[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27276-27280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9329]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 061219338-6338-01; I.D. 120806A]
RIN 0648-AU69
Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;
Amendment 15
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) requests public comments
on a proposed rule to implement Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast
Salmon Fisheries Management Plan (Plan) in accordance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). This Amendment was approved by NMFS on March 22, 2007,
and in accordance with the notification procedures of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) was notified
of this approval. This action is intended to provide management
flexibility in times of low Klamath River fall-run Chinook (KRFC)
abundance, while preserving the long-term productive capacity of the
stock and thereby ensuring it continues to contribute meaningfully to
ocean and river fisheries in the future.
DATES: A notice of availability (NOA) of Amendment 15 was published on
December 20, 2006 under the RIN 0648-AV07. Written comments on the
amendment's NOA were due February 20, 2007. Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received by June 28, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``I.D. 120806A'' by
an of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments, and include ``I.D.
120806A'' in the subject line of the message.
Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or to
Rodney R. McInnis, Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West
Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
Fax: 206-526-6426
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McAvinchey by phone at 206- 526-
6140, fax 206-526-6736 and email at [email protected], or Eric
Chavez by phone at 508-980-4064, email at [email protected], fax
508-908-4047 or contact Pacific Fishery Management Council by phone at
503-820-2290 or by fax at 503-820-2299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was
developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC or Council)
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and approved by
the Secretary in 1978. Since then, the FMP has been amended 14 times,
with implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H.
From 1979 to 1983, the FMP was amended annually. In 1984, a framework
amendment was implemented that provided the mechanism for making
preseason and inseason adjustments in the regulations without annual
amendments.
Amendment 9 to the FMP was approved in 1988 and implemented in
ocean fishing regulations effective May 1, 1989. This Salmon FMP
amendment codified the harvest rate management
[[Page 27277]]
approach developed by the Klamath River Salmon Management Group
(KRSMG)and approved by the Klamath Fishery Management Council and the
Council. It called for the regulation of ocean fisheries to meet a
spawner reduction rate of up to 65 percent (later increased to 67
percent) of each brood of KRFC except that 35,000 naturally spawning
adults would be protected in all years, creating a conservation floor.
In the Klamath Basin, ``natural'' spawners refers to spawning location,
not to parental origin; i.e., hatchery origin fish spawning in a
natural stream are counted as natural spawners. Various allowable ocean
and river harvest rate combinations were specified in the Salmon FMP.
The tribal and non-tribal harvest sharing agreement in effect at the
time allowed for ocean and river harvest rates of up to 35 percent and
50 percent, respectively, based on age-4 fish. The harvest rate
approach was adopted because of uncertainty in the capacity of the
Basin for fall-run Chinook salmon. The harvest rate plan recommended by
the Klamath River Technical Team was subsequently adopted as part of
Salmon Plan Amendment 9. The Council concluded that inclusion of the
conservation floor protected the stock by reducing the risk of
prolonged depressed production, provided greater long term yield, and
resulted in a high probability of attaining sufficient escapement for
hatchery production. When the escapement floor was adopted into the
Salmon FMP through Amendment 9, the Council required that modification
of the floor could only occur by Plan amendment.
Under the FMP a conservation alert is triggered when the projected
stock abundance is less than 35,000 natural spawners. When a
conservation alert is triggered, the FMP requires closure of all salmon
fisheries within the Council's jurisdiction that impact the stock.
The Council prepared Amendment 15 to the FMP under the provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and submitted it for review by the
Secretary. A NOA for Amendment 15 was filed with the Office of the
Federal Register on December 19, 2006, announcing a public comment
period.
The impetus for this initiative began in 2005 because management
measures adopted to protect Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon
(KRFC) reduced access to a projected high ocean abundance of Sacramento
River fall-run Chinook salmon. The need was elevated in 2006 when
projected low abundance of KRFC led the Council and NMFS to conclude
that even more restrictive management measures were needed. NMFS'
implementing rules do not allow for any level of minimal or limited
catch of KRFC when the projected stock abundance is less than 35,000
natural spawners (Conservation Alert Standard); the only option to
allow for such fishing is to amend the FMP following the Magnuson-
Stevens Act procedures or to implement an emergency rule.
