West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Northwest Emergency Assistance Plan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 940844-4244; I.D. 082394C]

RIN 0648-AG75

West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Northwest Emergency Assistance Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed program for financial assistance.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a program, the Northwest Emergency Assistance

Plan (NEAP), that would provide $12 million of assistance to salmon

fishermen in the Pacific Northwest who have been affected by a fishery

resource disaster during 1992 through 1994, while providing

conservation benefits to salmon resources. NMFS proposes that these

disaster relief funds, which were made available under the

Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA), be applied toward the

following three programs, administered by the following intermediaries:

A vessel permit buyout program--Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife; and a habitat restoration program--Soil Conservation Service

(SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and a data

collection program--Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC),

both of which would provide jobs to commercial salmon fishermen. The

intent is to provide assistance to those fishermen who have recently

participated in the salmon fisheries, who were substantially reliant on

West Coast salmon resources for their income, and who suffered an

uninsured loss as a result of a significant reduction in income because

of the resource disaster.

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

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Stephen P. Freese, Northwest

Emergency Assistance Plan, Trade and Industry Services Division,

Northwest Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, BIN

C15700, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Morehead, (301) 713-2358, or

Stephen Freese, (206) 526-6113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 26, 1994, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) declared a

fishery disaster and, with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

announced a $15.7 million emergency aid package for Oregon, Washington,

and northern California. This aid is intended to alleviate the economic

hardship imposed on individuals and communities by the collapse of

salmon stocks in fishing areas along the Northwest coast. Included in

this package is $12 million of aid that was made available, under the

Secretary's declaration that a fishery resource disaster exists under

section 308(d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, 16

U.S.C. 4107(d), to undertake the NEAP program as described in this

notice.

In addition, $3 million is being administered by the Rural

Development Administration (RDA) of USDA. Grants by RDA will be made to

public bodies and private nonprofit corporations to finance development

of small business enterprises in cities under 50,000 in population. The

Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce

is making $882,000 available, instead of the $700,000 originally

announced as part of the $15.7 million aid package. Grants by EDA have

been earmarked to communities for tourism development and to tribes for

stream reclamation.

In addition to the $15.7 million package, aid to salmon fishermen

is also being provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and

the Farmers Home Administration, in the form of loans and debt

restructuring programs, and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) in the form of unemployment

assistance, up to $14 million, to dislocated Washington and Oregon

fishermen who are unemployed as a direct result of the continuing

effects of El Nino on salmon fishing. A request for such aid for

California fishermen is under review.

On behalf of the Secretary, NMFS published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28838), to solicit

public comment on issues to be considered in development and

implementation of the $12 million NEAP program. The comment period, as

modified on July 13, 1994 (59 FR 35674), closed July 15, 1994; comments

received are responded to in this notice. At the time the ANPR was

prepared, NMFS anticipated implementing the assistance program through

rulemaking. However, because codification of the program is unnecessary

to comply with statutory requirements, implementation will be achieved

through procedures proposed in this notice. Following consideration of

all comments received, NMFS will publish a notice of the final NEAP

program in the Federal Register.

In addition to the ANPR, NOAA's Office of Sustainable Development

and Intergovernmental Affairs (SDI) arranged a series of eight town

meetings designed to gather information about the effects of the

decline in the salmon resources on local communities and fishermen.

Meetings were held between June 1 and June 10, 1994, in Fort Bragg and

Crescent City, CA; Coos Bay, Newport, Portland, and Astoria, OR; and

Port Angeles and Westport, WA. More than 700 people attended the

meetings and provided more than 37 hours of testimony.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comment on the

limitations, terms, and conditions that the Secretary has determined

are necessary to administer the program, within the conditions in

section 308(d) of the IFA.

Fishery Resource Disaster

Although West Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California) salmon

stocks experience annual fluctuations in abundance, stock abundances in

the last few years have been exceptionally low. West Coast salmon

species are coho, chinook, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon. Landings of

chinook and coho, have declined significantly, from roughly 6.2 million

fish in 1988 to 2 million fish in 1993. Additional information

regarding the declines in chinook and coho can be found in the ANPR and

is not repeated here.

Chinook salmon fisheries in the ocean waters off Washington and

Oregon north of Cape Falcon were closed in 1994 by the Federal

Government. Other salmon fisheries in the ocean waters off central and

southern Oregon and northern California are at reduced levels and are

closed to fishing for coho. It is predicted that 1994 ocean salmon

landings, coastwide, will amount to only 289,000 chinook and zero coho.

The fishing seasons for inside fisheries are the most restrictive ever

imposed in many areas. Recent estimates of the 1994 ocean chinook and

coho fisheries, compared to 1993 catches, indicate that, for the two

species combined, cumulative catches through July are down 95 percent

in Washington; down 76 percent in Oregon; and up 19 percent in

California. California catches reflect increased availability of salmon

off southern and central California, south of Point Arena. In general,

California catches are significantly below 1988-89 catch levels, when

environmental conditions were more favorable. Harvests of salmon off

northern California have been extremely limited--commercial salmon

fisheries are generally closed in this area for 1994, except for post-

peak season openings in September.

Despite increasingly stringent management measures enacted in

recent years to protect these salmon stocks, they have reached a

critical stage of depletion, due in part to environmental conditions

unfavorable to salmon survival that include: (1) An extended drought in

California, in combination with the already depressed condition of

northern California stocks; (2) less than normal snowpack throughout

the western United States; (3) drought followed by extensive flooding

in the State of Washington; and (4) poor upwelling, due to an extreme

El Nino ocean warming event during 1992-1993, all of which are believed

to have been responsible for extremely poor salmon survival.

