Purpose and Need

The draft fourth amendment examined three alternative definitions for the plan in addition to the status quo, which was unacceptable. One definition was proposed by the Council’s Salmon Plan Team. The other was proposed by the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee. Both alternatives provided a definition of overfishing that would allow far greater overharvesting of the salmon stocks than is presently allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty or the policies of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. At its September 1990 meeting, the Council decided its preferred course of action would be to request an exemption of the requirement for an overfishing definition for the salmon plan. On November 14, 1990, NOAA denied the exemption. During a conference call on November 15, 1990, the Council adopted the definition of overfishing presented here. It is the alternative proposed by the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee in the draft fourth amendment. An Environmental Assessment shows that neither of the proposed alternative definitions considered by the Council  would have had a significant impact on the human environment.  A Federalism Assessment shows that implementing the fourth amendment of the salmon plan will have no federalism implications.

Analysis

Content here.

Regulation Summary

Content here.

Results

Content here.