In 2006, the status of KRFC included a failure to meet the 35,000
natural spawner escapement floor for the stock for the past two years,
and a projected natural spawner escapement of less than 35,000 natural
spawners. After reviewing the available data on the stock during its
March and April meetings, and in collaboration with NMFS, the states,
tribes, and ocean fishermen, the Council determined that conditions in
2006 met the criteria to temporarily amend the Salmon FMP KRFC
conservation objective to allow a limited fishery that would allow a
projected natural escapement of 21,100 natural adult spawners. This
increase in impacts to KRFC was determined to be acceptable in terms of
maintaining the long-term productivity of the stock while minimizing to
the extent practicable the economic impacts on the fishing community
and states. NMFS concurred with the Council assessment and implemented
emergency regulations effective May 1, 2006. Emergency action was taken
to allow minimal impact on KRFC in directed ocean salmon fisheries
between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, California in 2006 (71 FR
26254, May 4, 2006).
The purpose of Amendment 15 is two-fold: (1) to give more
flexibility to the management process when the escapement floor of
35,000 natural spawners for KRFC is projected not to be met; and (2) to
provide for appropriate opportunities to access more robust Chinook
salmon stocks that are typically available in the Council managed area.
This amendment would, in appropriate circumstances, allow for the
Council to develop and recommend fisheries, and NMFS to implement
fisheries without the need for an emergency rule in years when the
abundance of KRFC are low.
The Council identified a preferred alternative at the November 2006
Council meeting. Under the preferred alternative Amendment 15 would
allow the Council to recommend and NMFS to implement in the case of
Klamath River fall Chinook, to implement de minimis fisheries, which
would: permit an ocean impact rate of no more than 10 percent on age-4
Klamath River fall Chinook, if the projected natural spawning
escapement associated with a 10 percent age-4 ocean impact rate,
including river recreational and tribal impacts, is between 22,000 and
35,000. If the projected natural escapement associated with a 10
percent age-4 ocean impact rate is less than 22,000, the allowable age-
4 ocean impact rate shall be reduced to reflect the status of the
stock. During the preseason planning process to set an allowable age-4
ocean impact rate the Council shall consider the following:
a. Critically low natural spawner abundance, including the risk of
Klamath Basin substocks dropping below crucial genetic thresholds;
b. A series of low spawner abundance in recent years;
c. The status of co-mingled stocks;
d. El Nino or other adverse environmental conditions;
e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) considerations; and
f. Other considerations as appropriate.
When considering these items, the Council shall determine that the
final ocean impact rate will not jeopardize the capacity of the fishery
to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.
Implementation of de minimis fisheries will depend on year specific
estimates of ocean abundance and age composition, which will be
determined by the STT prior to the March Council meeting. Ocean fishery
impacts to the returning brood incurred during the previous fall/winter
fisheries will be counted against the allowable age-4 ocean impact
rate. Amendment 15 does not require that a de minimis fishery be
implemented if the natural spawner floor is not met. The provisions of
Amendment 15 allow the Council to consider implementing a de minimis
fishery that would be limited to no more than 10 percent age-4 ocean
impact rate based on the above described criteria.
Allowing limited opportunity for harvest when fisheries would
otherwise be closed should lessen severe economic consequences to local
communities and states. Historically, KRFC was a primary contributor to
marine fisheries off the coasts of Oregon and California. While this
amendment seeks to provide additional management flexibility in times
of low KRFC abundance, the overriding purpose of the FMP remains to
preserve the long-term productive capacity of the stock and thereby
ensure it continues to contribute meaningfully to ocean and river
fisheries in the future. This amendment does not change the 35,000
natural spawner conservation floor. Annual estimates of fishery
catches, spawner escapements, spawner age composition and coded wire
tag contributions are usually available by
[[Page 27278]]
early to mid-January each year for use by the Salmon Technical Team
(STT) and the KRTAT in updating KRFC fishery resource estimates,
models, and forecasts.