Comments and Responses

Comments on the ANPR were received from 27 entities. Many of the

comments described the hardships the salmon disaster has caused to

individuals, Indian tribes, and communities. Several commenters stated

that the proposed funds are inadequate. Several also expressed

appreciation for the Department of Commerce's efforts. In addition, SDI

received 59 letters from affected parties, mainly as a result of the

series of town meetings held to get public input on ways to address the

disaster. Correspondents included fishermen, trade associations,

nonprofit organizations, state and local government officials and

agencies (including the Governors of Oregon and Washington), and

members of Congress.

The ANPR requested comments on six specific questions. The

following comments were received in response to those questions.

1. What would be appropriate goals of the program? How might salmon

abundance be increased through this program?

Comments: An Indian tribe, two individual members of another tribe,

and a charterboat operator indicated that the goal should be complete

restoration of salmon stocks. The two tribe members suggested

coordinating emergency mandates to achieve this goal. The Indian tribe

stated that loss of the salmon fishery cannot be mitigated by awarding

money, and the individual noted that financial aid to commercial

fishermen will not increase salmon numbers.

Another individual said that the program should destroy or modify

dams to ensure salmon passage.

Response: The goal of the proposed program is to compensate

individual fishermen for their uninsured losses, while also protecting

the long-term viability of the fishery resources.

2. What should be additional eligibility criteria, within statutory

constraints, to receive a grant?

Comments: A coastal zone management association and a state senator

said that grants should go to individuals actively engaged in the

commercial salmon fishery (ocean troll, ocean charterboat, and lower

Columbia River gillnet). A separate allocation should be made to each

state, based only on commercial economic data reflecting the relative

economic declines, e.g., base years of 1986-90 compared with El Nino

years of 1991-93. Non-charterboat recreational data should not be

included.

The Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force commented that the

maximum grant amount should be $15,000, not $100,000, to help more

people; the $2 million ceiling for the past year's income, as contained

in the IFA, is unrealistic; and, making fishermen eligible for

unemployment compensation would be helpful.

One fisherman stated that aid should go to dislocated fishermen

first, and not to related businesses. Criteria should include being a

participant in the Lower 48 salmon fishery for 50 percent or more of

income, with priority given to those who do not have an alternate

fishery to fall back on, and those who need to update safety equipment.

Another fisherman suggested a buyout of $60,000 for current permit

holders that have been active for the last 10 years, and a buyout of

$20,000 for nonactive permit holders, defined as those who have not

sold salmon within the last 3 years. Deckhands who can document work on

a salmon troller within the last 3 years should receive a cash grant of

$7,000. In addition, there should be a moratorium on fishing for 3

years, in exchange for a $25,000 grant per year.

A charterboat operator stated that criteria need to be consistent

coastwide and that, to be eligible, fishermen should have at least 25

percent (up to 50 percent) of income averaged over the last 5 years

from salmon fishing. Also, salmon landing databases should be used to

determine eligibility; meaningful levels of assistance should be

provided to displaced ocean salmon fishermen prior to aid to inland

participants; grants should be a minimum of $5,000; and qualification

criteria should be generated by those directly involved in salmon

fishing.

A boat puller stated that boat pullers/boat hands should receive

consideration for aid.

One Indian tribe wrote to request that NMFS compensate each member

of the tribe for the loss of the fishery.

A businessman (non-fisherman) commented that owners of failed

troller operations should not receive preference over owners of other

small businesses that have failed due to the salmon disaster.

A county economic development council commented that local

government agencies should be eligible for assistance.

Three Indian tribes commented that tribal governments should be

eligible for grants under the program.

An individual stated that aid should go only to those in commercial

fishing for at least 10 consecutive years. Associations should not be

eligible for awards, to prevent fishermen who are association members

from getting double benefits.

A tribal individual recommended eligibility for tribal members of

one of the four treaty tribes along the Columbia River and its

tributaries.

Response: NMFS is proposing the following eligibility criteria:

Participation in the commercial fishery in either 1992 or 1993; at

least 50 percent of gross income from the commercial fishery in the

base year, selected from 1986-1989, used to determine a loss; at least

a 50 percent decline in commercial fishery income from the base year as

compared to commercial fishery income in 1992 or 1993, whichever is

greater; and, if single, 1993 gross income of less than $25,000, or if

married, combined gross income of less than $50,000. Persons receiving

a permit buyout would not be eligible for the jobs programs. The

disaster relief funds are being made available under the IFA, which

excludes government entities from receiving aid; tribal and local

governments are ineligible for this program. However, individual tribal

commercial fishermen are eligible to apply for the NEAP program.

3. If fishing permits are relinquished, how can their further

reissuance be handled by the states?

Comments: A charterboat operator stated that the total number of

permits should be reduced, beginning with the inactive permits. Under

no circumstance should any new permits be issued.

An individual suggested waiting until salmon numbers increase, and

then giving first priority for new permits to former permit holders who

relinquished theirs.

A tribe member stated that this should be coordinated with the

treaty tribes and other entities involved, after studying the natural

and biological effects.

Response: NMFS is proposing that, as a condition for receipt of

buyout funds under this program, the administering authority must

ensure that reissuance of purchased permits will not be allowed.

4. What should be the basis for the valuation of the permits, and

should inactive permits be valuated differently?

Comments: A fisherman stated that permit value should relate to the

current market value of Alaska troll permits that are for sale.

