in learning how to fish a particular location 
assuming they would ``inherit'' that location in the future. One 
commenter stated that he often obtained crew jobs because of his 
knowledge of Glacier Bay and noted that he would not have that 
opportunity if the fishing fleet were reduced. One commenter stated 
that he would not meet strict eligibility criteria because he had been 
leasing a permit. One commenter offered that other limited entry 
processes have considered the number of years as a crewmember, boat 
owner or gear owner in determining eligibility for a particular 
fishery.
    A few commenters, including the Petersburg Vessel Owners 
Association, felt that NPS should determine how many fishermen and/or 
how much harvest was acceptable and then set criteria for eligibility 
rather than letting these numbers be a ``fallout'' from the criteria. 
One commenter recommended that NPS use ``good standing'', as a means of 
determining eligibility by allowing only those individuals whom had 
never been cited for resource or permit violations. Another commenter 
recommended that continued eligibility should depend on continued 
compliance with Glacier Bay and state regulations. The State commented 
that eligible fishermen should be able to continue using the vessel and 
crew of the permittee's choice.
    NPS Response: Section 123(a)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary 
of the Interior to establish eligibility criteria to determine which 
fishermen will be issued a non-transferable lifetime access permit to 
continue to fish in those waters of Glacier Bay proper which were left 
open for grandfathered commercial fishing under the Act. The Secretary 
of the Interior has now selected eligibility criteria intended to allow 
those fishermen with a sufficient reoccurring history of participation 
in the authorized Glacier Bay fisheries to continue fishing for their 
lifetimes. The 1997 NPS proposed regulations outlined criteria that 
would have permitted only those individuals who had fished 6 of the 
last 10 years in Glacier Bay proper to continue fishing. However, based 
on public comment and the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we believe 
that the criteria described in the 1997 proposed rule would have 
adversely affected the economic well being of an unacceptably high 
number of fishermen as well as local communities.
    This rule would allow continued access to Glacier Bay proper to 
those fishermen who have fished in Glacier Bay proper in one of the 
three authorized commercial fisheries as follows: For the halibut 
fishery, 2 years of participation would be required in Glacier Bay 
proper during the 7-year period, 1992-1998. For the salmon and Tanner 
crab fisheries, 3 years of participation would be required in Glacier 
Bay proper during the 10-year period, 1989-1998. The 7-year qualifying 
period--as further explained below--for halibut is based, in large 
part, on the establishment of a unique statistical sub-area for Glacier 
Bay proper in 1992. Use of this qualifying period will assist fishermen 
in documenting a history of fishing within Glacier Bay proper. A 10-
year qualifying period is used for the Tanner crab and salmon 
fisheries. These longer qualifying periods (of 7 and 10 years, 
respectively) are intended to provide a better opportunity for 
fishermen with a variable but reoccurring history of participation in 
these fisheries in Glacier Bay proper to qualify for the lifetime 
access permits. Essentially, these criteria require fishermen to have 
fished in Glacier Bay proper for approximately 30% of the years during 
the 7 and 10-year base periods to qualify for continued lifetime access 
to an authorized fishery. We believe that these criteria reflect a 
reasonable and balanced approach on appropriate eligibility criteria 
for lifetime access to the authorized Glacier Bay proper commercial 
fisheries.

[[Page 41862]]

    A base period of less than 7 to 10-years was considered too short 
in duration and would not, at least in the case of the Pacific halibut 
fishery, allow for recent and dynamic changes in the character of the 
fisheries. We did not consider longer qualifying periods because 
participation in the three authorized fisheries has only recently 
stabilized. These fisheries have all become limited entry fisheries in 
recent times; fewer permit transfers have occurred in recent years. 
Recent permit holders are most likely to still be fishing and have a 
current economic reliance on a Glacier Bay proper fishery.
    The 2 out of 7-year criteria for the Pacific halibut fishery takes 
into consideration a recent change in statistical area configuration--
the 1992 creation of a separate regulatory sub-area (184) specific to 
Glacier Bay proper--and allows fishermen to more accurately document 
their participation in the fishery within Glacier Bay. Before 1992, 
Glacier Bay was part of regulatory area 182, a larger reporting area 
combined with Icy Strait. Therefore, it would be difficult for 
fishermen to document commercial halibut harvest from Glacier Bay 
proper prior to 1992. This 7-year qualifying period accommodates 
changes in the commercial halibut fishery since 1995 when it became a 
limited entry fishery and the entire nature of the fishery changed with 
prolonged seasons and Individual Fishing Quotas.
    The 3 out of 10-year criteria for the Tanner crab fishery 
accommodates the recent increase in participation in this fishery 
within Glacier Bay proper from fewer than 10 vessels per year from 
1984-1989, to 14-25 vessels per year since 1991. The Tanner crab pot 
fishery became a limited entry fishery during the latter part of the 
1980s.
    The troll fishery for salmon in Glacier Bay proper is almost 
exclusively focused on king salmon during the winter commercial fishing 
season. Because there is no way to separate out Glacier Bay proper 
harvest from that occurring elsewhere within District 114, we will 
consider salmon landing reports from District 114 as indirect evidence 
of participation in the fishery within Glacier Bay proper, provided it 
is supported by additional corroborating documentation in making 
application for a lifetime access to the salmon troll fishery in 
Glacier Bay proper.
    The qualifying periods described in this rule are considerably 
longer than those typically used by the State of Alaska when 
establishing a limited entry fishery. For example, the Alaska 
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission used preceding 5-year periods in 
recently establishing limited entry permit fisheries in Southeast 
Alaska for Dungeness crab and pot fished shrimp. Under Alaska State 
law, applicants for these limited entry fisheries were ranked and 
awarded permits according to their participation and economic 
dependence on the fisheries over the 5-year qualifying period. We 
decided in favor of longer qualifying periods in interest of minimizing 
economic impacts to fishermen who have participated in the authorized 
fisheries in Glacier Bay proper. However, like the State of Alaska, we 
would require recent and multiple years of participation in a given 
fishery. We do not believe that a single occurrence of commercial 
fishing within Glacier Bay proper over the past 7 or 10-years 
demonstrates a sufficient sustained dependency on those park waters to 
warrant grandfathering such fishermen in for lifetime permits.
    A special use permit will be required to participate in any of the 
three Glacier Bay fisheries beginning in calendar year 2000. The 
procedures for applying for and obtaining a special use permit, as well 
as the eligibility criteria, are described in this rule. Fishermen 
meeting the eligibility criteria may apply for a special use permit so 
long as they hold a valid permit for the fishery. The special use 
permit will be renewed on a 5-year cycle for the life time of each 
fisherman who continues to hold the necessary license for a Glacier Bay 
fishery, and is otherwise eligible to participate in the fishery. The 
special use permits are non-transferable under the Act. However, NPS 
may consider an emergency transfer of a permit in the event or 
temporary illness or disability, as otherwise authorized by the 
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. These are hardships of an 
unexpected and unforeseen nature, and a permit transfer would be 
limited to 1-year in duration.
    The Act is specific to permit holders and does not provide for 
individuals who own and lease vessels to Glacier Bay fishermen, or for 
crewmembers. While these individuals do not qualify, under the law, to 
receive a special use permit to fish in Glacier Bay, nothing in the Act 
affects the ability of a special use permit holder to continue to lease 
the vessel or hire the crew of their choice.

Documentation of Eligibility

    Many commenters felt that fishermen should supply ``evidence'' or 
``definite proof'' of fishing history, but only a few commenters 
addressed specifically what NPS should accept in terms of documentation 
of fishing history. One commenter indicated that the documentation 
process discussed in the proposed rule was ``too easy.'' Another 
commenter indicated that evidence of historic fishing should include 
official ADFG landing tickets, ATA logbook data, ship's log data and a 
valid ADFG license. A few commenters, including the State, indicated 
that an affidavit of catch history should be sufficient. The State also 
recommended that NPS design a validity review and appeals program 
consistent with due process. Several individuals were concerned that 
documenting past fishing effort in Glacier Bay would be quite difficult 
because ADFG statistical areas do not match park boundaries and because 
fish tickets reflect only the area where the majority of a landing was 
harvested. ATA and the State felt that requiring documentation beyond 
an affidavit would be time consuming and expensive for both agencies 
and fishermen and would reduce the number of eligible fishermen.
    NPS Response: The Act requires individuals to establish their 
eligibility to participate in one or more of the three authorized 
Glacier Bay commercial fisheries. This rule would require that an 
individual hold a valid commercial fishing permit for the fishery in 
Glacier Bay, provide a sworn and notarized affidavit attesting to their 
history and participation in the fishery within Glacier Bay proper, and 
provide other available documentation that would assist in 
corroborating their participation in the fishery in Glacier Bay during 
qualifying years. We are requiring applicants to provide two types of 
corroborating documentation readily available from the State of Alaska: 
permit histories and landing reports. The permit history documents an 
individual's years as a permit holder in a fishery, and the landing 
report documents years and reported harvest locations for fishery 
landings by an individual. This required corroborating documentation--
copy of a valid permit or license, affidavit, permit history, landing 
report--is less than that typically required by the State of Alaska or 
National Marine Fisheries Service (halibut) for similar limited entry 
programs. We encourage any other forms of corroborating documentation--
for example, vessel logbook data or affidavits from other fishermen or 
processors--that can assist in establishing an applicant's history of 
participation in the fishery.
    We recognize the limitations of landing report data based on fish 
tickets. Although Alaska statute requires accurate reporting of fish 
harvest information by statistical area,

[[Page 41863]]

fishermen often lump catches from Glacier Bay and Icy Strait 
statistical areas, reporting them as Icy Strait landings on fish 
tickets. Moreover, no statistical reporting area exists specific to 
Glacier Bay for salmon. Because of this, for the salmon fishery we will 
consider landing reports from District 114--along with other 
corroborating documentation (this could be affidavits from crewmembers, 
other fishermen, processors, log books, etc) provided--as indirect 
evidence of participation in the fishery in Glacier Bay proper. Because 
both the halibut fishery (regulatory subarea 184) and the Tanner crab 
fishery (statistical areas 114-70--114-77) do have reporting areas 
specific to Glacier Bay, we intend to require some form of additional 
corroborating documentation beyond the personal affidavit (see 
suggestions above for the salmon fishery) where landing data for these 
fisheries are inconclusive. In any event, landing reports must be from 
the reporting area immediately adjacent to Glacier Bay before they will 
be considered. In the case of halibut, this is regulatory subarea 182; 
in the case of Tanner crab, this is statistical area 114-23. These 
approaches are intended to address concerns regarding the difficulty of 
attributing harvest to Glacier Bay proper from landing reports, most 
particularly for the salmon troll fishery.
    We intend to work closely with the Alaska Commercial Fisheries 
Entry Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service and other 
knowledgeable sources to notify and identify permit owners who meet the 
eligibility criteria defined for the Glacier Bay commercial fisheries.