Amendment 15 Approval
Approval of this amendment by NMFS is conditioned upon its
understanding of the particular meaning and intention of the amendment.
In its March 22, 2007 letter to the PFMC, NMFS expressed the following
understanding, which will be used by NMFS in applying Amendment 15:
As you know, the purpose of Amendment 15 is to provide limited
opportunity for harvest when fisheries would otherwise be closed to
mitigate, to the degree possible, severe economic consequences to
local communities and states. Historically, Klamath River fall
Chinook (KRFC) was a primary contributor to marine fisheries off the
coasts of Oregon and California. While this amendment seeks to
provide additional management flexibility in times of low KRFC
abundance, the overriding purpose remains to preserve the long-term
productive capacity of the stock and thereby ensure it continues to
contribute meaningfully to ocean and river fisheries in the future.
The Council prepared Amendment 15 to the FMP under the
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and submitted it for review
by the Secretary on December 13, 2006. A notice of availability for
Amendment 15 was published in the Federal Register on December 20,
2006 announcing a public comment period, this comment period closed
on February 20, 2007. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 15 is
currently under review, and we expect to have the final rule
effective for the 2008 fishing season. Regulations implementing
Amendment 15 will include an amended Federal regulation at 50 CFR
660.410.
It should be clearly understood that we do not interpret
Amendment 15 to set a fixed schedule of allowable salmon harvest
whenever the forecasted abundance of natural spawners falls within
the range of 35,000 to 12,000. Rather, we understand Amendment 15 to
allow the Council to entertain, without emergency rulemaking, the
possibility of some de minimis harvest of KRFC in order to allow
mixed stock ocean fisheries to occur when the preseason forecast of
naturally-spawning KRFC falls below 35,000.
Nothing in this Amendment automatically predetermines that a
particular level of harvest of Klamath fall Chinook will be
acceptable or allowed. The extent of the harvest actually allowed in
a particular year will be limited by the general requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to maintain maximum sustainable fisheries on a
continuing basis, by the specific factors listed in Amendment 15,
and by the requirement to meet our trust responsibilities to
affected Indian tribes.
The factors for consideration listed in the Amendment are
important and need to be weighed based on the specific circumstances
of each applicable future harvest season, and using the best
available scientific information, which will continue to develop in
the future. We anticipate that the maximum allowable 10 percent
ocean impact rate will be implemented only when the anticipated
escapement is near the 35,000 natural spawner floor. As escapement
falls below approximately 30,000 the impact rate will need to
decline substantially.
There may be some opportunity for harvest when projected
escapements are in the range of 12,000 to 22,000, but the
opportunity would be limited at best, and justified only to the
degree that there are mitigating year specific circumstances. We
acknowledge that, in 2006, Klamath fall Chinook harvests were
approved down to a projected escapement of 22,000. However, this
determination was based on the unique circumstances of that year and
should not be understood as a precedent that harvest at that level
will be regularly acceptable. In addition, although the Amendment
allows for harvest if escapement is projected below 12,000, when we
take into account the considerations stated in Amendment 15, we see
little or no prospect for harvest when projected escapement is at
that level.
We will continue to work with the Council to support the best
possible fishery management decisions. While we hope that the
Klamath runs will rebuild to the point that it will not be necessary
to even consider harvest questions at the levels described in
Amendment 15, should it become necessary to do so, we will work
closely with you to develop an appropriate evaluation and sound
decision based on what we know at that time.
Classification
NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the
FMP amendment and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, details of
each are as follows.
The Council prepared an environmental assessment for this FMP
amendment that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of
this rule. A copy of the environmental assessment is available from the
Council (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY
section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows.
Commercial salmon harvesting vessels buyers/processors, and
charter/party boats are expected to be the only type of small entities
directly impacted by the proposed action. Section 603 (b)(1)-(5) of the
RFA identifies the elements that should be included in the IRFA. These
elements are bulleted below, followed by information that addresses
each element.
Description of the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered:
This action is needed to prevent fishery restrictions that impose
severe economic consequences to local communities and states.
