Proposed Rule2021-11716
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 4, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP). If approved, Amendment 14 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries that occur within it under Federal management by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS. The management measure implemented by Amendment 14 would be to apply the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing that is currently established in the West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. This proposed rule is necessary to comply with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29977-29986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11716]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No.: 210528-0119]
RIN 0648-BK31
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet
Salmon; Amendment 14
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 14 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP). If approved, Amendment 14
would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West
Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial
salmon fisheries that occur within it under Federal management by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS. The
management measure implemented by Amendment 14 would be to apply the
prohibition on commercial salmon fishing that is currently established
in the West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. This
proposed rule is necessary to comply with a U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruling and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This proposed rule is intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and
other applicable laws.
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 6, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0018,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0018 in the Search box.
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
<bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region
NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory
Impact Review, and the Social Impact Analysis (collectively referred to
as the ``Analysis''), and the draft Finding of No Significant Impact
prepared for this proposed rule may be
[[Page 29978]]
obtained from <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> or from the NMFS Alaska Region
website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df9f2e8fab3f9e8f3fefcf3ddf3f2fcfcb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660209130148021308050708260809070748010910">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for Action
NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries off of Alaska under the Salmon
FMP. The Council prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
approved, the Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the Salmon FMP are
located at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S.
fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. The Council is authorized to
prepare and recommend an FMP amendment for the conservation and
management of a fishery managed under the FMP. NMFS conducts rulemaking
to implement FMP amendments and regulatory amendments.
The Council recommended Amendment 14 to incorporate the Cook Inlet
EEZ Subarea (defined as EEZ waters north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N)
into the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit as a part of the West
Area. The West Area is currently defined as the EEZ off Alaska in the
Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of
the longitude of Cape Suckling, at 143[deg]53.6' W longitude except for
the Cook Inlet Area, the Prince William Sound Area, and the Alaska
Peninsula Area. This proposed rule would implement Amendment 14.
A notice of availability (NOA) for Amendment 14 was published in
the Federal Register on May 18, 2021 with comments invited through July
19, 2021. All relevant written comments received by July 19, 2021,
whether specifically directed to the NOA or this proposed rule, will be
considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially
approve Amendment 14. Commenters do not need to submit the same
comments on both the NOA and this proposed rule. Comments submitted on
this proposed rule by the end of the comment period for this proposed
rule (See DATES) will be considered by NMFS in our decision whether to
approve and implement Amendment 14.
Background
In December 2020, the Council recommended Amendment 14 to the
Salmon FMP. Amendment 14 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea
into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ
Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries that occur within it under
Federal management by the Council and NMFS. The management measure
implemented by Amendment 14 would apply the prohibition on commercial
salmon fishing that is currently established in the West Area to the
newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. This proposed rule would implement
Amendment 14 by removing the regulation that excludes the Cook Inlet
EEZ Subarea from the directly adjacent West Area. This action
specifically addresses management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the
commercial salmon fishery that occurs there.
History of the Salmon FMP
The Council's Salmon FMP manages the Pacific salmon fisheries in
the EEZ from 3 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles off Alaska. The
Council developed the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it
first became effective in 1979. The Salmon FMP was comprehensively
revised by Amendment 3 in 1990 (55 FR 47773, November 15, 1990), and
again most recently by Amendment 12 in 2012 (77 FR 75570, December 21,
2012).
Since 1979, the Council has divided the Salmon FMP's coverage into
the West Area and the East Area, with the boundary between the two
areas at Cape Suckling, at 143[deg]53.6' W longitude. This action
focuses on commercial salmon fishing management in the West Area. Prior
to Amendment 12, the Salmon FMP authorized commercial fishing in the
East Area, sport salmon fishing in both areas, and prohibited
commercial salmon fishing in the West Area. However, the commercial
salmon fishing prohibition in the West Area was not applied to three
areas in the EEZ where commercial salmon fishing with nets was
originally authorized by the International Convention for the High Seas
Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, as implemented by the North
Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act). The Salmon FMP refers to
these three areas of the EEZ where commercial net fishing for salmon
occurs as the ``Cook Inlet EEZ,'' the ``Alaska Peninsula EEZ,'' and the
``Prince William Sound EEZ,'' and refers to these areas collectively as
the ``traditional net fishing areas.'' Under the authority of the 1954
Act, NMFS issued regulations that set the outside fishing boundaries
for the traditional net fishing areas as those set forth under State of
Alaska (State) regulations and stated that any fishing in these areas
was to be conducted pursuant to State regulations.