Management Process for Ongoing Fisheries

    The State, the CACFA, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the 
PVOA, the ATA and others requested that NPS clarify particular aspects 
of the Act. In particular, commenters asked NPS to clarify that ongoing 
fisheries would be managed by ADFG through the Alaska Board of 
Fisheries process. They asked for further clarification that NPS's role 
in joint management would be to contribute expertise in defining and 
protecting park purposes and values. The State requested that NPS 
develop specific criteria for the Secretary to use in recommending 
actions associated with ongoing fisheries. The State also suggested 
that subsequent rulemaking recognize the authority of the International 
Halibut Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, North Pacific 
Fisheries Management Council, and the Salmon treaty with Canada in 
managing ongoing fisheries.
    The State indicated that an existing Master Memorandum of 
Understanding between NPS and ADFG commits the NPS ``to utilize the 
State's regulatory process to the maximum extent allowed by federal law 
in developing new or modifying existing federal regulations or 
proposing changes in existing state regulations governing or affecting 
the taking of fish and wildlife on Service lands in Alaska'' and 
requested that NPS reference this MMOU in subsequent rulemaking. They 
further requested that a written finding be prepared if state 
regulations appear to conflict with federal law.
    NPS Response: The scope and nature of the cooperative fisheries 
management program for Glacier Bay is beyond the subject matter of this 
rulemaking. Nevertheless, a few brief comments on the NPS/State 
cooperatively developed management program are in order. We have 
already begun collaborative discussions with the State of Alaska 
regarding the fisheries management program authorized under section 
123(a)(1) of the Act. We recognize the fisheries management expertise 
of the State and the effectiveness of the established regulatory and 
public involvement process of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. We believe 
that the spirit and intent of the Act--indeed, its balance--envisions a 
cooperatively developed fisheries management plan and process that is 
respectful of and maintains the state and federal governments' 
traditional management roles. We expect the State to continue its role 
in the day to day management of the authorized commercial fisheries in 
the park, and that any changes to state managed fisheries will be 
implemented through the Alaska Board of Fisheries. We support the 
State's role and regulatory processes. We view the fisheries management 
plan as the primary vehicle for interagency and public agreement on 
fisheries management and research objectives in the park. As the 
planning and management processes are now envisioned, the State would 
contribute expertise in management of commercial fisheries and NPS will 
contribute expertise in park management, purposes and values. State and 
federal agencies, along with input from interested parties, could 
jointly develop appropriate marine research and assessment programs to 
improve understanding and management of park fisheries and the marine 
environment. Ultimately, the Secretary retains the authority and 
responsibility to protect park resources and values, especially with 
regards to new or expanded fisheries. Halibut fisheries in the park are 
managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission under 
international treaty and may require separate cooperative planning and 
research efforts.

Cooperative Development of Fisheries Management Plan

    Many commenters supported the cooperative development of a 
fisheries management plan. The Wilderness Society requested that NPS 
prepare an EIS as part of this planning process and ensure that the 
plan was in compliance with ANILCA and other applicable laws and 
compatible with park values and purposes. NPCA and numerous other 
commenters expressed general support for the joint management concept; 
NPCA recommended that the plan be produced with public involvement and 
suggested that an advisory committee representing various stakeholders 
guide the process. The State and others stated that ``cooperative 
development of a management plan'' was not synonymous with cooperative 
management. These commenters reiterated that ongoing fisheries should 
be managed using the existing state process rather than a cumbersome 
``dual management'' process implied by co-management.
    One commenter felt that joint management would be difficult because 
NPS and ADFG biologists would not have similar escapement goals and 
might disagree about research needed. One commenter suggested that NPS 
fund an ADFG position because managing Glacier Bay fisheries would be 
expensive and it is unfair to use license fees for this management. The 
State requested that subsequent rulemaking clarify that the Alaska-
specific provisions under 36 CFR part 13 and 43 CFR part 36 supercede 
the closure provisions in 36 CFR part 2.
    NPS Response: We will work with the State of Alaska in developing a 
fisheries management plan for the park. The plan must be consistent 
with the requirements of the Act and all other applicable federal and 
state laws. We expect the State and NPS will continue their respective 
management roles, and do not foresee a duplicative management 
structure.
    Our general goals in the development of the fisheries management 
plan are to insure that fisheries subject to harvest are prudently 
managed, and that park areas and fish populations not subject to 
commercial harvest are protected. We will also work to insure that 
ongoing fisheries are managed in context with the park's purposes and 
values. And we will work to optimize opportunities for research and 
monitoring programs that

[[Page 41864]]

can improve understanding, management and conservation of fisheries and 
the marine system.
    We acknowledge the potential merits of creating an advisory 
committee comprised of a balanced representation of local, state and 
national interests that could assist in development of a fisheries 
management plan. The concept of an advisory committee warrants further 
discussion with the State, but is beyond the scope of this rule.

Additional Closures

    Numerous commenters, including the Sierra Club recommended that 
commercial fishing be phased out of the park's outer fjords including 
the non-wilderness portion of Dundas Bay and the complex of small 
fjords from Cape Spencer to Lituya Bay. The State, the CACFA, the 
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the PVOA, and the ATA believe that 
the Act did not authorize any additional seasonal or area restrictions 
or closures including the closures of Lituya and Dundas bays or the 
closure of areas for research projects.
    NPS Response: This rule does not implement any additional closures 
or address restrictions on commercial fisheries beyond those imposed by 
Congress in passing the Act, as amended. We do not anticipate any 
additional closures or restrictions specific to commercial fishing in 
the outer waters of the park (outside Glacier Bay proper) at this point 
unless those restrictions or closures emerged through the normal course 
of events in the State's fisheries management administrative process.

15-Year Review for Outer Waters

    Several commenters stated that the Act did not allow for a 15-year 
review of outer water fisheries and requested that this language be 
omitted from future rulemaking language.
    NPS Response: We agree that the Act does not provide for a 15-year 
review of outer water fisheries. We do expect that ongoing fisheries 
will be routinely reviewed to determine whether fisheries management 
objectives are being met. This routine review should serve to resolve 
any issues or concerns that arise regarding the fisheries. Reference to 
a 15-year review, therefore, has been deleted from this rule.

New or Expanding Fisheries

    A few commenters including the ATA expressed concern about NPS's 
definition of ``new or expanding fisheries.'' Commenters felt that 
fisheries that have been closed for conservation reasons should not be 
considered ``expanding fisheries'' if they could be sustained in the 
future. ATA also indicated that this definition must not limit the 
number of boats or harvest levels permitted in a given area. One 
commenter offered that this definition must not include increased troll 
effort as it is unclear what past troll effort has been. The City of 
Pelican commented that recent changes in the groundfish fishery might 
result in reallocation or expansion of this fishery in Southeast Alaska 
and indicated that this quota should be allowed to be harvested. The 
State recommended that NPS avoid defining key fishery management 
guidelines in subsequent rulemaking such as the prohibition on ``new or 
expanded fisheries'' prior to working with the State. The State and ATA 
indicated that new and expanded fisheries are already limited under 
existing mechanisms and that NPS should defer to the Alaska Board of 
Fisheries ``Management Plan for High Impact Expanding Fisheries.''
    NPS Response: Issues associated with the prohibition in the Act on 
``any new or expanded fisheries'' are largely beyond the scope of this 
rule and will be addressed in the State/Federal park fisheries 
management plan to be collaboratively developed with public input.

Commercially Viable Fisheries

    ATA and the State objected to NPS's use of the term ``commercially 
viable'' for determining which fisheries would continue in park waters 
and requested that future rulemaking omit reference to continuation of 
these fisheries. ATA indicated that even small, seemingly unprofitable 
fisheries might be important to individuals who rely on diversification 
in several fisheries.
    NPS Response: These issues are beyond the scope of this rule and 
will be addressed in the subsequent State/Federal fisheries management 
plan for the park.

Permit and/or License Requirements

    ATA and the State opposed any permit or license system for ongoing 
fisheries in outer waters beyond those already implemented by the 
State, NMFS, or IPHC.
    NPS Response: We do not intend to implement a permit requirement 
for participation in commercial fisheries outside Glacier Bay, nor is 
one described in this rule. We do recognize a general need to obtain 
better harvest and effort data for fisheries in the park, but believe 
that there are other actions that should be fully explored in 
cooperation with fishermen and the State to obtain this data.

Procedure

Public Hearings

    Commenters raised several procedural concerns. Several commenters 
at public hearings felt that the hearings were not well advertised and 
that they took place during the commercial fishing season, which 
limited participation by fishermen. These individuals recommended that 
NPS hold additional public hearings in the fall. One commenter stated 
that the release of the EA and the hearing schedule conflicted with 
fishing season and would reduce the number of fishermen able to attend 
hearings and/or comment in writing.
    Two commenters requested in writing that additional public hearings 
be held in Port Alexander, Angoon, Petersburg, Wrangell, Craig and 
Ketchikan. Several individuals phoned in requests for public hearings 
in Wrangell and Petersburg.
    NPS Response: We advertised the local hearings extensively via news 
releases, public announcements on local radio stations, and flyers 
posted in local communities. Attendance at the seven hearings and two 
informal public information meetings was typical of, or greater than, 
attendance at most NPS hearings. Importantly, because of the many 
recent public workshops and working group meetings coordinated by the 
State and NPS, much local attention focused on this issue. We believe 
that most individuals in Southeast communities were aware that proposed 
regulations regarding commercial fishing had been published. The public 
comment period was repeatedly extended over the course of twenty-one 
months and provided significant opportunities for public input.
    We scheduled and held public hearings in 6 Southeast Alaskan 
communities and Seattle and held informal public information meetings 
upon request in Petersburg and Wrangell. NPS staff heard testimony at 
the formal hearings from 66 individuals and heard informal comments 
from many more individuals during informal open houses in these 
communities as well as at informal public meetings in Petersburg and 
Wrangell. NPS also received, and reviewed 1,557 written comments that 
expressed diverse views regarding the commercial fishing issue. We 
believe that this extensive public input is representative of the 
various interests and views regarding the issue of commercial fishing 
in the park.