Historically, KRFC was a primary contributor to marine fisheries off
the coasts of Oregon and California. While the FMP amendment seeks to
provide management flexibility in times of scarcity, there is an
overriding purpose to preserve the long-term productive capacity of the
stock to ensure meaningful contributions to ocean and river fisheries
in the future.
Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule:
The Salmon FMP directs ocean salmon fishery management actions
relative to the exclusive economic zone(EEZ) off the coasts of
Washington, Oregon, and California. Under the existing Salmon FMP, a
preseason projection that the conservation floor for KRFC will not be
met triggers a Conservation Alert, which provides the Council and NMFS
only one option: to close all salmon fisheries within its jurisdiction
that impact the stock. These fisheries include ocean salmon fisheries
between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, California. Currently, any
other option can only be addressed through the emergency regulation
process as provided in the Magnuson-Steven Act and implemented by NMFS.
The purpose of Amendment 15 is two-fold: (1) to give more
flexibility to the management process when the escapement floor of
35,000 natural spawners for KRFC is projected not to be met; and (2) to
provide for appropriate opportunities to access more robust Chinook
salmon stocks that are typically available in the Council managed area.
This amendment would, in appropriate circumstances, allow for the
Council to develop and recommend fisheries, and NMFS to implement
fisheries without the need for an emergency rule in years when the
abundance of KRFC are low.
Description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply:
The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action
are the vessels that compose the California and Oregon commercial
salmon troll fleet and buyers/processors, the charter/party
[[Page 27279]]
boat fleet between Cape Falcon, Oregon, and Point Sur, California, and
other fishery dependent businesses. In years with sufficient surplus,
the Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribes sell salmon in excess of their
subsistence needs. The generally acknowledged minimum tribal
subsistence need is about 12,000 KRFC. In years that a Conservation
Alert is triggered, it is unlikely the tribal share would exceed 12,000
KRFC; therefore there would be no difference in economic impact to
tribal businesses between the Status Quo and Preferred alternative.
Therefore, no analysis of the tribal fishery in included in the IRFA.
Salmon Troll Fleet
The financial impacts analysis focuses on the ex-vessel revenue
effects of each alternative on salmon troll vessels. Financial impacts
were evaluated based only on changes in salmon ex-vessel revenues
relative to the Status Quo Alternative. Vessel counts are based on
unique vessel identifiers. However, it is known that in many cases a
single firm may own more than one vessel; therefore, the counts should
be considered upper bound estimates. Additionally, businesses owning
vessels may have revenue from fisheries in other geographic areas, such
as Alaska, or from non-salmon fishing activities. Therefore, it is
likely that when all operations of a firm are aggregated, some of the
small entities identified here are actually larger than indicated.
Approximately 2,718 vessels were permitted to operate in the commercial
salmon troll fisheries in Oregon and/or California in 2005, although
the active fleet was considerably smaller, with an average of
approximately 1,068 vessels participating in 2003-2005. In addition,
only about 13-19 percent of the active fleet landed 50 percent of the
catch, and 52-55 percent of the fleet landed 90 percent of the catch in
those years (STT 2006a). Of the 1,068 vessels, 40 percent participated
only in salmon fisheries, while the other 60 percent participated in
multiple fisheries. All of these vessels would be considered small
businesses under the SBA standards. The active fleet participation is
dynamic with respect to annual opportunity in the salmon fishery. In
years with less opportunity, some salmon vessels choose not to
participate, and either engage in other fisheries or sell out. In years
with more opportunity, previously inactive vessels may choose to
participate, or may be sold to more active fishermen. Under the Status
Quo Alternative, there would be no participation in the commercial
salmon fishery between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, California
during years that a Conservation Alert was triggered. Under the fixed
cap alternatives, the active fleet was projected to be approximately
268 to 354. The 2003-2005 average salmon related revenue per troll
vessel was estimated at $20,900. For salmon only troll vessels the
average was $14,300 and for multiple species troll vessels the average
was $25,200. Under the fixed cap alternatives, the average salmon-
related revenue was projected at $1.6 million to 3.1 million in a
Conservation Alert Year and applying a medium troller success rate
scenario.