In 1990, the Council amended the Salmon FMP, continuing to prohibit
commercial salmon fishing with nets in the EEZ, with the exception of
the traditional net fishing areas managed by the State. The next major
modification to the Salmon FMP occurred when the Council recommended
Amendment 12 in December 2011. In developing Amendment 12, the Council
recognized that the law governing the three traditional net fishing
areas (the 1954 Act) had changed and the Salmon FMP was vague with
respect to Federal management of the traditional net fishing areas.
After considering various alternatives, the Council recommended and
NMFS approved Amendment 12, which removed the three traditional net
fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit.
Removing the traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's
West Area allowed the State to continue managing these areas
independently, which the State has done since before the inception of
the Salmon FMP in 1979. Any commercial fishing for salmon by State
registered vessels in the traditional net fishing areas is managed
solely by the State. In developing Amendment 12, the Council considered
Federal management of the three traditional net fishing areas and the
salmon fisheries that occur within them, but determined that (1) the
State was managing the salmon fisheries within these three areas
consistent with the policies and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
(2) the Council and NMFS did not have the expertise or infrastructure
(such as personnel, monitoring and reporting systems, and processes for
salmon stock assessments) to manage Alaska salmon fisheries, and (3)
Federal management of these areas would not serve a useful purpose or
provide additional benefits and protections to the salmon fisheries
within these areas. The Council recognized that salmon are best managed
as a unit throughout their range and separate Federal management of a
portion of the fishery would not be optimal. The Council also
recognized the State's long-standing expertise and well developed
infrastructure for salmon management and the fact that the State has
been adequately managing the salmon fisheries in Alaska since
Statehood. The Council determined that Amendment 12 was consistent with
the management approach established in the original Salmon FMP in 1979.
The final rule implementing Amendment 12 was published in the
Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 FR 75570). On January 18,
2013, Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen and seafood processors
filed
[[Page 29979]]
a lawsuit in Federal district court challenging Amendment 12 and its
implementing regulations. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, No.
3:13-cv-00104-TMB, 2014 WL 10988279 (D. Alaska 2014). The lawsuit
included a challenge to Amendment 12's removal of the Cook Inlet EEZ
from the Salmon FMP. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that section
302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1)) clearly
and unambiguously requires a Council to prepare and submit FMPs for
each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and
management. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065
(9th Cir. 2016). Because NMFS agreed that the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon
fishery needs conservation and management by some entity, the Ninth
Circuit ruled that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that it be
included in the Salmon FMP.
Developing Management Alternatives
The Council spent significant time from 2017 to 2020 developing and
evaluating management alternatives to comply with the Ninth Circuit's
ruling. The Council broadly identified two management approaches for
amending the FMP, one that would incorporate the area into the Salmon
FMP and delegate authority over specific management measures to the
State with review and oversight by the Council (Alternative 2; Section
2.4 of the Analysis), and one that would incorporate the area into the
Salmon FMP and retain all management within the Federal process
(Alternative 3; Section 2.5 of the Analysis). The Analysis identified
the management measures and processes that would be required to
implement these two approaches, as well as the complexities,
uncertainties, benefits, costs, and burdens to fishery participants
associated with these two approaches. In October 2020, the Council
considered all of this information and chose to identify an approach
that would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP and close
the area to commercial salmon fishing as a separate and distinct
management alternative (Alternative 4; Section 2.6 of the Analysis).