Rulemaking and NEPA Process

    Many commenters including the State, the Southeast Conference, the 
State Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific

[[Page 41865]]

States Marine Fisheries Commission, The CACFA, the State Legislature, 
Representative Gail Phillips, and the cities of Petersburg and Pelican, 
requested that NPS terminate the rulemaking effort and reissue a 
proposed rule that reflected the changes rendered by the Act and 
clarifies how NPS intends to proceed with implementation of the Act. 
The CACFA felt that NPS has a responsibility under the Administrative 
Procedures Act to first publish a proposed regulation and provide the 
public the opportunity to comment. The CACFA also felt that the 60-day 
extension period for public comment was ineffective because it took 51 
days from the date the Act was signed until NPS issued the notice to 
reopen the comment period.
    NPS Response: Prior to Congress passing the Act in October 1998, 
the NPS public comment deadline on the EA and proposed rule was 
scheduled to run until November 15, 1998. Upon passage of the Act, the 
congressional managers of the legislation directed the NPS to ``extend 
the public comment period on the pending regulations until January 15, 
1999, modify the draft regulations to conform to [the Act's] language 
and publish the changes in the final regulations.'' Accordingly, we 
extended the public comment period until February 1 and mailed notice 
to the 1,400 individuals who had provided comment by December 1998. We 
responded by letter in December and January to the State of Alaska and 
the several others who requested a new rulemaking process following 
passage of the Act. These responses articulated yet other reasons why 
we were not then pursuing a new proposed rule to implement the Act, 
including the view that the Act was within the range of actions 
addressed and analyzed in the EA, and a concern about negating the 
efforts and ideas of the many individuals who had provided public 
comment to date.
    Notwithstanding the above history, after the close of the public 
comment period on February 1, 1999, Congress again enacted further 
directions and clarification language for management of commercial 
fishing activities within Glacier Bay National Park (section 501 of 
Pub. L. 106-31, May 21, 1999). Section 501 amended the October 1998 Act 
and required the Secretary of the Interior to publish an interim final 
rule without an effective date and a forty-five day public comment 
period. This rule responds to congressional requirements and the 
requests from the State of Alaska, fishermen, the Small Business 
Administration, and others for a new rule describing the Act, as 
amended. It also provides a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis of 
eligibility criteria for the Glacier Bay lifetime access permits. We 
welcome additional public comments on all aspects of this rule.
    These commenters also felt that the EA should be redrafted because 
it does not reflect the current statutory regime, is based on the 
previously proposed rule, and does not accurately analyze the 
environmental and socio-economic effects of the alternatives. One 
commenter believed that the impacts of the Act were not covered in the 
EA. Moreover, these commenters suggested that the redrafted document 
should be prepared as a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    NPS Response: The Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 
which describe requirements for implementing the National Environmental 
Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), indicate that a federal agency 
will determine whether an EIS must initially be prepared based on 
agency-specific supplemental procedures. NPS staff reviewed agency-
specific procedures and determined that an EIS was not initially 
required, as the effects of the proposed alternatives were not known to 
result in significant impacts upon the quality of the human 
environment. As a result, we proceeded with the preparation of an 
Environmental Assessment (EA). Had the EA analysis determined that the 
proposed action would result in a significant effect, a full EIS would 
have been prepared.
    Because the published EA included a broad range of alternatives, 
including an alternative in which all fisheries would continue and an 
alternative in which no fisheries would continue, the agency has 
essentially reviewed and displayed the effects of the full range of 
eligibility criteria. Any decisions regarding eligibility requirements 
were fully analyzed and are within the scope of the existing 
Environmental Assessment. We have developed an errata sheet to amend 
the EA based on past public comment and solicit public comment on the 
errata sheet as well as on the rule.
    Several commenters noted that the proposed rule and the EA falsely 
outlined the required ``No Action'' alternative as immediate closure of 
all fisheries.
    NPS Response: We recognize that the designation of the No Action 
alternative as an alternative that involved immediate closure of all 
park waters to fishing was confusing to the public because No Action 
alternatives typically reflect the status quo, which--from a 
fisherman's viewpoint--would be the continuation of commercial fishing 
throughout the park's marine waters. However, the No Action 
alternative--required in all EA or EIS processes--actually requires 
description and analysis of what would occur under the existing 
``status quo'' of federal laws and regulations. This meant that the 
``No Action'' alternative--given the existing NPS general regulatory 
prohibition on commercial fishing in the park and the statutory 
prohibition on commercial fishing in designated wilderness areas--
actually described closure of all of the park's marine waters to 
commercial fishing. In any event, Congress has now twice enacted 
legislation since the original EA was prepared which further clarified 
the status of various fisheries in Glacier Bay National Park as a 
matter of federal statutory law.

Resource Issues

    Almost all comments received in support of reducing or eliminating 
commercial fishing in park waters cited natural resource concerns. 
Numerous commenters indicated that the NPS is charged with maintaining 
naturally functioning ecosystems and should not allow commercial 
fishing because the agency has not proven that such activities do not 
harm park values. Commenters felt that commercial fishing could result 
in depletion of fish stocks with concurrent food web effects that might 
impact other parts of the marine ecosystem. Several individuals 
commented that commercial fishing activities might alter natural 
population dynamics even if stocks remained healthy. Numerous 
individuals cited examples of the effects of overfishing elsewhere in 
the United States and expressed concern that overharvests could occur 
in Glacier Bay. A number of commenters indicated that NPS should not 
allow specific fisheries such as purse seining or scallop dredging. 
Other resource concerns expressed included potential bycatch effects, 
water pollution, marine mammal and gear entanglement, vessel-related 
impacts to the marine system, or impacts to specific species (harbor 
seals, sea otters, common murre, Kittlitz murrelet, glacier bear, 
tufted puffin).
    On the other hand, almost all comments received from individuals in 
support of ongoing fisheries indicated that there was no evidence that 
commercial fisheries resulted in long-term biological harm. These 
individuals stated that park fisheries have been sustained for over 100 
years with no observable biological harm.
    NPS Response: We acknowledge the State's expertise and experience 
in managing fisheries in Southeast Alaska, as well as the strong 
conservation ethic

[[Page 41866]]

of Alaskan fishermen. The State is charged with managing fisheries to 
maintain sustainable yield. The NPS must manage its lands and waters in 
a manner that leaves all resources unimpaired. Both of these management 
approaches are embraced by the Act, as amended, which essentially 
allows commercial fisheries to continue under the management regime of 
the State in the outer waters of the park, while establishing a more 
protective fisheries management regime within Glacier Bay proper.
    Many individuals felt that the resource impacts of other commercial 
ventures (i.e., cruise ships, other tourist operations) in Glacier Bay 
were likely far greater than commercial fishing impacts. A few 
individuals believed that logging and mining are precluded from 
National Parks because they do impact resources while commercial 
fishing does not.
    NPS Response: We analyzed the potential effects of vessel traffic, 
both commercial and personal, in the 1996 Vessel Management 
Environmental Assessment and Plan. Based on this assessment, we 
outlined strict vessel quotas, defined vessel operating conditions, and 
developed mitigation measures designed to ensure that park resources 
are not impaired by vessel traffic. Importantly, the NPS has a dual 
mandate to protect park resources while providing visitors the 
opportunity to see and learn about parks. Vessel access is the primary 
means by which the public visits Glacier Bay National Park. In general, 
commercial ventures associated with providing visitor services--such as 
cruise ship and tour boat operations and kayak concessions in Glacier 
Bay--are permitted in national parks, while other commercial ventures--
in particular, those that remove resources from park areas for profit--
are deemed inappropriate.
    Several commenters noted that most of the fish species harvested in 
Glacier Bay were migratory (salmon, halibut, lingcod) and consequently 
were not ``park resources''; a few commenters indicated that 98% of the 
salmon caught in Glacier Bay were hatchery raised fish and were not 
park resources.
    NPS Response: Salmon, halibut and lingcod have been documented to 
range widely and may move in and out of park waters throughout their 
life span. However, National Parks consider fish and wildlife species 
to be park resources during their period of residence within park 
boundaries and manage them as such, regardless of their place of origin 
or primary area of residency. We do not believe that there are 
definitive research results available regarding the percentage of 
hatchery-raised fish using--or caught in--park waters. We have found no 
data to verify the claim that 98% of salmon caught in Glacier Bay are 
hatchery-raised; this figure appears to be a misinterpretation of coded 
wire tag data collected by ADFG. In any event, Congress has resolved 
the debate over whether salmon should be considered ``park resources'' 
by passing the Act, as amended, and assigning the Secretary of the 
Interior/NPS the responsibility of developing grandfather criteria for 
lifetime fishing permits in Glacier Bay proper and enforcing a winter 
king salmon trolling season as well.

Cultural Issues

    Many commenters, both Native and non-Native, expressed concern 
about how the proposed regulations would affect Native fishing 
activities in park waters. Many commenters, including NPCA supported 
some form of ongoing Native fisheries including commercial, 
subsistence, and an undefined ``Native fishery.'' These individuals 
cited several reasons for supporting ongoing Native fishing including: 
it is a basic Native right; the Tlingit people have harvested fish with 
limited impact to the environment; and it is important to preserve 
cultural traditions, maintain the economic viability of Native 
villages, and continue Native people's connection to resources.
    Several commenters remarked that commercial fishing and subsistence 
activities were tightly linked for Native peoples. These individuals 
felt that reducing opportunities for commercial fishing would reduce 
subsistence products available in Tlingit households. One commenter 
noted that Tlingit traditional fishing is protected by treaty. One 
commenter indicated that wilderness water closures eliminated access to 
waters traditionally used by the Hoonah hand-trolling fleet. A few 
individuals commented that they did not support ongoing Native 
fisheries because all people must learn to adapt to change. One 
commenter thought that fishery closures would protect the Tlingit 
homeland and therefore protect Native culture.
    The State expressed concern that Tlingit historical activities are 
being ignored and that the residents of other local communities have a 
cultural and historical dependence upon the Glacier Bay area. They 
further indicated that NPS's intention with regard to the proposed 
cultural fishery is unclear.
    NPS Response: This issue is generally beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking which concerns implementation of congressional requirements 
for commercial fishing activities within the park and the development 
of appropriate criteria for lifetime nontransferable fishing permits 
for Glacier Bay proper. That said, we recognize that the Tlingit people 
have fished the waters of Glacier Bay and Icy Strait for many 
generations and are intimately connected to both the fish resources and 
the park itself. Similarly, for over a century, non-Native peoples of 
Southeast Alaska have come to rely on the waters of the park for 
sustenance. We recognize that the park represents more than just an 
economic resource for these groups--it is a place of cultural identity. 
The Act provisions that authorize lifetime tenancy and continued 
fishing in outer waters will, to some extent, preserve both Native and 
non-Native cultural ties to most of Glacier Bay National Park. 
Moreover, nothing in these regulations or the Act preclude fishermen 
from participating in other authorized activities including sport or 
personal use fisheries, or visiting and enjoying the park for other 
reasons.
    We cannot legally provide differential commercial fishing 
opportunities for Natives and/or local peoples and The Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) does not authorize Title VIII 
subsistence activities in Glacier Bay National Park.
    However, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Hoonah 
Indian Association (HIA), the federally recognized tribal government, 
in 1995 which commits NPS and HIA to work together on numerous issues 
of mutual concern regarding Glacier Bay National Park. We have 
initiated several ongoing projects and programs designed to maintain 
and strengthen Tlingit cultural ties to Glacier Bay and to perpetuate 
important cultural traditions. As part of this effort, we intend to 
pursue the development of a cultural fishery for the local Tlingit 
community in cooperation with the HIA and the State. This cultural 
fishery will allow the Tlingit people to maintain a cultural tradition 
established by their ancestors that they can pass on to future 
generations.