Processors/Buyers
A relatively small number of large processor/buyer firms handle
most of the ocean salmon catch on the West Coast. There were 464 firms
with state processor/buyer licenses that sold salmon in Oregon and
California in 2004 (PFMC and NMFS 2006). These firms include both
operators of processing plants and buyers that may do little more than
hold the fish prior to their shipment to a processor or market. In some
cases, the buyers may be owners of vessels who also own licenses
allowing them to sell fish directly to the public or retail markets.
Most larger salmon buying firms acquire fish from sites in more than
one port. The largest salmon buyers tend to buy salmon from many
vessels landing and buy fish in several ports. The top ocean caught
salmon buying firms include some firms that are not among the top fish
buyers when all species are counted. Larger processing firms are more
likely to handle ocean caught salmon than smaller firms. However, there
are many small buyers that specialize in salmon, only handle small
amounts of product, and receive product from one or two vessels. It is
likely that most of these buyers are vessels that also have licenses
allowing them to sell directly to the public or other retail
outlets(e.g., restaurants). A thorough analysis of the effects of the
Preferred Alternative would include estimates of the numbers of vessels
acting as buyers/processors, as well as other buyer/processor sectors,
the recent history of revenue generated by the various classes of
buyer/processors, and a projection of revenue generated under the
Status Quo and Preferred alternatives in Conservation Alert years.
However, because many of the small business buyer/processors include
vessel ownership, and because most buyer/processors deal in multiple
fisheries, it is likely the effects of the Preferred Alternative are
proportional to those estimated and projected for the salmon troll
fleet above.
Charter/Party Boats
Approximately 103 charter boats participated in California
recreational ocean salmon fisheries in 2003-2005 (STT 2006a). In
Oregon, there was an average of 211 licensed charter vessels during
these same years. An estimated 6 percent of the Oregon charter effort
occurred in the Astoria area during 2003-2005 (STT 2006a). In Oregon
there was an average of 211 licensed charter vessels. There was no
information available for port of operation for Oregon charter vessels,
but an average of 18 percent of Oregon charter based salmon trips
originated in the Astoria area. There was also no information available
on fishery participation for Oregon vessels, and some may not have
engaged in salmon fishing. Conversely, it is likely that most of the
Charter fleet in both states participated in fisheries other than
salmon, such as California halibut, Pacific Halibut, bottomfish, and
albacore.
Separate economic impact estimates were not available for charter
and private boat salmon fishing sectors; however during 2003-2005,
Oregon and California recreational salmon fishing effort averaged
297,200 angler trips for both boat types, with charter boat fishing
averaging 31 percent of the total during. Based on this assumption the
projected state level income impact of the de minimis fishery
alternatives under the fixed cap alternatives in a Conservation Alert
Year ranged from $6.2 million to $6.8 million dollars. For the Status
Quo Alternative the economic impact was about $322,000. Based on an
assumed fleet of 314 vessels, the average economic impact per vessel
was about $3,200 for the Status Quo Alternative and $19,700 to $21,700
annually for the fixed cap alternatives.
Other Small Businesses
In addition to commercial fishing vessels, other fishery-dependent
businesses that may be affected include suppliers, buyers who act as
intermediaries between vessels and consumers, processors who purchase
raw materials from commercial vessels to produce seafood products, and
charter or party vessels that provide recreational fishing experience
for paying customers, among others. A thorough accounting of net
benefits would include measurement of producer surpluses accruing to
these business sectors as well as to fishing vessels.
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of
[[Page 27280]]
the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirements
of the report or record:
There were no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements that are
proposed as part of this action.
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule:
No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the alternatives. Public comment is hereby solicited,
identifying such rules.