A charterboat operator commented that this should be decided by

industry as a function of criteria for a permit buyout. Valuation

should logically reflect the level of activity in the fishery, i.e.,

greater value for the more active permits.

An individual stated that all active permits should have the same

value; inactive permits should be valueless.

A tribal individual's response to this question was ``economic

hardship, and education.''

Response: NMFS is proposing not to set a value for permits, but to

use a sealed bid process for conducting a permit buyout. However, in no

case may a buyout recipient receive benefits in excess of 75 percent of

the total uninsured losses incurred for the disaster period, or

$100,000, whichever is less.

5. What would be appropriate documentation to determine the extent

of uninsured losses?

Comments: One fisherman stated that a notarized statement from the

vessel's captain should be required for determining aid to deckhands.

Two commenters, a fisherman and a fisherman's wife, while not

directly addressing this question, mentioned in their comments that

they are willing to provide documentation such as tax records to

demonstrate their need.

A charterboat operator stated that salmon landing tickets, income

tax records, logbooks, charter office schedule logs, etc., would be

appropriate documentation. Grant recipients must be willing to sign

affidavits that the information is accurate.

An individual stated that applicants should provide a record of the

number of fish caught in previous years and those presently caught,

with a value assigned per fish species. Documentation should be in an

affidavit, so that penalties could be imposed in case of perjury.

A tribe member stated that there is no way to determine accurately

the overall extent of uninsured losses, the funds are insufficient, but

that a ``ballpark'' figure could be used to establish economic basis.

Response: NMFS is proposing to consider any or all of the

documentation suggested in the comments, and is also proposing to

require an affidavit that the information provided is accurate.

6. What should be the starting and ending dates of the disaster

period for purposes of awarding grants, and what factors should the

Secretary consider in determining these dates?

Comments: A charterboat operator stated that the disaster period

should begin as soon as administratively possible once criteria are

decided on, and extend at least to the end of calendar year 1994.

An individual stated the disaster period should begin on January 1,

1995, and end ``when the fish numbers equal those existing in 1972.''

A tribe member stated that, for the four treaty tribes, the

problems began in 1977.

A charterboat operator wanted assistance extended beyond 1994,

until normal fishing seasons are established.

Response: For the purposes of the NEAP program, NMFS is proposing

that the disaster period begin on January 1, 1992, and end on December

31, 1994. An ending date for the disaster is necessary in order to

calculate the amount of the uninsured commercial losses eligible for

disaster relief under the NEAP.

In addition to comments responding to the ANPR questions, the

following comments were received:

Comments: Thirteen commenters, including two Indian tribes, a trade

association, a coastal zone management association, the Pacific

Fisheries Legislative Task Force, a state senator, four fishermen, two

charterboat operators, and the California Department of Fish and Game

(CDF&G), were in favor of direct grants to fishermen, for maintenance,

moorage, safety improvements to vessels, or without any conditions for

use. One of these commenters also recommended grants for facilities

such as ports.

Several of these comments contained specific recommendations

regarding the allocation of grant funds among the three affected

states; conditions for eligibility, emphasizing that grants should be

provided to those most active in the Northwest salmon fishery and those

most in need; minimum and maximum grant amounts; and organizations

through which funds should be channeled. Two tribal governments

requested direct aid under this proposal; one asked for funds for two

specific programs; the other recommended tribal administration of grant

funds. This latter tribe further recommended that 65 percent of the

total aid go to Washington State, and of that allocation, 50 percent go

to tribes in the State.

Response: Given the scope and limited financial resources available

for NEAP, NMFS has attempted to devise a program to address both short-

term individual needs and long-term needs of the industry and the

resources. FEMA and the DOL program are accepting applications for

direct grants from individuals affected by this situation. The IFA does

not allow direct grants to tribal governments.

Comments: Eight commenters supported a program to employ fishermen

in habitat restoration efforts, including a coastal zone management

association, a State senator, an Indian tribe, and CDF&G. A trade

association stated that funds should be administered through the Salmon

Stamp Fund in California and the PSMFC in Oregon and Washington, and

opposed use of the SCS or RCD or community agencies. One charterboat

operator supported habitat restoration jobs. Another charterboat

operator and a fisherman, while supporting habitat restoration, noted

these are costly long-term projects; the charterboat operator

recommended that Congress give habitat restoration at least equal

priority to Super Fund projects. The Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task

Force expressed support for nonprofit and citizen group efforts in this

area. A trade association opposed retraining on the grounds that only

low-paying jobs were available.

Response: NMFS concurs that a program employing fishermen to

restore habitat would help address the short-term financial needs of

the participants who lost income due to the disaster. NMFS also

recognizes that habitat restoration is a long-term undertaking, but one

that is needed to achieve recovery of the fishery. NMFS is proposing

that the habitat restoration program be administered through the SCS,

which has access to private lands in coastal areas where a need to

restore habitat exists; an established track record in habitat

restoration projects; and a history of working with Indian tribes.

Comments: One fisherman, a trade association, a coastal zone

management association, and a State senator supported employing

fishermen to conduct at-sea surveys, stream monitoring and data

collection to compensate for lost income.

Response: NMFS concurs that a data collection jobs program would

address some of the short- and long-term needs of the fishing industry

and of the resource. Data collection jobs provide an option for those

unable to do habitat restoration work. NMFS is proposing to use the

PSMFC to administer the data collection jobs program.

Comments: Two fishermen commented in support of a permit buyout,

with one recommending that all of the funds be used for this purpose,

after determining how many permits can remain in the fishery. An

economic development council favored buyout of both permits and

vessels, to be implemented only if additional funds are made available.