This approach was previously identified as a potential management
outcome under Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 4
would retain all management within the Federal process and would not
delegate management authority to the State. It is also noted that the
Council considered taking no action (Alternative 1; Section 2.3 of the
Analysis), but this is not a viable approach because it would be
inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit ruling and the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
To obtain important participant insight into the management of Cook
Inlet salmon fisheries, the Council formed the Cook Inlet Salmon
Committee (Committee), consisting of Cook Inlet salmon fishery
stakeholders from the harvesting and processing sectors. The Committee
met six times from 2018 to 2020 to develop recommendations for the
Council regarding management of the Cook Inlet EEZ. Ultimately, the
Committee recommended that management be delegated to the State, but
with expanded Federal oversight and review, as well as a management
scope that included both the State marine and fresh waters of Cook
Inlet. The Council did not include the Committee's recommended
alternative for further consideration because the Council does not have
any jurisdiction over State fresh waters and can only assert
jurisdiction over fisheries occurring within State marine waters under
very limited circumstances if the Secretary preempts state management
under section 306(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)).
The conditions required for preemption are not met for the salmon
fisheries in the State marine waters of Cook Inlet. A more complete
discussion of the Committee's work and consideration by the Council can
be found in Sections 1.4 and 2.7 of the Analysis, respectively.
Over the course of several years, Federal and State fisheries
scientists and fishery managers developed proposed status determination
criteria complete with all the reference points required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act for appropriate conservation and management of
Cook Inlet salmon stocks. These criteria were reviewed by the Council
and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). This was a
significant undertaking and integral to the development and analysis of
alternatives. This process included input from State scientists
currently managing the fishery, as well as comments from Committee
members and other stakeholders. The proposed status determination
criteria and reference points served as the foundation for proposed
Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ under Alternatives 2 and 3 but
were also applied retrospectively to provide a comprehensive assessment
of the State's escapement-based management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks.
The Analysis found that State management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks
has been consistently appropriate for conservation within the bounds of
the status determination criteria that would be implemented under
Federal management. The analysis further determined that the addition
of Federal management is unlikely to appreciably change salmon
conservation metrics and thresholds established in Cook Inlet (Section
3.1 of the Analysis). However, while conservation objectives for Cook
Inlet salmon stocks were consistent across alternatives, the Analysis
demonstrated that the ability to fully achieve these objectives while
accounting for management uncertainty and management flexibility varied
among alternatives (Sections 3.1 and 4.7.1 of the Analysis).
Recognizing the significant regional, cultural, and economic
importance of Cook Inlet salmon resources, the Council invested
significant resources towards working to find solutions to challenges
identified by stakeholders and fishery managers throughout the Salmon
FMP amendment development process. While the Council identified some
flexibility with the specific management measures that could be
implemented under Federal management with specific management measures
delegated to the State (Alternative 2) and Federal management
(Alternatives 3 and 4), neither the Council, NMFS, the State, nor
stakeholders were able to identify another fundamentally different
management approach that could satisfy the Ninth Circuit ruling, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
After this extensive review and development process, and as
explained in further detail below, the Council took final action to
recommend Alternative 4 as Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that Federal management of the Cook Inlet
EEZ through closure of the area to commercial salmon fishing (1) takes
the most precautionary approach to minimizing the potential for
overfishing, (2) avoids creating new management uncertainty, (3)
minimizes regulatory burden to fishery participants, (4) maximizes
management efficiency for Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, and (5) avoids
the introduction of an additional management jurisdiction and the
associated uncertainty it would add to the already complex and
interdependent network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.
The Council considered but did not select Alternative 2, which
would have delegated management authority over the Cook Inlet EEZ to
the State. During Council deliberation, the State announced that it
would not accept a delegation of management authority for Cook Inlet.
Although section
[[Page 29980]]
306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows a Council to delegate
management authority to a state, subject to a three-quarters majority
vote, neither the Council nor NMFS can compel a state to cooperate in a
fishery management plan that delegates authority (16 U.S.C.
1856(a)(3)(B)). Therefore, after the State announced it would not
accept delegated management authority for the Cook Inlet EEZ,
Alternative 2 was no longer a viable option.
