Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska; Commercial Fishing Regulations

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