A charterboat operator supported an unspecified buyout for ``businesses

reliant on the salmon fishing.'' One individual noted that buying

inactive permits is ineffective.

A trade association strongly opposed permit buyouts, citing lack of

funds and the need to buy out both vessels and permits. However, this

group stated that a permit leaseback for a fixed time period might be

necessary. A charterboat operator stated that permit buyouts or

leasebacks are impossible at this funding level, and would not reduce

future harvests, since only the least active would turn in their

permits. He also noted that, since charterboats in Oregon and

California are not under limited entry permits, reduction of the

charter fleet would not reduce recreational effort. A coastal zone

management association and a state senator stated that buyout or

leaseback was an inappropriate use of the limited funds.

Response: NMFS believes that a program to buy out fishing permits

is needed to provide immediate relief to fishermen and to reduce the

number of participants in the fishery. NMFS is proposing to allocate $4

million to a buyout program. NMFS recognizes that permit buyouts would

be feasible only in Washington at this time, since it is the only one

of the affected states that currently has a limited entry system

without a fixed number of permits. California and Oregon laws provide

that new permits be issued to replace permits lost, in order to

maintain an established number of existing permits.

Comments: One fisherman supported a vessel buyout; another favored

either a boat buyout or permit leaseback. A third fisherman was

strongly opposed to vessel buyouts, citing lack of funds and his belief

that Washington State is trying to eliminate the commercial industry in

favor of recreational vessels. CDF&G also opposed a vessel buyout, as

their State Code mandates restoration, not elimination, of fisheries.

Response: NMFS believes that, given the limited resources for the

NEAP program, the buyout program should apply to permits and not to

vessels. Vessels could potentially be used in other fisheries.

Relinquishing permits would have the desired effect of removing

participants from the commercial fishery for salmon.

Comments: A county economic development council supported efforts

in development, diversification, and tourism promotion. However, two

individuals involved in fishing opposed any funding of local

governments, or businesses for tourism or other development projects.

One of these expressed concern that tourism efforts would promote

recreational opportunities in fisheries where commercial fishermen have

been ``regulated off the stocks.''

Response: EDA has allocated $882,000, primarily for tourism

development activities in local communities and for reclamation

projects in tribal communities. Tourism projects will not be funded

under the proposed NEAP program, the purpose of which is to compensate

individual commercial fishermen for uninsured losses suffered as a

direct result of the West Coast salmon fishery disaster.

Comments: Two individuals, one of these a member of an Indian

tribe, commented that dams on spawning rivers are the main cause of the

salmon disaster.

Response: NMFS recognizes that there are factors other than natural

causes that are responsible for the decline in the West Coast salmon

resources. The proposed NEAP program is intended to address some of

these factors, including habitat restoration.

Comments: A fisherman, a member of an Indian tribe, and another

individual questioned the quality of the data used by NMFS in the ANPR.

Response: NMFS reviewed several studies that attempted to determine

impacts of the disaster on various sectors. NMFS used the best data

available at the time the ANPR was drafted.

Comment: The Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

provided an economic analysis of the impact of the salmon fishery,

indicating that Washington's loss is approximately 65 percent of the

total, and probably much greater when tribal impacts are considered.

Response: After careful consideration of many factors, which are

discussed elsewhere in this document, NMFS is proposing total target

distributions among the affected states as follows: For Washington,

$6.6 million; for Oregon and California, $2.7 million each.

Comments: Two charterboat operators and a member of an Indian tribe

made recommendations related to fishery management needs, including

development of quotas and specific closure recommendations.

Response: NMFS recognizes that there are many management issues to

be considered in rebuilding the salmon stocks. However, such issues are

beyond the scope of this action and should be raised in the appropriate

fishery management forums.

Comment: One Indian tribe noted that the conditions impacting the

coho and chinook stocks also affect the availability of Fraser River

sockeye to tribal fishermen.

Response: The sockeye salmon fishery is not excluded from the

proposed program; all five species of salmon in the West Coast

fisheries are included.

Comment: A member of an Indian tribe mentioned the increasing U.S

interception of Canadian salmon.

Response: The United States and Canada are continuing to negotiate

on this issue.

Proposed NEAP Program

I. Statutory Authority

Section 308(d) of the IFA, codified at 16 U.S.C. 4107(d),

authorizes the Secretary to award grants to persons engaged in

commercial fisheries, for uninsured losses determined by the Secretary

to have been suffered as a direct result of a fishery resource

disaster. Set forth below are the conditions and definitions

established by the Secretary to implement the programs described in

part III.

The IFA requires that ``the Secretary shall determine the extent,

and the beginning and ending dates of any fishery resource disaster''

(16 U.S.C. 4107(d)(2)). Although there have been declining trends in

landings from the salmon fisheries in recent years, a sharp decline did

not occur until after 1991. This sharp decline coincided with an

extreme El Nino ocean warming event during 1992-993. The 1994 season is

the first season in which all ocean fisheries for coho were closed; the

projected chinook harvest for ocean fisheries indicates a new record

low will be achieved, eclipsing the previous record low in 1992.

Therefore, for the purposes of the proposed NEAP program, the beginning

and ending dates of the fishery resource disaster are January 1, 1992,

and December 31, 1994, respectively.

The extent of this disaster includes the waters and habitat

associated with the salmon fisheries of northern California, Oregon and

Washington.