Visitor Issues

    Many commenters expressed concern that commercial fishing activity, 
including vessel disturbance and potential ecosystem changes, could 
affect visitors' experience of Glacier Bay. Many of these individuals 
felt that commercial fishing vessels destroyed the solitude and 
serenity of park waters. Several past visitors cited specific instances 
of having been disturbed by commercial fishing vessels or gear.

[[Page 41867]]

    On the other hand, many individuals in support of commercial 
fishing indicated that park visitors enjoyed seeing and learning about 
commercial fishing. These commenters cited specific examples of 
passengers on tour boats and cruise ships photographing commercial 
fishing vessels. Two kayak concessionaires in the park indicated that 
they had never received complaints from their clients about commercial 
fishing in park waters. Several commenters explained that many of the 
fisheries took place during a time period when few visitors were 
present (i.e., Tanner crab season in February) or in areas where few 
visitors were present (i.e., the outer coast). Several commenters felt 
that the presence of commercial fishing vessels enhanced visitor safety 
for boaters, kayakers, and airplane passengers. One commenter expressed 
concern that trolling activities were a navigational hazard, 
particularly in Glacier Bay. One commenter felt that commercial fishing 
was, in and of itself, a valid way to visit the park. Many commenters 
described their commercial fishing trips in Glacier Bay as an 
experience beyond simple economic gain.
    NPS Response: We recognize that park visitor opinion on commercial 
fishing, as with most issues, differs. For some park visitors, seeing 
and learning about commercial fishing is an important part of their 
experience in Glacier Bay. Others wish to have park experiences less 
influenced by human contact. The Act, as amended, attempts to balance 
this spectrum of visitor interests by authorizing ongoing fisheries in 
the park's outer waters while designating certain areas--including five 
wilderness water areas, and in Glacier Bay proper, the upper west arm, 
the upper east arm, and Geikie Inlet--as closed to commercial fishing. 
Some of these areas are already closed to motorized traffic under the 
park's 1996 Vessel Management Plan regulations. Congress also set in 
motion a process for limiting and phasing out commercial fishing in the 
rest of Glacier Bay proper through the use of grandfathered 
nontransferable lifetime permits to qualified fishermen in the three 
authorized commercial fisheries. We believe that this mixture of closed 
and open areas will provide diverse visitor experience opportunities; 
we anticipate few if any new visitor concerns regarding commercial 
fishing in Glacier Bay under this rule.

Marine Reserve

    Numerous individuals supported the concept of providing a marine 
reserve in Glacier Bay where commercial fishing would be prohibited. 
Over 200 scientists signed a petition called ``Protecting Marine Life 
in Glacier Bay National Park'' which called for the closure of all 
commercial fishing in Glacier Bay and the establishment of a marine 
reserve. The Center for Marine Conservation, the Marine Conservation 
Biology Institute and several individual commenters cited benefits of 
protected zones including: they may serve as refugia when regional 
fisheries management fails; they provide a naturally functioning 
ecosystem for scientific study; they conserve marine species; they 
enhance non-consumptive uses of the park; and they benefit commercial, 
recreation, and subsistence fishing outside protected area. One 
commenter noted that Alaska has 150% more coastline than the rest of 
the United States, but only one small marine reserve. On the other 
hand, several commercial fishermen believed that the wilderness area 
closures would serve as adequate marine reserves. A few commenters 
indicated that there was little evidence that marine reserves were 
beneficial. One commenter indicated that outer coast waters were 
essentially ``no-take'' areas for much of the year as salmon trolling 
is limited to one week in July within one mile of shore.
    NPS Response: This issue is beyond the scope of this rule which 
implements congressional requirements for commercial fishing activities 
in the park and deals with criteria for nontransferable lifetime 
fishing permits for Glacier Bay proper. Nevertheless, we acknowledge 
that interest in no-take marine reserves is growing worldwide. 
Researchers and managers note numerous benefits of areas where limited 
or no resource extraction takes place including: opportunities for 
research, preservation of marine species and naturally functioning 
ecosystems, preservation of biological and genetic diversity, enhanced 
non-consumptive activities, and potential benefits to fisheries outside 
the no-take area. The Act, as amended, went far toward establishing no-
take marine reserves in Glacier Bay proper by closing several areas to 
all commercial fishing. Although sport and personal use fisheries 
continue to be authorized in these areas, very little participation is 
expected to occur in these areas. The wilderness waters of the 
Beardslee Islands, Adams Inlet, Hugh Miller Complex, and Rendu Inlet--
and portions of Muir Inlet--are closed to motorized traffic during the 
visitor season and hence receive very little, if any, sport fishing 
pressure. As a result, the areas closed to commercial fishing by the 
Act will virtually be no-take areas by default. These areas will allow 
unparalleled opportunities--previously non-existent in Alaska and rare 
in northern latitudes worldwide--for researching the effects of marine 
reserves. The particular elements of a marine reserve research program 
for Glacier Bay proper will be developed cooperatively with the State 
of Alaska as required.

Research

    Numerous commenters in support of reducing or eliminating 
commercial fishing in park waters indicated that as a national park, 
Glacier Bay could serve as an unfished control area, thus providing a 
unique baseline for future research. Several commenters indicated that 
one important value of ``no-take'' marine reserves was the opportunity 
to compare fished and unfished areas and apply this knowledge to the 
management of ongoing fisheries. Several commenters felt that NPS 
should monitor any ongoing fisheries carefully to ensure sustainability 
and compatibility with park values. A few commenters suggested specific 
studies including bycatch studies, stream colonization processes, and 
the effects of fishing on fish, marine mammals, birds, and benthic 
communities. Several commenters felt that the cooperatively developed 
fisheries management plan for Glacier Bay should outline cooperative 
research projects that would be coordinated with existing agencies and 
agreed to by a joint management board. A few commenters including NPCA 
recommended that NPS pursue additional funding to support ongoing 
research needs. The Alaska State Legislature recommended that NPS 
define what is meant by cooperative research and outline a peer review 
process and quality standards. The State indicated support for a 
cooperatively designed research program.
    Numerous commercial fishermen indicated that ongoing fisheries 
would not preclude research and would in fact support research because 
fishermen could provide valuable information on harvest. Several 
commenters opposed the Dungeness crab research project proposed in the 
1997 draft regulations because it involved private profit from sale of 
crabs caught; other commenters opposed the halibut study outlined in 
the preamble of the proposed regulations because it would involve 
closing a valuable fishing area. ATA commented that they did not 
support additional closures beyond those described in the Act for 
research purposes. Several commenters expressed concern about the USGS 
BRD

[[Page 41868]]

crab and halibut studies, indicating that they may not be accurate and 
unbiased. PVOA believed that research at Glacier Bay would not be 
applicable to other areas of Southeast because park ecosystems were 
newly deglaciated and were therefore not representative of other 
Southeast ecosystems.
    NPS Response: We believe that the commercial fishing closures 
described in the Act, as amended, will provide unique opportunities to 
compare fished and unfished areas. The specific elements of a research 
program for Glacier Bay will be cooperatively developed with the State 
of Alaska as required by section 123(a)(1) of the Act. We look forward 
to developing a cooperative research program with ADFG and others and 
envision that, while each agency will likely pursue agency-specific 
research questions, cooperative studies will be designed to address 
questions of mutual interest. Development of a cooperative program will 
also benefit from the input of other stakeholders, in particular, local 
fishermen who remain fishing in Glacier Bay. We acknowledge that much 
important information can be gleaned from fishermen's logs as well as 
from fishermen's traditional knowledge. Importantly, we would like to 
work with ADFG, IPHC and fishermen to develop better harvest tracking 
mechanisms for the park.

Phase-Out Period

    Most comments received discussed the phase-out of commercial 
fishing in Glacier Bay proper. Many individuals supported the preferred 
alternative's phase out period of 15 years. Many commenters supported a 
shorter phase-out period; recommendations included 7 years (including 
Sierra Club recommendation), 3-5 years, and 2-4 years. One commenter 
recommended a 30-year phase-out. Many individuals indicated that 
commercial fishing should be prohibited immediately in all park waters 
with no phase-out period. Commenters who supported a phase-out 
typically indicated that this time period would allow local communities 
to transition from fishing to a different economy and for fisherman to 
be retrained for other occupations while ultimately protecting the 
marine resource. Individuals who recommended a shorter or no phase-out 
period typically expressed concern that irreversible resource impacts 
could occur during the phase-out period and/or fishing constituencies 
would work to overturn decisions regarding fishing closures during that 
period. The Wilderness Society stated that NPS must show that ongoing 
fisheries would not compromise resources during the phase-out.
    Conversely, many commenters recommended at least lifetime tenancy 
for fishermen with a history of fishing in Glacier Bay or no phase-out 
at all. Many of these individuals indicated a phase-out even for the 
period of their lifetime was unfair because it would preclude 
fishermen's children and grandchildren from ``inheriting'' the right to 
fish in Glacier Bay.
    NPS Response: The Act, as amended, grants qualifying fishermen a 
non-transferable permit for lifetime access to an authorized Glacier 
Bay proper commercial fishery. Thus, the question of the duration of 
any phase-out has now been resolved by Congress. We expect that this 
condition will result in gradual attrition from the commercial 
fisheries as fishermen retire. At some point in time (likely decades 
off), all commercial fishing in Glacier Bay proper will cease following 
the retirement of all fishermen qualified to continue to fish under 
section 123 of the Act, as amended. Life tenancy will allow individual 
fishermen with a sufficient history of fishing in Glacier Bay proper to 
continue harvesting fish and will provide a long time period for 
communities to make the transition to a different based economy.