Because Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 2 (Federal
management with specific management measures delegated to the State)
were not viable, this focused Council consideration on Alternative 3
(Federal management) and Alternative 4 (Federal management with the
Cook Inlet EEZ closed to commercial salmon fishing). The Council
considered and rejected Alternative 3. The Council determined, and NMFS
agrees, that a separately managed Federal commercial salmon fishery in
the Cook Inlet EEZ would have significant management challenges
alongside adjacent State-managed salmon fisheries, resulting in
precautionary reductions in EEZ salmon harvests or closures of the area
as detailed in Sections 2.5 and 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis. When a
commercial salmon fishery could occur in the Cook Inlet EEZ,
Alternative 3 would create new management uncertainty relative to the
status quo because Federal harvest limits must be established preseason
and Federal fishery managers do not have the same tools and flexibility
available to State managers to quickly respond to updated in-season
information about salmon runs that deviate from preseason estimates
(Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.10 of the Analysis). Alternative 3 would
increase the risk of overfishing or forgone yield.
For example, if a salmon run is larger than expected and a Federal
catch limit for a stock is reached, it is unlikely Federal managers
would be able to adjust Federal catch limits to provide for additional
harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ within the window of harvest opportunity.
These salmon would later be available for harvest in State waters, but
because it would be difficult to predict the timing of Federal closures
and such closures could occur with short notice, Alternative 3 is
expected to make subsequent utilization in State waters more
challenging. Conversely, if the run strength of one or more salmon
stocks is weaker than expected, Federal managers would have less data
to evaluate this as well as a longer delay to close the fishery,
increasing the risk of not meeting escapement goals and overfishing
weak stocks. It is important to note that the Cook Inlet salmon fishery
targets mixed stocks of salmon. The composition, abundance, and
productivity of salmon stocks and species in the fishery varies
substantially on an annual basis, and the need to conserve weaker
stocks and avoid overfishing by reducing fishing effort sometimes
results in foregone harvest from more productive stocks. This is of
particular concern for salmon gillnet gear which cannot always target
strong stocks while sufficiently limiting harvest on co-occurring weak
stocks. These practical considerations, combined with the preseason
establishment of catch limits for each stock and stock complex, present
significant challenges to consistently achieving appropriate harvest
rates on all stocks under Alternative 3.
In addition, NMFS must manage the Federal fisheries under its
jurisdiction to prevent overfishing, including accounting for all
removals, even when the removals responsible for causing overfishing
are outside of NMFS's jurisdiction. Therefore, if the proportion of
salmon removals increase in State waters, harvests in the EEZ would be
reduced to prevent overfishing. Because of these factors and NMFS's
overriding responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent
overfishing, NMFS expects Cook Inlet EEZ catch limits under Alternative
3 would be much more conservative than EEZ harvest levels under the
status quo. As a result of limited data, increased management
uncertainty, decreased management flexibility, and uncertainty about
future State water harvest levels, NMFS expects that Alternative 3
could often require closing the EEZ to commercial fishing to account
for uncertainty and prevent overfishing.
Another important consideration under Alternative 3 is the
requirement for effective monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and
enforcement of directly adjacent but separately managed State and
Federal salmon fisheries within Cook Inlet. To ensure that salmon catch
from the Cook Inlet EEZ could be accurately accounted for in order to
avoid exceeding Federal catch limits, additional Federal fishery
monitoring would be required (Section 2.5.7 of the Analysis). This
would include requiring a Federal Fisheries Permit, completion of a
required Federal logbook, and required use of a Vessel Monitoring
System (VMS). Federal Fisheries Permits and logbooks would be provided
at no cost to participants, but would require time to obtain and
complete. The average cost for purchase, installation, and activation
of a VMS is estimated at $3,500, and annual variable costs may include
transmission costs of around $800 and potential maintenance and repairs
averaging $77 (Section 4.7.2.2.6 of the Analysis). While there are
grants available to help offset the initial purchase price of a VMS
unit, ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be the
responsibility of participants. These additional costs and burdens from
required monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting would not be expected
to produce commensurate benefits given the anticipated reductions in
EEZ harvests and could disproportionately impact economically marginal
participants.