Proposed NEAP Program

II. Definitions

For the purposes of the proposed NEAP program:

Commercial fishermen are vessel owners, operators, or crew directly

involved in the commercial fishery.

Commercial fishery is defined as the salmon fishery off the coasts

and in the state waters of Washington, Oregon, and California for

purposes of either selling the salmon harvested or providing a vessel

for hire that carries recreational fishermen to engage in fishing for a

fee (e.g., charterboats and headboats). Subsistence fisheries do not

fall under this definition.

Commercial fishery income is earned income derived from

participation in the commercial fishery.

Gross income includes all income received in the form of money,

goods, property, and services that is not exempt from Federal income

tax.

Loss is defined as a loss of income not subject to Federal or state

compensation and determined by a multi-step procedure, as follows:

1. The applicant (commercial fisherman) selects a base year from

the years 1986 through 1989.

2. The applicant determines his/her commercial fishery income from

1992 and 1993, and selects whichever is greater.

3. If the amount of the applicant's commercial fishery income from

1992 or 1993, as selected in step 2 above, is less than the applicant's

commercial fishery income from the base year, then a loss has occurred.

The amount of the annual loss is the difference between the applicant's

base year commercial fishery income and that from 1992 or 1993, as

selected in step 2 above.

4. The amount of the annual loss calculated in step 3 above is

multiplied by three to determine the applicant's total loss for the

disaster period.

(Note: The Federal assistance programs announced in this notice

are limited to compensation to commercial fishermen for uninsured

losses that have not been addressed through compensation from other

state or Federal programs.)

Salmon means chinook (king) salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho

(silver) salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink (humpback) salmon

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum (dog) salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and

sockeye (red) salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).

III. Program Descriptions

A. Vessel Permit Buyout Program

This program is intended to compensate commercial fishermen for

uninsured lost income and to aid the long-term viability of the fishery

resource by reducing fishing effort on the stocks. Federal support for

a buyout program stems from recommendations for reducing long-term

effects on the salmon resources, such as the recommendations of the

Snake River Salmon Recovery Team, which was appointed by NMFS to

develop, independently, a recovery plan for Snake River sockeye,

spring/summer chinook, and fall chinook under the Endangered Species

Act, and to take into account the conservation of other species in the

Columbia River Basin. Federal support for this particular type of

buyout system is also based on a review of various academic and

governmental reports concerning past experiences with various buyout

programs, and on discussions with state officials, some of whom have

experience with past buyout programs. Given the high number of slightly

active permit holders, a buyout program predicated on removing the

maximum number of permits in order to reduce capacity is appropriate

for the salmon fisheries.

The buyout program is generally modeled after the 1983-1986 Oregon

Columbia River Gill Net Salmon Fleet Reduction Program Oregon Program.

The Oregon program had low administrative costs and was instituted

quickly; it avoided the difficult, contentious, and time-consuming task

of assessing the market value of vessels and gear. The Oregon program

was based on the premise that fishermen, rather than the government,

are in the best position to determine suitable alternative uses or

buyers for vessels after permits are sold. Also, the inherent

difficulties in reducing effort by attempting to buy out the most

productive vessels are avoided. There are many reported instances where

``highliners'' (the most successful vessels) have been bought out at a

high price, only to return to the fleet via the purchase of a low-

priced permit from a marginal producer. Consequently, the effort-

reduction goals of the vessel buyout programs have been thwarted.

NMFS will enter into cooperative agreements with qualified

government entities that will serve as administrative intermediaries.

If more than one government entity wants to participate in this

program, NMFS may select a primary administrative intermediary to

undertake the administration of the entire program. Qualified

government entities are those governments that administer limited-entry

commercial salmon fisheries and can ensure that permits bought out will

not be replaced.

Offers to sell gillnet or troll permits from commercial fishermen

who participate under limited entry systems of qualified government

entities will be solicited by the administrative intermediary. These

commercial fishermen will need to demonstrate an uninsured loss as a

result of the fishery resource disaster, as defined for the purposes of

NEAP.

Permits will be selected for buyout based on a sealed bid process.

Starting with the lowest offers, permits will be purchased until the

funds are exhausted. Maximum purchase prices for these permits will be

limited to amounts that ensure that the offerer (commercial fisherman)

will not be receiving total benefits from this and any other program

that exceed 75 percent of his or her uninsured and otherwise

uncompensated commercial fishery loss resulting from this fishery

resource disaster, and in no case more than $100,000 per individual.

The administrative intermediary, in consultation with NMFS, reserves

the right to reject any and all bids.

Only Washington State has indicated a strong interest in a buyout

program and currently has a limited entry program that meets the

program requirements. Therefore, NMFS proposes that Washington State

would function as the sole administrative intermediary. However, if

another state or tribal governmental entity has in place an appropriate

limited-entry system and wants to participate in the buyout program,

NMFS will consider expanding the program accordingly. Washington State,

in consultation with NMFS, shall design a permit buyout program that is

consistent with state and Federal management and grant regulations,

including a ``permit offer'' application that allows assessment of the

uninsured loss of the applicant, any receipt of benefits by the

applicant from all other assistance programs associated with this

disaster, and the gross income of the applicant in 1993 (or, if

married, the combined gross income of both spouses). The administrative

costs charged by Washington State shall be kept at a minimum; such

costs should not exceed 7.5 percent of the total funds distributed for

this program.

Based on estimates developed by the Washington Department of Fish

and Game, approximately $4 million would be required to reduce the

Washington State troll and gillnet fleets by 50 percent each, based on

an allocation of $1 million for troll permit purchases and $3 million

for gillnet permit purchases. It is anticipated that the final

development of this program can be initiated in early October 1994.