A description of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives that would minimize
any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities:
The decision to set the de minimis harvest rate cap at 10 percent
was determined through the consideration of ecological, fishery, and
economic effects of each alternative. It should be noted that
modification of the current 35,000 naturally spawning adult floor to
some other value would not address the issue of de minimis fishing
opportunity in low abundance years, which is a primary reason for the
current FMP amendment effort. The Council was presented with modeling
results from the Salmon Amendment Committee (SAC) at its September
meeting which examined each of the alternatives. These results showed
little difference in long term effects on the stock size between each
of the proposed alternatives. Differences among the de minimis
alternatives (status quo, 5 percent, 10 percent, 13 percent) in terms
of aggregate salmon troll revenues and associated income impacts
indicated little difference among the alternatives in terms of long-
term economic effects. The alternatives, however, indicated more
substantial differences when the analysis focused on fishery outcomes
in Conservation Alert years. The 13 percent alternative showed a higher
probability of the age-4 ocean harvest rate going above 16 percent,
which is the ESA Consultation Standard for threatened California
Coastal Chinook. The 13 percent alternative also showed a higher
probability of reducing the tributary spawning escapement below 720,
which is considered to be a crucial genetic threshold. The 5 percent
and the status quo alternatives were also examined and while they would
both be a lower catch limit than the 10 percent and 13 percent
alternatives they would provide little in the way of economic benefit
to the fishery. The 10 percent alternative was chosen because it will
not impact the long term productivity of the stock, especially when
provisions are set to reduce the cap as needed and it provides some
economic relief to the fishery. The model projections showed that the
10 percent alternative would allow for more fishing days, a higher
catch of KRFC and a higher revenue than the 5 percent alternative.
This rule provides authority under certain circumstances for de
minimis fisheries. The specific impacts of annual measures will be
assessed annually during the development of annual measures.
Additionally, the specific impacts of any de minimis fisheries pursuant
to the authority of Amendment 15 will be assessed at that time.
Since 1989, NMFS has listed 27 ESUs of salmonids on the West Coast.
As the listings have occurred, NMFS has conducted formal ESA section 7
consultations and issued biological opinions, and made determinations
under section 4(d) of the ESA, that consider the impacts to listed
salmonid species resulting from proposed implementation of the Salmon
FMP, or in some cases, from proposed implementation of the annual
management measures. Associated with the biological opinions are
incidental take statements that specify the level of take that is
expected. Some of the biological opinions have concluded that
implementation of the Salmon FMP is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of certain listed salmonid ESUs and provide
incidental take statements. Other biological opinions have found that
implementation of the Salmon FMP is likely to jeopardize certain listed
ESUs and have identified reasonable and prudent alternatives
(consultation standards) that would avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the ESU under consideration,
and provided an incidental take statement for the reasonable and
prudent alternative.
NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted pursuant to
this rule will affect endangered and threatened species and critical
habitat under the ESA but will not jeopardize the continued existence
of those species. NMFS will continue to assess the impact of the
fishery each year during the development of annual measures. All
alternatives would meet NMFS ESA consultation standards for listed
salmon stocks.
The West Coast ocean salmon fisheries are considered a Category III
fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, indicating a remote
likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine
mammals, in the annual list of fisheries published in the Federal
Register. Based on its Category III status, the incidental take of
marine mammals in the West Coast salmon fisheries does not
significantly impact marine mammal stocks.
Klamath River tribes with federally recognized fishing rights may
be impacted by Council-area fisheries. Accordingly the FMP amendment
was developed with consideration of tribal fishing rights. The Hoopa
Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe were both represented on the Council's
Ad Hoc Salmon Amendment Committee, which was responsible for
development of this FMP amendment. In accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act there is a tribal representative on the Council. A copy of
the Environmental Assessment is available from the Council.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 9, 2007.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reason set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 660 as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
1. The authority for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2.In Sec. 660.410 revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.410 Conservation objectives.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) A comprehensive technical review of the best scientific
information available provides conclusive evidence that, in the view of
the Council, the Scientific and Statistical Committee, and the Salmon
Technical Team, justifies modification of a conservation objective:
except that the 35,000 natural spawner floor and the de minimis fishing
provisions for Klamath River fall Chinook may be changed only by
amendment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-9329 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S