Displaced Fishermen

    NPS received many comments that expressed concern that fisheries 
closures would displace fishermen to other areas impacting the 
displaced fishermen, other fishermen already fishing those areas, and 
processors. The State disagreed with NPS's assumption as presented in 
the EA for the halibut and salmon fisheries that displaced fishermen 
can be redistributed to other areas without significant impact to their 
economic well being. Commenters indicated that displaced fishermen 
would potentially have to travel farther from their home port 
increasing travel costs (fuel, ice, insurance) and would be less 
productive in fishing new areas they weren't familiar with. Several 
commenters also indicated that fishermen already in the areas Glacier 
Bay fishermen were displaced to would be impacted because of increased 
fishing pressure.
    Several individuals indicated that concentrating fishermen could 
result in resource depletion in those areas and/or state mandated gear 
or harvest reductions to preclude resource depletion. A few individuals 
were concerned that increased concentration of fishermen in smaller 
areas could increase the risk of collision, entanglement, etc. Several 
commenters indicated that fishery closures in Glacier Bay would force 
small boats to fish outer waters, which they are not equipped to do. A 
few commenters felt that closures of outer waters could displace 
fishermen to the Gulf of Alaska exposing them to more severe weather 
with limited anchorages. A few commenters indicated that displaced 
Glacier Bay fishermen could impact subsistence, personal use or 
recreational fisheries if they were forced to move into areas used for 
these fisheries.
    NPS Response: We expect that few fishermen will be displaced 
outside of park waters because: (1) The Act, as amended, authorizes 
ongoing commercial fisheries in outer waters where well over 80% of 
historic harvest from the park has occurred; (2) the Act requires that 
any Dungeness crab fishermen compensated retire their limited entry 
permits (and pots) from the fishery; (3) the Act provides for life 
tenancy for qualifying fishermen in Glacier Bay; and (4) these 
regulations outline relatively lenient and inclusive eligibility 
criteria for the authorized fisheries in Glacier Bay proper.

Compensation

    NPS received several general comments indicating that individuals 
and communities should be compensated for revenue lost due to fisheries 
closures. Several commenters recommended that all fishermen displaced 
from wilderness waters be compensated regardless of their fishery. A 
few individuals stated that deckhands/crewmembers should be 
compensated; one commenter recommended that crew should be compensated 
at the standard crew share of 10-12% of the permit holder's settlement. 
Several commenters indicated that processors should be compensated. The 
State provided a list of adversely affected entities who should be 
considered for compensation including commercial fishery entry permit 
holders, vessel owners, crewmembers, seafood processors, the State, 
communities and fishermen who have not historically made landings in 
Glacier Bay but will be impacted by increased competition or loss of 
opportunities.
    A few commenters recommended compensation strategies that included 
providing business opportunities for displaced fishermen, providing job 
training or education tuition, and unspecified financial compensation. 
One commenter felt that NPS should pay displaced fishermen an average 
of their gross yearly take for life and compensate fishermen's children 
and grandchildren similarly. The Alaska

[[Page 41869]]

State Legislature recommended that a bipartisan effort be initiated to 
seek additional compensation funds for deckhands and communities 
impacted by fishery closures.
    Several commenters indicated that compensation for displaced 
fishermen was inappropriate. These individuals offered that ``nothing 
is guaranteed for life.'' Several individuals felt that the government 
should not financially compensate individuals who had been making a 
living from a public resource. One commenter indicated that the 
compensation package for Dungeness crabbers should be cut in half. A 
few individuals offered that the government should not compensate 
Dungeness crabbers because sea otters moving into crabbing areas would 
have eventually reduced crab harvest. Several commenters indicated that 
fishermen should compensate the American public for past use of public 
resources.
    NPS Response: In May 1999 Congress passed section 501 of the 1999 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act that significantly expanded 
federal compensation available for commercial fishermen, communities 
and others who are directly affected by fisheries closures within 
Glacier Bay. We are working closely with the State of Alaska to 
implement this additional $23 million compensation program as rapidly 
and as prudently as possible.
    The Act passed by Congress in October 1998, as amended, also 
authorized a compensation program specific to Dungeness crab commercial 
fishermen who fished in the Beardslee Island or Dundas Bay wilderness 
waters for at least 6 of 12 years during the period 1987-1998. We are 
currently administering this compensation program and several fishermen 
have received compensation.
    The State urged NPS to publish a formal rulemaking, which clarifies 
all aspect of the Dungeness crab buyout program. They further urged 
that an affidavit be sufficient to establish qualification for the 
buyout program. The State clarified that the State does not intend to 
participate actively in the permit relinquishment process whereby 
Dungeness crabbers would relinquish their Dungeness crab permit. Last, 
the State indicated that it was not clear how NPS intended to calculate 
fair market value of vessels and gear and urged NPS to be as lenient as 
possible. One commenter stated that the application period for 
Dungeness crab compensation process should be extended because all 
permit holders were not contacted.
    NPS Response: A formal rulemaking process to complete the Dungeness 
crab compensation program, as described by the Act, as amended, is 
neither required nor warranted. A new rulemaking on the Dungeness crab 
fishery would take months to complete and actually serve to delay 
compensation of qualifying fishermen. Moreover, the Act, as amended, 
imposes strict timeframes for completion of the compensation program. 
Fair market values for vessels, gear and permit, where needed, will be 
carefully determined with assistance of professional appraisers. 
Following passage of the 1998 Act, notice of the compensation program 
was provided to all 1,400 individuals who had provided comment or 
participated in workshops, described in extensive media coverage of the 
Act, and published in the Federal Register. More recently, as part of 
the May 1999 amendment to the Act, Congress changed the eligibility 
criteria and extended the application period for the Dungeness crab 
fishery compensation program. Notice of these changes was published in 
the Federal Register (64 FR 32888, June 18, 1999) and subsequently 
mailed to every permit holder in the Southeast Alaska Dungeness crab 
commercial fishery.

Safety

    Several commenters expressed concern that smaller boats that 
typically fished Glacier Bay proper could not safely fish outer waters 
if they were displaced. A few commenters expressed concern that fishery 
closures on the outer coast would preclude use of the bays and 
protected anchorages during inclement weather. The ATA expressed 
concern that the ability of fishermen to seek safe harborage would be 
impacted if they had to receive permission from the superintendent for 
it. The State requested that the language providing for safe harborage 
in the 1997 rulemaking preamble be included in the body of subsequent 
rulemaking.
    NPS Response: We expect that relatively few fishermen will be 
displaced and little crowding will occur based on the conditions 
outlined in the Act (continued fishing in outer waters/life tenancy for 
qualifying fishermen in Glacier Bay proper) and the relatively lenient 
and inclusive eligibility criteria described in this rule for the 
authorized Glacier Bay proper fisheries. Moreover, nothing in this 
rulemaking, existing park regulations, or the Act would affect the 
ability of fishermen or other vessel operators to seek safe harbor at 
any time within the park under hazardous weather or sea conditions, 
when experiencing mechanical problems, or in other exigent 
circumstances.

Personal Use, Subsistence and Sport Fishing

    One commenter felt that NPS should continue to provide for personal 
use fisheries. Several commenters indicated that NPS should provide for 
subsistence fishing. Many commenters indicated that it was unfair to 
preclude commercial fishing while allowing guided sport fishing to 
continue. The State offered that NPS rulemaking should not restrict the 
State's ability to manage personal use fisheries. They further 
indicated that subsistence and personal use fisheries have occurred 
within park boundaries for many years and are not limited to residents 
of particular communities or areas. And they indicated that residents 
of Hoonah are authorized to participate in these fisheries in Glacier 
Bay, as are residents of other communities.
    NPS Response: Nothing in these regulations on grandfather criteria 
for lifetime permits for commercial fishing in Glacier Bay proper 
alters or supercedes existing authorities for personal use or sport 
fisheries. Existing personal use and sport fishing opportunities will 
continue consistent with NPS and non-conflicting state regulations. 
ANILCA specifically authorizes sport fishing in the park; ANILCA does 
not, however, authorize any Title VIII subsistence activities, 
including subsistence fishing, in Glacier Bay National Park. We have 
proposed to the State that all fisheries in Glacier Bay National Park--
including authorized commercial, sport and personal use fisheries--be 
addressed in the cooperatively developed fisheries management plan.

Environmental Assessment

    While several commenters noted that portions of the Environmental 
Assessment were inaccurate, very few comments (with the exception of 
the State, ATA, PVOA and one individual commenter) provided specific 
details on which information and/or analysis was incomplete or 
inaccurate. Several commenters in support of ongoing fisheries felt 
that, in general, the EA overstated the impacts of commercial fishing 
on park resources and visitors and understated the effects of closures 
on fishermen and the local economy.
    NPS Response: We acknowledge that commenters provided valuable 
information with which to improve the analysis presented in the 
Commercial Fishing Environmental Assessment. Specific comments, 
particularly regarding economic effects have been incorporated within 
the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

[[Page 41870]]

presented below. Specific comments associated with biological issues 
will be addressed in the fisheries management plan. Notwithstanding 
these specific comments, we believe that the document, with an errata 
sheet, is balanced and fairly reflects the mix of potential effects 
associated with continued authorized commercial fishing activities and/
or closures.
    A few commenters believed that the EA described potential impacts 
that were unlikely to occur and implied that commercial fishing vessels 
are the sole or main source of vessel effects on marine and terrestrial 
systems when in fact they are a minor component of vessel traffic in 
Glacier Bay. A few commenters offered that preparing separate 
environmental documents for commercial fishing, sport fishing, vessel 
management, new park infrastructure, etc. does not allow the public to 
see the ``whole'' picture or to understand the cumulative effects of 
these activities.
    NPS Response: One purpose of an Environmental Assessment is to 
outline all the potential social and biological effects of a proposed 
federal action. Consequently, the Commercial Fishing Environmental 
Assessment described the potential effects of commercial fishing on the 
human and biological environment in and near Glacier Bay National Park. 
We determined that the commercial fishing issue and associated analysis 
should be addressed separately from other related issues including 
vessel management (addressed in the 1996 Vessel Management Plan and 
Environmental Assessment) and other ongoing fisheries (which will be 
addressed in the cooperatively developed fisheries management plan). 
The cumulative impacts section of the Commercial Fishing Environmental 
Assessment was provided to assist the public in placing this issue 
within the context of other related park actions and programs. 
Moreover, many of the original issues addressed in the 1997 proposed 
rulemaking and its accompanying EA have now been definitively resolved 
by Congress in the Act, as amended, and are no longer discretionary 
Federal actions requiring the same scope of NEPA analysis as before.