B. Habitat Restoration Program

There is considerable support among commercial fishermen for a

habitat restoration program that would hire eligible commercial

fishermen (i.e., those who suffered uninsured losses as a result of the

West Coast salmon fishery disaster), both tribal and non-tribal, at a

``living wage'' to perform work that has a long-term beneficial impact

on the habitat of the salmon. Generally, ``living wages'' are wages

commensurate with the prevailing rate for similar work conducted in a

specific locality. Depending on the locality and the skills required,

living wage may range up to $10-$15 per hour. The types of work

fishermen might do under this program would involve the operation of

backhoes and skiploaders, and undertaking the necessary plantings of

vegetation. Generally, fishermen will need 1 to 2 days of training.

Commercial fishermen who meet the eligibility criteria would be hired

on a first-come, first-served basis by contractors associated with

projects that have been solicited and approved by the administrative

intermediary.

Habitat restoration projects are to take place in areas

geographically accessible to displaced fishermen, which include the

coastal counties from Mendocino County, CA, to Whatcom County, WA;

Clallam County, WA; and counties bordering on Puget Sound or the

Columbia River. If in close commuting distance, projects can be

undertaken in other counties, if they contain habitat important to the

salmon resources associated with the fishery resource disaster.

NMFS intends to enter into an agreement with the SCS to serve as

the administrative intermediary for the habitat restoration program.

The SCS would enter into agreements with the appropriate state

conservation agency, conservation commission, or association of

conservation districts, who, in turn, would develop: A grant

solicitation process, including guidelines for making a grant

application; a grant application review process; deadlines for grant

applications; and a monitoring and evaluation process. Each state

conservation agency, conservation commission, or association of

conservation districts would develop agreements with state employment

departments to establish a program to determine the eligibility of

commercial fishermen according to the criteria described elsewhere in

this notice.

NMFS has selected the SCS as the administrative intermediary

because it has the necessary expertise, experience, and other desirable

features, as well as the ability to implement this program quickly by

making use of existing governmental organizations, while avoiding

duplication of effort. The SCS has an established relationship with

conservation districts, which have project selection networks that

extend to the local level and can be used for soliciting proposals. SCS

provides technical assistance to the conservation districts through its

district offices, which are widely distributed and are typically at the

county level. Many of these conservation districts have previously

received Federal grants, and arrangements are in place to receive

grants under this project. For each district, there are approximately

five officials who are landowners and are either appointed or elected

via the general election process. These officials make recommendations

concerning private lands. The SCS reviews these recommendations and

provides technical expertise in the areas of forestry, range

management, conservation, agronomy, etc.

The SCS has significant expertise in habitat restoration and

enhancement on private lands and on the grounds contracting capability.

This is important, since almost all Federal funding has gone toward

restoration of habitat on public lands. The SCS has demonstrated the

capability and the flexibility to work with diverse organizations and

proposal applicants, such as other Federal agencies, state agencies,

and local governments. The SCS is already involved in the prevention of

soil erosion through its watershed identification, habitat restoration,

preservation, and enhancement projects in Oregon, California, and

Washington. The SCS is also already aware of Northwest salmon habitat

issues, as evidenced in working relationships with the Bonneville Power

Administration and the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council), and

has initiated a program for habitat restoration in response to the

Council's comprehensive strategy for salmon and steelhead restoration

in the Columbia River Basin.

A number of SCS studies have already been developed that might be

submitted for the review process. For example, in the California

Trinity River District, there is a project that may employ up to 75

fishermen. A similar project, which could employ another 40 fishermen,

has been developed for the Garcia River.

While it is NMFS' intention and desire to make financial assistance

available as soon as possible, it should be noted that, due to the

season and the need for project review, planning, and implementing, it

is unlikely that many fishermen will start receiving wages in this

program prior to April 1, 1995. Every effort to expedite the program

will be made.

C. Data Collection Jobs Program

Commercial fishermen have voiced considerable interest in a jobs

program associated with collecting information or performing tasks that

would be of use to scientists and fishery managers. Under this proposed

program, eligible commercial fishermen, both tribal and non-tribal,

would be hired on a first-come, first-served basis, at a ``living

wage,'' up to $10-15 per hour, to perform various tasks by contractors

associated with approved projects. Examples of these tasks include

collecting tissue samples for genetic research, measuring parameters of

the ocean environment (temperature, upwelling, etc.), performing

baseline surveys of habitat, participating in test fisheries to

determine ocean fish distribution, and assisting hatchery technicians

in collecting information or in improving hatchery operations.

Commercial fishing vessels may also be chartered to do research. For

some tasks, as with the habitat restoration program, training of

fishermen will be required.

Proposals would be competitively solicited by the administrative

intermediary from states, tribes, academia, and industry or

conservation organizations for projects to be considered under this

data collection jobs program. These proposals would be ranked according

to criteria established in section IV of this announcement. To ensure

that this program complements the habitat restoration program and does

not duplicate other Federal assistance programs, representatives from

NMFS and SCS will be members of this review panel. Priority will be

given to projects that provide the greatest benefits to displaced

fishermen; address the sustainability or rebuilding of anadromous

species, especially threatened or endangered salmon stocks; address

Federal, Pacific Fishery Management Council, PSMFC, or state fishery

research needs; are based on sound scientific methodology; and have low

administrative costs. Applicants must demonstrate ability to manage and

account for Federal funds.