Ensuring that vessels participating only in the State waters
fishery do not harvest in EEZ waters is another important
consideration. As described in Section 2.5.7 of the Analysis, NMFS had
concerns about monitoring vessels not registered to participate in the
EEZ fishery to ensure that they do not intentionally or inadvertently
harvest fish in the EEZ. This concern could be most simply addressed by
opening the EEZ drift gillnet fishery at different times than when the
State salmon drift gillnet fishery is open to allow for clear
enforcement of the single open area. However, staggering the opening of
EEZ and State salmon drift gillnet fisheries presents significant
feasibility concerns given the dynamic nature of State management and
the limited flexibility of Federal managers. For example, a short
notice opening in State waters could disrupt a scheduled Federal
opening. Additional monitoring of State waters participants could allow
for concurrent State and Federal water openings, but this is not a
viable solution because FMP requirements could not be imposed on
vessels only registered and operating in the State waters drift gillnet
salmon fishery.
Under Alternative 3, the annual Council consideration and
determination of whether to allow an EEZ fishery would also increase
uncertainty for fishery participants and processors, as well as make it
difficult for State mangers to optimize management of salmon fisheries
within State waters given the strong interactions between all salmon
fisheries in Cook Inlet and the potential for highly variable
biological and management conditions across Cook Inlet in a given year.
For example, multiple sets of State management measures and contingency
plans would have to be developed in order to account for (1) whether
the EEZ is open in a given year, (2) the potential for multiple salmon
stock abundance scenarios, and (3) a potentially unpredictable closure
of the EEZ to
[[Page 29981]]
commercial salmon fishing in a given year if a Federal catch limit is
reached sooner than predicted. Therefore, NMFS expects that Alternative
3 would pose significant challenges to achieving optimum yield (OY) on
a continuing basis.
Finally, the Council acknowledged that neither the Council nor NMFS
currently has the expertise or infrastructure to optimally manage
salmon fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska independent of the State.
Federal managers would be dependent on a high degree of voluntary
cooperation from State managers for successful management of Cook Inlet
salmon stocks under Alternative 3. For a commercial salmon fishery to
occur in a given year under Alternative 3, the conservation and
management conditions described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis must
be met. These include a Federal salmon data gathering process for Cook
Inlet that is adequately supported with data from State salmon
fisheries in Cook Inlet, a harvestable surplus of salmon available in
the EEZ that could support directed fishery openings, and salmon
harvest reporting tools that allow the Federal catch accounting system
to adequately monitor harvest and bycatch such that overfishing can be
prevented. While management capacity could be developed over time,
independent Federal management could nonetheless result in annual
closures of the Cook Inlet EEZ due to separate Federal and State
management (Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis). Developing expertise would
require significant agency resources, and new Federal infrastructure
would increase the burden of regulatory compliance on participants.
Even with an established Federal infrastructure and experienced
managers, it is expected that EEZ harvests would be reduced over the
long term for the reasons stated above without significant anticipated
conservation and management benefits.
Amendment 14 and This Proposed Rule
With Amendment 14 and this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS are
proposing to amend the Salmon FMP and Federal regulations to comply
with the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
applicable law. Amendment 14 and this proposed rule would incorporate
the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby
bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries
that occur within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS.
With Amendment 14, most existing FMP provisions that apply to the West
Area, including the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing, would
also apply to the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea.
The reference points of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and OY
would be separately specified for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery.
Additionally, an annual catch limit (ACL) would be separately specified
for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea,
reflecting the fact that Cook Inlet salmon stocks have historically
been harvested in both State and Federal waters. This action would not
modify reference points already established for the rest of the
existing West Area. MSY would be established for the Cook Inlet salmon
fishery as the maximum amount of harvest possible under the State's
escapement goals, which is the largest long-term average catch that can
be taken by the fishery under prevailing ecological, environmental
conditions and fishery technological characteristics (e.g., gear
selectivity), and the distribution of catch among fishery sectors (50
CFR 600.310(e)(1)(i)). This includes the use of indicator stocks to
manage where escapement is not directly known. Escapement goals account
for biological productivity and ecological factors (Sections 3.1 and 11
of the Analysis). The Cook Inlet salmon fishery includes the stocks of
salmon harvested by all sectors within State and Federal waters of Cook
Inlet.