Section by Section Analysis

    The regulations in this section implement the statutory 
requirements of section 123 of the Omnibus Emergency and Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for FY 1999 (the ``Act'') (Pub. L. 105-277), as 
amended by section 501 of the 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-31). Where possible, the language used 
in this section of the regulations mirrors the language used in the 
Act, as amended.
    Section 13.65(a)(1) of the regulations provides definitions for the 
terms ``commercial fishing'', ``Glacier Bay'' and ``outer waters.'' The 
definition for ``commercial fishing'' is the same as used for the 
park's vessel regulations in section 13.65(b) of Title 36 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. The terms ``Glacier Bay'' and ``outer waters'' 
are used in these regulations to describe marine water areas of the 
park that are to be regulated differently under requirements of the 
Act, as amended. The definition for ``Glacier Bay'' mirrors the 
definition for ``Glacier Bay Proper'' that is provided in section 
123(c) of the Act. This definition is essentially the same as that 
provided in the park's vessel management and resource protection 
regulations found at section 13.65(b)(1) of Title 36 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The term ``outer waters'' is used to describe all 
of the marine waters of the park outside of Glacier Bay proper. This 
includes areas of Icy Straits, Cross Sound, and coastal areas on the 
Gulf of Alaska running from Cape Spencer to Sea Otter Creek, beyond 
Cape Fairweather.
    Section 13.65(a)(2) of the regulations provides authorization for 
commercial fishing to continue in some of the non-wilderness marine 
waters of the park, as specifically provided for by the Act. The Act 
calls for the State of Alaska and the Secretary of the Interior to 
cooperatively develop a fisheries management plan for the regulation of 
commercial fisheries in the park. We anticipate that the fisheries 
management plan will reflect the requirements of the Act and other 
applicable federal and state laws, as well as international treaties, 
and serve to protect park values and purposes, prohibit new or expanded 
commercial fisheries, and provide opportunity for the study of marine 
resources. This authorization for commercial fishing supercedes the 
general regulatory prohibition on commercial fishing in the park found 
at 2.3(d)(4) of this chapter. The authorization does not, however, 
exempt commercial fishing activities from other park regulations and 
programs in place to protect park resources and visitor use 
opportunities. Commercial fishing activities are to be conducted and 
managed in concert with park purposes and values.
    Section 13.65(a)(3) of the regulation reaffirms the statutory 
closure of marine wilderness waters as required by the Wilderness Act 
and restated by section 123(b) of the Act. Two recent federal court 
decisions have made clear the statutory prohibition on most commercial 
activities--including commercial fishing--in designated wilderness 
areas.
    Section 13.65(a)(4) of this regulation affirms that, consistent 
with the requirements of Section 123(a)(1) of the Act, commercial 
fishing is authorized in the marine outer waters of the park subject to 
a cooperatively developed State/Federal park fisheries management plan 
and applicable federal and non-conflicting state laws and regulations.
    Section 13.65(a)(5) describes specific requirements and limitations 
on commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay proper, consistent with the Act, 
as amended. Section 13.65(a)(5)(i) of the regulation limits Glacier Bay 
proper commercial fisheries to longlining for halibut, pot or ring net 
fishing for Tanner crab, and trolling for salmon. These are the only 
commercial fisheries authorized to continue in Glacier Bay proper. 
Section 13.65(a)(5)(ii) of the regulations limits participation in the 
authorized Glacier Bay proper commercial fisheries only to individuals 
who have a nontransferable lifetime special use permit for access to 
the fishery issued by the Superintendent. This section clarifies that 
the requirement for this lifetime special use permit is not currently 
scheduled to go into effect until January 1, 2000. The delayed 
implementation date is intended to provide adequate opportunity for the 
public to comment on this rule, to review those comments and make any 
adjustments to the rule as may be warranted, and to allow sufficient 
time for fishermen to apply for and receive the access permits before a 
permit requirement is put into effect. This section also makes clear 
that the permits are non-transferable--reflecting the language and 
requirements of the Act. However, if a temporary emergency transfer of 
a permit is approved by CFEC due to illness or disability of a 
temporary, unexpected and unforeseen nature, we will also consider 
issuing a temporary special use permit transfer for the period 
(generally, a year or less).
    Section 13.65(a)(5)(iii) describes how to apply for a special use 
permit for access. Subsection (A) restates the Act in requiring an 
applicant to possess a valid commercial fishing permit for the district 
or statistical area encompassing Glacier Bay proper. Subsection (B) 
outlines the specific eligibility requirements that must be met to 
obtain a special use permit for access to the Glacier Bay fisheries. 
These eligibility criteria have undergone a Regulatory Flexibility Act 
analysis, and have been determined to meet the goals of this 
regulation, while seeking to minimize

[[Page 41871]]

impacts to commercial fishermen and other affected small businesses to 
the extent consistent with the Act, as amended. A 12-month application 
period to obtain a special use permit for access is described; 
conclusion of the eligibility determinations by October 1, 2000 may be 
important to completion of the $23,000,000 compensation program 
authorized by Congress in the 1999 amendment to the Act. This 
subsection also outlines the specific type of documentation that an 
applicant must provide to the Superintendent to obtain an access 
permit. The Act requires fishermen to provide a sworn and notarized 
affidavit describing their particular history in one or more of the 
three authorized commercial fisheries. NPS will provide a simple 
affidavit form to applicants upon request. The Act also requires 
applicants to provide other available documentation that corroborates 
their history of participation in the fishery. Licensing and landing 
histories--two types of readily available corroborating documentation--
are required by this regulation. A certified printout of a fisherman's 
licensing history in a fishery is available at no charge from the CFEC. 
The licensing history corroborates participation in the fishery during 
the qualifying years. Landing reports, documenting a fisherman's 
harvest activities in a specific commercial fishery by year and 
location, are available at no charge from the ADFG. A form is required 
from ADFG to obtain this information. We are aware of the limitations 
of some landing data--there is, for example, no separate statistical 
reporting unit for Glacier Bay for salmon trolling. Accordingly, we 
intend to consider salmon landing reports for District 114 as indirect 
evidence of participation in the Glacier Bay fishery; this indirect 
evidence must be supported by additional corroborating documentation. 
For the halibut and Tanner crab fisheries, because specific reporting 
areas are described for Glacier Bay, additional corroborating 
documentation will be required where landing data are not conclusive. 
In any event, landing reports must be for the reporting area 
immediately adjacent to Glacier Bay to be considered. Finally, 
subsection (C) describes the delivery address to apply for an access 
permit, and subsection (D) clarifies that the Superintendent will make 
a written determination and provide a copy to the applicant. Fishermen 
will be afforded opportunity to provide additional information, as 
warranted or needed. We anticipate that it could take 30 days or more 
to process and respond to an application, depending on the volume and 
completeness of the applications received. For this reason, fishermen 
are advised to apply at least 30 days in advance of anticipated fishing 
activities in Glacier Bay proper that will require a special use 
permit.
    Subsection 13.65(a)(5)(iv) describes special use permit denial and 
appeal procedures for an applicant. These procedures are similar to 
those in place for other NPS permit programs in Alaska.
    Subsection 13.65(a)(5)(v) makes clear that the special use permits 
for access to the Glacier Bay proper commercial fisheries are renewable 
for the lifetime of an access permit holder, provided they continue to 
hold a valid commercial fishing permit and are otherwise qualified to 
participate in the fishery. We expect to reissue the special use 
permits for access on a five-year cycle. This will provide a recurring 
opportunity to update the list of fishermen authorized to commercial 
fish in Glacier Bay. NPS will not charge a fee for these special use 
permits. No special use permits will be required to participate in 
commercial fisheries otherwise authorized in the marine waters of the 
park outside Glacier Bay.
    Section 13.65(a)(5)(vi) describes non-wilderness areas closed to 
commercial fishing within Glacier Bay proper, as required by the Act, 
as amended by section 501 of the 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (May 21, 1999). The 1999 amendment delays 
implementation of these non-wilderness closures during the 1999 fishing 
seasons with respect to the commercial halibut and salmon troll 
fisheries. Wilderness areas remained closed to all commercial fishing 
under the 1999 amendment, with no delay in implementation; these 
closures were put into effect by NPS on June 15, 1999. NPS will provide 
detailed maps and charts depicting these non-wilderness and wilderness 
closures to every fisherman who receives a special use permit for 
access to the three authorized Glacier Bay proper commercial fisheries. 
Subsection (A) describes the general closure of the west arm of Glacier 
Bay to commercial fishing, with the exception of trolling for king 
salmon during the State's winter season troll fishery. Subsection (B) 
implements the closure of Tarr Inlet, Johns Hopkins Inlet, Reid Inlet, 
and Geike Inlet to all commercial fisheries. These closures include the 
entirety of each of these inlets, as depicted on the maps and charts 
available from the Superintendent. Subsection (C) closes the east arm 
of Glacier Bay north of a line drawn across the mouth of the arm from 
Point Caroline through the southern point of Garforth Island to the 
east shore mainland. The Act provides an exception to this prohibition 
that allows trolling for king salmon during the State's winter troll 
fishery ``south of a line drawn across Muir Inlet at the southernmost 
point of Adams Inlet.'' This line is described in this subsection as 
58 deg. 50'N latitude, a description more readily understood by 
commercial fishermen.