NMFS has chosen the PSMFC as the administrative intermediary for

the data jobs program in the three affected states. The PSMFC is an

interstate fisheries commission established by Federal statute in 1947.

It is a federally authorized forum, wherein its member states

(California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska) can legally enter

into agreements and programs extending beyond state boundaries. The

PSMFC is run by 15 Commissioners (three per member state), who include

the state fishery agency director, a state legislator, and an appointee

by the Governor from each state. The goal of the PSMFC is ``to promote

the conservation, development and management of Pacific coast fishery

resources through coordinated regional research, monitoring, and

utilization.''

The Commissioners have set as one of the objectives of the PSMFC

the facilitation of research and management projects relating to

interstate fisheries. To achieve this objective, they have directed the

PSMFC staff to provide administrative, fiscal, and field coordination

and support for interstate and state/Federal research, data collection

and management projects.

NMFS proposes the PSMFC as the administrative intermediary because

PSMFC goals, objectives, and organizational structure coincide largely

with the implementation needs of this program. The PSMFC has a good

track record of project administration, and experience with project

coordination with the three states and the tribes. Because of its

proven fiscal ability and low overhead, PSMFC regularly serves as a

primary contractor on grants, projects, and contracts for states and

other organizations. The PSMFC is in an ideal position to implement the

Data Collection Jobs Program, because it already has knowledge of

state, Federal, tribal and industry research priorities (recreational

and commercial) as coastwide data collection efforts and research are

at the very core of the PSMFC's objectives. Additionally, the PSMFC is

well respected by fishermen because of its capabilities in reaching

consensus and coordinating efforts between the states. As a coordinator

of the individual state catch statistics systems, which include salmon

landings by individual commercial fishing vessels, PSMFC should be able

to verify much of the information that fishermen will need to provide

to PSMFC showing that they meet the eligibility criteria.

The short-term benefits of this program would be to provide

compensation to fishermen for uninsured lost income due to the closed

or restricted salmon seasons. The long-term advantages would be to

improve collection of information important to sustaining salmon

stocks. An additional benefit is that it could foster a better

understanding between fishermen, scientists, and fishery managers. The

timing of the actual employment of fishermen will depend on the

planning and proposal selection process, as well as the best seasons in

which to undertake research.

IV. Eligibility Criteria

For purposes of the proposed habitat restoration and data

collection programs under NEAP, job applicants must meet all of the

following eligibility criteria to receive assistance:

1. The applicant must show an uninsured loss.

2. In the base year used by the applicant in determining loss, the

applicant must have earned at least 50 percent of gross income from the

commercial fishery.

3. The applicant must have earned commercial fishery income in

either 1992 or 1993.

4. The applicant's 1992 or 1993 commercial fishery income,

whichever is greater, must have declined by at least 50 percent from

the applicant's commercial fishery income from the base year selected.

5. If single, the applicant's 1993 gross income must have been less

than $25,000. If married, the applicant's 1993 gross combined income of

the applicant and his/her spouse must have been less than $50,000.

No person may receive financial assistance under NEAP that exceeds

75 percent of any uninsured and otherwise uncompensated commercial

fishery loss resulting from the fishery resource disaster, and no

person may receive more than $100,000 in the aggregate for all losses

resulting from the disaster.

The intent of these criteria is to provide the available assistance

to those commercial fishermen who have been most heavily dependent on

salmon fishing and who have suffered the greatest losses. In order to

comply with the requirements of the IFA, an uninsured loss must be

shown. The second criterion is intended to determine those applicants

that have been dependent on the commercial fishery for most of their

livelihood. The third criterion is intended to limit eligibility to

those who commercially fished during the disaster period. The final two

criteria are intended to focus the available financial assistance on

those commercial fishermen who have suffered the greatest losses due to

the disaster and who do not have significant income from other sources.

In applying for any of the proposed programs, a commercial

fisherman must submit documentation, including salary, earnings, or

crew-share statements and affidavits that demonstrate eligibility.

NMFS believes the proposed eligibility criteria are reasonable. Two

studies that produced socio-economic profiles on non-tribal Oregon

trollers and California fishermen (the majority of which were salmon

fishermen) for 1988 found: The average commercial fisherman received 34

to 56 percent of total family income from salmon fishing; total family

income ranged from $50,000 to $54,000; 78 to 82 percent were married;

if married, there were 2.8 children to support, with less than 50

percent of their spouses working; and West Coast salmon fishermen had a

weekly income of $1,200 to $1,500 from salmon landings. Oregon trollers

who fish in Alaska may earn 45 percent of their income from Alaskan

salmon. The percentage of trollers who fish off Alaska is not

available. A third study showed that more than one-third of the

Washington fleet may have Alaskan salmon permits. This fleet appears to

harvest off Alaska two to three times the value of the entire

Washington State commercial landings, based on a review of 1985 and

1988 statistics.

The proposed criteria also appear reasonable based on an analysis

of fish ticket data for non-tribal and non-charterboat vessels for all

species of fish landed in California, Washington, and Oregon. Of the

12,009 vessels that earned at least $1 in any of the years 1986 through

1993, only 2,879 appear to meet the proposed eligibility criteria.

During 1993, these vessels collectively earned $9 million in West Coast

salmon revenues, averaging almost $4,000 each, compared to a peak year

average of $24,268. Data on non-fishing and Alaska fishing income are

unavailable, but, when that income is included, it is expected to

reduce the number of vessels that would meet the proposed eligibility

criteria below 2,879. Assuming that crew size for trollers and

gillnetters averages 1.4 crew members per vessel, potentially 4,700

fishermen may be eligible for the jobs program under the first four

proposed criteria.