Drafting Information

    The primary authors of this rule are Randy King, Chief Ranger, 
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve; Mary Beth Moss, Chief of 
Resource Management, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve; and Donald 
Barry, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks. Other key contributors include Molly Ross, Special Assistant to 
the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks; Marvin Jensen 
and John Hiscock of the National Park Service.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., we have prepared an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis on the expected impact of this rule on small business entities 
and have determined that the rule will have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities.
    With this rule we are establishing eligibility requirements and 
application procedures for obtaining a special use permit for lifetime 
access to the three commercial fisheries authorized in Glacier Bay 
proper.
    At issue is the effect that fishing eligibility restrictions in 
Park waters would have on numerous individuals and several communities. 
Commercial fishing is one of the largest employers in Southeast Alaska. 
The majority of private sector income in the Southeast is derived from 
the seafood industry, and the economic effect of these fisheries 
extends throughout Southeast Alaska and the State. Local fishing 
village governments are supported by commercial fishing, and in some 
cases depend on raw fish taxes. Restricted eligibility would not only 
directly affect fishermen unable to meet the participation criteria, 
but is also likely to affect deckhands, vessel owners, processors, 
other local business that either directly or indirectly support and are 
supported by the commercial fishing industry, and village governments.
    In designing the eligibility criteria, we attempted to minimize the 
economic

[[Page 41872]]

impacts to fishermen, communities, and others associated with the 
commercial fishing industry. The Act authorizes existing commercial 
fisheries to continue in outer waters where it is estimated that over 
80% of the harvest from Park waters occurs. Additional harvest will 
continue in most of Glacier Bay during the life tenancy period of 
qualifying fishermen, supporting fishermen and communities over the 
course of the current generation. About 18% of the Park's marine waters 
(wilderness and non-wilderness) will be closed immediately to 
commercial fishing. These closed waters have historically accounted for 
approximately 10% of total biomass harvested in the Park. Within 
Southeast Alaska, the Bay has historically accounted for only 2-4% of 
the commercial halibut harvest; approximately 7-12% of commercial 
Tanner crab harvest; and an indeterminate, but presumably small 
percentage of the salmon harvest. 1
    We expect that some portion of the revenue previously harvested in 
the closed areas of the Park will be recovered in Cross Sound and Icy 
Strait and/or other Southeast waters. This is particularly likely for 
fishermen pursuing highly migratory species like halibut and salmon. 
The stocks of these species do not confine themselves to the Bay. They 
move throughout the local aquatic environment, and fishermen are used 
to pursuing them more widely. Halibut fishermen operate under an 
individual quota system and with a fairly lengthy (8-month) fishing 
season. They should be able to select time and fishing location to 
achieve their quotas, avoiding the excessive costs and competitive 
pressures created by derby fishing conditions. Despite the fact that 
salmon are less broadly distributed in space or in time than halibut, 
most displaced salmon trollers (power and hand) are likely to be able 
to recoup the harvest lost from Glacier Bay proper. However, small hand 
troll operators will probably encounter increased safety risks and 
other increased costs due to more exposed weather conditions and 
associated reduced access to migratory king salmon. The governing 
conditions are less accommodating for Tanner crab fishermen. Tanner 
crab fishing grounds are fully utilized with few, if any unexploited 
areas. Displaced Tanner fishermen are unlikely to recover their lost 
harvest.
    In addition, although fishermen who do not meet the eligibility 
criteria will be displaced or excluded from the Bay, the above 
statistical data on the distribution of harvests from Park waters 
suggests that most fishermen who operate in Park waters are not heavily 
dependent on Glacier Bay proper fisheries. The data indicate that most 
of these fishermen have been harvesting fish and earning revenues 
outside the Bay. Moreover, in the Act and amendments thereto, Congress 
provided for compensation to affected communities and individuals.
    Based largely on data collected by the Commercial Fisheries Entry 
Commission (CFEC) and two studies conducted by Jeff Hartman, Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game (Hartman 1998 and 1999), we estimate that 
the economic effects of the eligibility conditions established in the 
interim rule (direct, indirect, and induced) have a present value of 
$9.2M (1997$).
     The estimate is inclusive, covering losses of income to 
fishing permit holders, vessel owners, crew members, seafood processing 
firms and their employees, local businesses and communities, and the 
State. The restrictions on fishing may also diminish property values 
(fishing vessels and gear; real estate and other investment capital), 
but no estimate was made of these losses.
     The estimate is conservative. With unemployment in the 
local communities already higher than the State average, employment 
opportunities are limited. The NPS assumed that for many of the 
affected individuals the income losses would be perpetual. This and 
other assumptions explained below lead to an overestimate of the 
effects of the rule.
    The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) maintains 
detailed, annual information on permit holders, including size, 
location, and value of catch (gross earnings). There are two problems 
with the harvest reporting system which preclude using these data alone 
to estimate the economic effects of limiting access to the fisheries in 
the Bay:
     The earnings information is gross, not net.
     The statistical areas for which data are reported 
frequently do not coincide with Park boundaries, making it difficult to 
apportion harvest to Park waters.
    Fortunately, in 1994, Hartman conducted an in-depth survey of 
permit holders, vessel owners, crews, and processing firms and their 
workers, collecting detailed cost information (Hartman 1998). This 
survey information allows one to estimate net income and profits for 
the various groups.
    In 1999, Hartman utilized the information and results of his 1994 
survey in conjunction with decadal (1987-96) CFEC data on harvests size 
and value, location of catch, and permitee participation by venue to 
estimate the losses associated with phasing out commercial fishing at 
Glacier Bay (Hartman 1999). Hartman found that the present value of 
losses in income to the fishing industry and communities in Southeast 
Alaska ranged between $16M and $23M (1997$). These estimates do not 
include diminutions in the value of assets, but they do account for:
     All regional income losses (direct, indirect, and 
induced), using a multiplier of 1.5. The relatively small multiplier 
reflects the extent to which the region is dependent upon imports.
     Lost tax revenues to the State. Alaska levies a tax on 
commercial fishing businesses as well as a corporate income tax. The 
State shares the fishing tax with local communities based on location 
of landing.
     Certain transactions cost and administration costs for the 
compensation program. Hartman estimates the present value of these 
costs at $4.3M. Over-compensation of firms and individuals ($3.4M) due 
to the difficulty of precisely identifying affected entities and the 
magnitude of their losses constitutes the largest component of the 
transactions costs.
    We are puzzled by the inclusion of these transactions and 
administration costs, especially the transaction costs. They are a 
transfer payment, not an income loss, and since Congress has funded the 
compensation program, this $3.4M constitutes an increase in regional 
income at the expense of taxpayers nationally. In our use of Hartman's 
analysis, we exclude these expenditures together with $200K for 
Dungeness crabbers. Losses sustained by Dungeness crabbers are due to 
the Act, not the promulgation of eligibility conditions for Tanner, 
halibut, and salmon fishermen. Excluding these costs leaves $670K in 
administrative expenses. The cost of administering the compensation 
program is a burden on the State and the NPS, but not a loss to the 
regional economies. Indeed, depending upon how the monies are 
disbursed, they may be a gain to the regional economies, especially 
since these expenses are likely to be covered by taxpayers nationally. 
Excluding all transactions and administration costs reduces the 
estimated regional income effects to $12-19M.
    We have confidence in Hartman's analysis, both because of the care 
with which it was designed and executed and because Congress based its 
$23M appropriation for compensation on this analysis. This latter is a 
strong

[[Page 41873]]

endorsement. Hartman's analysis of income losses is more comprehensive 
than that required of us, however. Hartman wanted to identify all 
impacts to the region from phasing out commercial fishing in the Bay. 
We are only responsible for estimating the impacts associated with the 
promulgation of eligibility conditions for participating in the Tanner, 
halibut, and salmon troll fisheries. Hartman's upper bound estimate for 
this subset is $12.1M.
    In conducting his analysis, Hartman adopted much more restrictive 
eligibility criteria than those selected by the Secretary, excluding 
fishermen with less than 6 years of participation in 10. Scaling back 
Hartman's results to exclude only those with less than 3 years of 
participation during the decade reduces the upper bound estimate of the 
present value of the income effects to $9.2M. At a discount rate of 3% 
in perpetuity this is an annual impact of $276K. Annualizing over 50 
years gives an impact of $358K.
    We believe these to be conservative estimates of the economic 
effect of the eligibility criteria selected by the Secretary on small 
entities (individuals, firms, communities, and village governments) in 
Southeast Alaska. First, our estimate is based on Hartman's upper 
bound, which assumes among other things that most displaced fishermen 
never work again. Secondly, because CFEC statistical areas do not 
coincide with Park boundaries, the data overestimate lost harvest and 
income due to the eligibility criteria. Further, participation data for 
1989-1998, the period used by the Secretary in selecting the 
eligibility criteria, indicate that fewer participants would be 
excluded from the Bay fisheries than data for the period 1987-1996, the 
period underlying Hartman's analysis. No effort was made to correct for 
these influences and refine our estimates further.
    We have placed a copy of the regulatory flexibility analysis on 
file in the Administrative Record at the address specified in the 
ADDRESSES section. Public comment is invited on the regulatory 
flexibility analysis.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
    a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, the 
environment, or other units of government. Jobs in local Alaska 
communities will be lost and a Federally funded compensation programs 
will mitigate the economic impacts on individuals and the communities. 
An economic analysis has been completed and is attached (See Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Section). With this rule we are establishing 
eligibility requirements and application procedures for obtaining a 
special use permit for lifetime access to three commercial fisheries 
authorized in Glacier Bay proper.
    b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. The Act calls for the Secretary and the State of Alaska 
(State) to cooperate in the development of a management plan to 
regulate these ongoing commercial fisheries. Certain inlets or areas of 
inlets of Glacier Bay proper are either closed to all commercial 
fishing, or limited to trolling by qualifying fishermen for king salmon 
during the winter season. The Act confirms the statutory prohibition on 
commercial fishing within the Park's designated wilderness areas, and 
authorizes compensation for qualifying Dungeness crab fishermen who had 
fished in designated wilderness waters of the Beardslee Islands and 
Dundas Bay.
    c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
This rule implements and establishes eligibility requirements and 
application procedures for obtaining a special use permit for lifetime 
access to three commercial fisheries authorized in Glacier Bay proper.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. States 
and other Federal programs have used similar measures to compensate 
individuals to accomplish program initiatives.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional review 
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 
U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule:
    a. Does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
as demonstrated in the economic analysis (see Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Section).
    b. Will not cause an increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State or local governments entities, or 
geographic regions.
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises (See 
Regulatory Flexibility Act Section).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 
et seq.):
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This rule 
does not change the relationship between the NPS and small governments. 
(See Regulatory Flexibility Act Section).
    b. The Department has determined and certifies pursuant the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, that this rule will not impose a cost of 
$100 million or more in any given year on local, State or tribal 
governments or private entities.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. No takings of personal property will 
occur as a result of this rule. Perceived takings due to job loss will 
be offset by the compensation program. This rule implements and 
establishes eligibility requirements and application procedures for 
obtaining a special use permit for lifetime access to three commercial 
fisheries authorized in Glacier Bay proper. (See Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Section).

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 12612, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. The primary effect of this rule is to 
implement eligibility requirements and application procedures for 
obtaining a special use permit for lifetime access to three commercial 
fisheries authorized in waters of Glacier Bay National Park.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Department has determined that this rule meets the applicable 
standards provided in Section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 
12988. The rule does not unduly burden the judicial system. NPS drafted 
this rule in ``Plain-English'' to provide clear standards and to ensure 
that the rule is easily understood. We consulted with the Department of 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor during the drafting process.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements subject to 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. The collection of information contained in 
section 13.65 (a)(5)(iii) of this rule is for issuing a special use 
permit for lifetime access to three authorized commercial fisheries 
within Glacier Bay proper based upon sufficient historical 
participation. The

[[Page 41874]]

information collected will be used to determine who qualifies for the 
issuance of a special use permit for lifetime access. It is necessary 
for someone to apply to obtain a permit.
    Specifically, NPS needs the following information from an applicant 
to issue a special use permit for lifetime access to the salmon troll 
fishery, Tanner crab pot and ring net fishery, and halibut longline 
fishery authorized within Glacier Bay proper: (1) Full name, date of 
birth, mailing address and phone number. (2) A sworn and notarized 
personal affidavit attesting to the applicant's history of 
participation as a limited entry permit or license holder in one or 
more of the three authorized Glacier Bay fisheries during the 
qualifying years. (3) A copy of a current State or--in the case of 
halibut--International Pacific Halibut Commission commercial fishing 
permit card or license that is valid for the area including Glacier Bay 
proper. (4) Documentation of commercial landings within the statistical 
units or areas that include Glacier Bay proper during the qualifying 
period. (5) Any available corroborating information that can assist in 
a determination of eligibility for the lifetime access permits for the 
three authorized fisheries within Glacier Bay proper.
    NPS has submitted the necessary documentation to the Office of 
Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and received 
approval for the collection of this information for all areas covered 
by this rule under permit number 1024-0125. A document will be 
published in the Federal Register establishing an effective date for 
Sec. 13.65(a)(5)(iii).
    The public reporting burden for the collection of this information 
is estimated to average less than two hours per response, including the 
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including suggestions for reducing the burden of these information 
collection requests, to Information Collection Officer, National Park 
Service, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20001; and the Office 
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Attention: Desk Officer for Department of the Interior (1024-0125), 
Washington, D.C. 20503.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An Environmental Assessment (EA) that described five alternatives 
for management of commercial fishing activities within the marine 
waters of Glacier Bay National Park was distributed for public comment 
on April 10, 1998. That document described the major issues associated 
with commercial fishing activities within the park as identified 
through public meetings, written comments and staff analysis, and 
examined the social and biological consequences of the five 
alternatives. The 1997 proposed regulations were described in 
Alternative 1, and represented the preferred alternative for purposes 
of the EA. Public comment on the proposed rule and EA were taken at the 
same time.
    Congress, in passing section 123 of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1999, clarified and 
limited the Secretary of the Interior's discretionary authority with 
respect to authorizing commercial fishing in the park. Thus, the Act 
required the Secretary to describe eligibility criteria for the 
lifetime access permits for Glacier Bay proper, closed certain named 
inlets and wilderness waters, and clarified that the outer marine 
waters of the park should remain open to commercial fishing under a 
cooperatively developed State/Federal fisheries management plan.
    Consistent with the requirements of the Act, as amended, we are 
providing a 45-day public comment period on this rule. All comments 
received on this rule will be considered prior to any decision under 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). By 
requiring completion of the final rule by September 30, 1999, the Act, 
as amended, does preclude any opportunity to prepare an EIS instead of 
an EA on this rulemaking. We have placed copies of the 1998 EA on file 
in the administrative record; copies of the EA may be obtained by 
contacting the park at the address or phone number listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order requires each agency to write regulations that are 
easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) 
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with 
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided 
into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the rule? What else could we do to make this rule easier 
to understand? Please send a copy of any comments that concern how we 
could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory 
Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: 
[email protected].

Public Comment Solicitation

    If you wish to comment you may mail comments to Tomie Lee, 
Superintendent, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, P. O. Box 140, 
Gustavus, Alaska 99826. Our practice is to make comments, including 
names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review 
during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that 
we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we 
will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be 
circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a 
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold 
your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the 
beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous 
comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of 
organizations or businesses, will be made available for public 
inspection in their entirety.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

    Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NPS proposes to amend 36 CFR 
part 13 as follows:

PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA

    1. The authority citation for part 13 is amended to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et seq.; Sec. 13.65 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h), 20, 1361, 1531, 3197; Pub. L. 105-
277, 112 Stat. 2681, October 21, 1998; Pub. L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 57, 
May 21, 1999.

    2. Section 13.65 is amended by adding paragraph (a) and removing 
and

[[Page 41875]]

reserving paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 13.65  Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

    (a) Commercial Fishing--(1) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Commercial fishing means conducting fishing activities under the 
appropriate commercial fishing permits and licenses as required and 
defined by the state of Alaska.
    Glacier Bay means all marine waters within Glacier Bay, including 
coves and inlets, north of an imaginary line drawn from Point Gustavus 
to Point Carolus.
    Outer waters means all of the non-wilderness marine waters of the 
park located outside of Glacier Bay.
    (2) Authorization. Commercial fishing is authorized in the non-
wilderness marine waters of the park in compliance with paragraph (a) 
of this section, and applicable federal and non-conflicting state laws 
and regulations.
    (3) Wilderness. Commercial fishing and associated buying and 
processing operations within designated wilderness are prohibited. Maps 
and charts showing designated wilderness areas are available from the 
Superintendent.
    (4) Outer waters. Commercial fishing is authorized within the 
marine outer waters of the park subject to a cooperatively developed 
State/Federal park fisheries management plan and applicable federal and 
non-conflicting state laws and regulations.
    (5) Glacier Bay. (i) Authorized fisheries. Commercial fisheries 
within Glacier Bay are limited only to longline fishing for halibut, 
pot or ring net fishing for Tanner crab, and trolling for salmon. All 
other commercial fisheries are prohibited.
    (ii) Limits on participation. After January 1, 2000, longlining for 
halibut, pot or ring net fishing for Tanner crab, or trolling for 
salmon in Glacier Bay is prohibited without a special use permit for 
access to the fishery issued by the Superintendent. The special use 
permit for access is non-transferable.
    (iii) Obtaining a special use permit. The special use permits for 
access to the three authorized Glacier Bay commercial fisheries are 
available to fishermen who-(A) Possess a valid commercial fishing 
permit for one or more of the three fisheries authorized in Glacier 
Bay; and,
    (B) Provide documentation to the Superintendent prior to October 1, 
2000, which demonstrates that the individual participated as a permit 
holder in the Glacier Bay commercial halibut fishery for at least two 
years during the period 1992--1998, or, in the case of the Glacier Bay 
salmon or Tanner crab commercial fisheries, participated as a permit 
holder for at least three years during the period 1989--1998. The 
documentation provided must include: full name, date of birth, mailing 
address and phone number; a sworn and notarized personal affidavit 
attesting to the applicant's history of participation as a permit 
holder in one or more of the three authorized fisheries within Glacier 
Bay during the qualifying period; a copy of a current State of Alaska 
or, in the case of halibut, International Pacific Halibut Commission 
commercial fishing permit or license that is valid for the area 
including Glacier Bay; documentation of licensing history for the 
fishery during the qualifying period; documentation of commercial 
landings for the fishery during the qualifying periods and within the 
statistical unit or area that includes Glacier Bay or Icy Straits. 
Fishermen are requested to provide any additional corroborating 
documentation that might be available to assist in a timely 
determination of eligibility for the special use permits for access.
    (C) This information should be delivered to the Superintendent, 
Attn: Access Permit Program, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, 
P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826.
    (D) The Superintendent will make a written determination of 
eligibility for the special use permit for access based on information 
provided by the applicant. A copy of this written determination will be 
provided to the applicant. If additional information is required to 
make an eligibility determination, applicants will be notified in 
writing of that need and be afforded an opportunity to provide it.
    (iv) Special use permit denial and appeal procedures. If an 
applicant is determined not eligible for a special use permit for 
access, the Superintendent will provide the applicant with the reasons 
for the denial in writing within 15 days of the decision. Any applicant 
adversely affected by the Superintendent's determination may appeal to 
the Regional Director, Alaska Region, within 180 days. Applicants must 
substantiate the basis of their disagreement with the Superintendent's 
determination. The Regional Director will provide an opportunity for an 
informal meeting to discuss the appeal within 30 days of receiving the 
applicant's appeal. Within 15 days of receipt of written materials and 
informal meeting, if requested, the Regional Director will affirm, 
reverse, or modify the Superintendent's determination and set forth in 
writing the basis for the decision. A copy of the decision will be 
forwarded promptly to the applicant and will constitute final agency 
action.
    (v) Special use permit renewal. A special use permit for access to 
an authorized Glacier Bay fishery will be renewed at 5-year intervals 
for the lifetime of a fisherman who continues to hold a valid 
commercial fishing permit or license and is otherwise eligible to 
participate in the fishery under federal and state law.
    (vi) Areas closed to fishing. Maps and charts showing marine areas 
of Glacier Bay closed to commercial fishing are available from the 
Superintendent.
    (A) After December 31, 1999 the west arm of Glacier Bay north of 
58 deg.50'N latitude is closed to all commercial fishing, with 
exception of trolling for king salmon during the period October 1 
through April 30, in compliance with state commercial fishing 
regulations.
    (B) After December 31, 1999 Tarr Inlet, Johns Hopkins Inlet, Reid 
Inlet and Geike Inlet are closed to all commercial fishing.
    (C) After December 31, 1999 the east arm of Glacier Bay, north of 
an imaginary line running from Point Caroline through the southern 
point of Garforth Island and extending to the east side of Muir Inlet, 
is closed to commercial fishing, with exception of trolling for king 
salmon south of 58 deg.50'N latitude during the period October 1 
through April 30, in compliance with state commercial fishing 
regulations.
    (b) * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    Dated: July 2, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-19703 Filed 7-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P