Approximately 519 charterboats are licensed in Washington, Oregon,

and California. If charterboats have an average crew size of 2.4,

approximately 1,200 individuals could potentially apply for aid.

California charterboats have been classified as either active--those

that landed more than 100 salmon, or casual--those that landed from 1

to 100 salmon. Based on 1993 landings, 47 percent of the California

charterboat fleet was designated casual. If casual charterboats are not

likely to meet the proposed eligibility criteria, then applying the 53-

percent estimate for active charterboats to the entire charterboat

fleet within the area of the fishery disaster suggests that

approximately 600 charterboat operators and crew members may be

eligible to receive financial assistance under the proposed NEAP

program.

In Washington State, 2,000 tribal fishermen made landings in 1993,

compared to 3,000 in 1990. This decline is largely attributed to salmon

fishery closures. The current tribal population is approximately

17,500. Information supplied by the Northwest Indian Fisheries

Commission suggests that tribal revenues from salmon catches in Puget

Sound declined by $13 million, comparing averages for 1990-92 to 1993.

According to 1990 Bureau of Census data, Native Americans in the State

of Washington had an average per-capita income of $6,646 in 1990.

Tribal salmon catches in the other states indicate that there may be

fewer than 500 additional tribal fishermen along the remaining coast.

This is an uncertain estimate; NMFS specifically requests information

on tribal participation in commercial salmon fisheries in response to

this notice.

V. Program and State Funding Targets

NMFS anticipates that the proposed NEAP program would result in the

following distribution of available financial assistance among the

affected states and programs: 55 percent of available funds would be

distributed to the State of Washington and 22.5 percent of available

funds would be distributed to each of the States of Oregon and

California.

Northwest Emergency Assistance Plan

Proposed Program and State Funding Targets Within States

[Dollars in millions]

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

Habitat Data

Permit restoration collection State

buyout total

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

WA........................... 4.0 1.6 1.0 6.6

CA........................... 0.0 2.2 0.5 2.7

OR........................... 0.0 2.2 0.5 2.7

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

Total.................... 4.0 6.0 2.0 12.0

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

NMFS emphasizes that these are ``target'' distributions, not fixed

percentages, and are flexible; redistributions could be made, if

increased total benefits can be achieved. The final distribution would

depend on the needs of the commercial fishermen. For example, should

other governmental entities besides Washington State want to

participate in the proposed buyout program, a portion of the buyout

funds currently proposed to be distributed to Washington would have to

be redistributed. In the project selection phase of the habitat

restoration program, it may be recognized that total benefits will be

greater by shifting more of the projects toward one state than another.

However, there is a need to distribute initially a sufficient amount of

funds to operate the programs effectively in each state.

Program distributions are largely based on the following

considerations: Habitat needs are found in all three states, and

habitat restoration is critical to increase the long-term

sustainability of salmon resources; only Washington State has indicated

a willingness to participate in a permit buyout program; and fishermen

have voiced desires to participate in programs to collect needed

habitat, conservation, and management information.

Because additional listings of West Coast salmon stocks under the

Endangered Species Act are expected, and closures of salmon fisheries

are likely to continue as a result, a phase-down of the fishing

industry via a buyout program is needed. A phase-down of the industry

needs to be initiated to increase the long-term economic health of the

industry, as suggested by the Snake River Recovery Team (Snake River

Salmon Recovery Team: Final Recommendations to the National Marine

Fisheries Service, May 1994).

Information on landings, commercial revenues, recreational

expenditures, and estimates of jobs associated with the various sectors

of the industry were reviewed. Recognizing various uncertainties, this

information was reviewed in the context of: The definition of

commercial fisherman, as defined by the IFA; the realization that coho

and chinook are the prime species associated with the fishery resource

disaster; and the availability of alternative opportunities to

commercial fishermen.

Because of the large Puget Sound and tribal fisheries, available

data and information imply that fishermen in Washington State should

have the greatest share of the funds, given the State's share of the

industry. Providing equal shares to California and Oregon is partially

based on economic analyses developed for the Pacific Fishery Management

Council. Trends in estimated community/local personal income impacts of

the California and Oregon fisheries were compared. Comparing 1986-90

averages to 1993 levels indicates that Oregon has had a greater loss

(approximately $50 million) compared to California (approximately $42

million). So, while California has a larger fishery, Oregon appears to

have had a greater loss on a percentage basis. In addition, commercial

fishermen in Oregon may have fewer alternative fishing opportunities

than those who reside in California and Washington. Northern California

commercial fishermen can fish on salmon stocks for which fishing has

not been prohibited, while many Washington vessels have permits to fish

off Alaska.

The state targets do not necessarily reflect the ultimate

distribution of benefits. For example, should only Washington State

vessel permit holders participate in the buyout program, commercial

fishermen from all three states would benefit, because there would be

fewer commercial fishermen competing for shared salmon resources. In

addition, the results of the proposed jobs program in each state are

expected to provide coastwide benefits.

Classification

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes

of E.O. 12866.

This action proposes a financial assistance program that would

contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act. The necessary information collection forms and specific

reporting requirements have not been identified at this time, and will

need to be developed in conjunction with the intermediaries

administering the program. When the requirements have been established,

NMFS will submit them to OMB for approval prior to their

implementation.

Dated: September 2, 1994.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 94-22078 Filed 9-2-94; 1:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P