The OY range for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery would be the
combined catch from all salmon fisheries occurring within Cook Inlet
(State and Federal water catch), which results in a post-harvest
abundance within the escapement goal range for stocks with escapement
goals, and below the historically sustainable average catch for stocks
without escapement goals, except when management measures required to
conserve weak stocks necessarily limit catch of healthy stocks. This OY
is derived from MSY, as reduced by relevant economic, social, and
ecological factors. These factors include annual variations in the
abundance, distribution, migration patterns, and timing of the salmon
stocks; allocations by the Alaska Board of Fisheries; traditional
times, methods, and areas of salmon fishing; ecosystem needs; and
inseason indices of stock strength.
The Council and NMFS determined that the proposed OY would be fully
achieved in Cook Inlet State water salmon fisheries because
compensatory fishery effort among various sectors in State waters is
expected to make up for closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon
fishing. Therefore, Amendment 14 would establish an ACL of zero for the
commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. The proposed
management measure of closing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to commercial
salmon fishing would achieve the proposed ACL. Given that the Cook
Inlet EEZ Subarea management measure is fishery closure, additional
reference points and accountability measures are not necessary and
therefore would not be specified.
This proposed rule would revise the definition of Salmon Management
Area at 50 CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet
EEZ Subarea and incorporate it into the West Area. This proposed rule
would also revise Figure 23 to 50 CFR part 679 consistent with the
revised definition of the Salmon Management Area at Sec. 679.2. As
part of the West Area, the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would be subject to
the prohibition on commercial fishing for salmon at Sec. 679.7(h)(2).
Objectives and Rationale for Action
The primary objective of this action is to apply Federal management
to the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ in accordance
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In recommending Amendment 14, the
Council ultimately concluded that managing the Cook Inlet EEZ by
prohibiting commercial salmon fishing optimized conservation and
management of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries when considering the costs
and benefits of the available management alternatives. Through this
proposed action, the Council would continue to apply its longstanding
salmon management policy for the West Area, which is to facilitate
State salmon management in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
applicable Federal law. As with the rest of the West Area, this policy
would be achieved by prohibiting commercial fishing for salmon in the
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea so that the State can manage Alaska salmon
stocks as a unit within State waters. NMFS determined that salmon
fishery resources in Cook Inlet can be fully utilized by salmon
fisheries occurring within State waters and that the State manages its
salmon fisheries based on the best available information using the
State's escapement goal management system. This proposed rule would not
modify existing State management measures, nor would it preclude the
State from adopting additional management measures that could provide
additional harvest opportunities for harvesters, including commercial
drift gillnet fishermen, within State waters.
[[Page 29982]]
This action (1) takes the most precautionary approach to minimizing
the potential for overfishing, (2) provides the greatest opportunity
for maximum harvest from the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, (3) avoids
creating new management uncertainty, (4) minimizes regulatory burden to
fishery participants, (5) maximizes management efficiency for Cook
Inlet salmon fisheries, and (6) avoids the introduction of an
additional management jurisdiction into the already complex and
interdependent network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.
Consistency of Proposed Action With the National Standards
In developing Amendment 14, the Council considered consistency of
the proposed action with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 10 National
Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851) and designed its proposed action to balance
their competing demands. While all 10 of the National Standards were
considered, five national standards figured prominently in the
Council's recommendation for Amendment 14: National Standard 1,
National Standard 2, National Standard 7, National Standard 3, and
National Standard 8.
National Standard 1
National Standard 1 states that conservation and management
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.
OY is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit
to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and
recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of
marine ecosystems, that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological
factor. This action establishes MSY on the basis of State escapement
goals and proxies that were evaluated through the analytical process
for this action and determined to be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Salmon FMP and the conservation objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
For the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, OY is based on the MSY
escapement goals, qualitatively reduced to account for management
measures required to conserve weak stocks. This OY ensures the Cook
Inlet salmon fishery produces the greatest net benefit to the Nation by
maintaining an economically viable fishery while still providing
recreational and subsistence opportunities, accounting for consumption
of salmon by a variety of marine predators, and protecting weaker
stocks. As illustrated by Sections 3 and 4 of the Analysis, the State
has consistently achieved this OY through its management strategy, and
by allowing the State to continue managing Cook Inlet salmon as a unit,
NMFS anticipates that OY would continue to be achieved in State water
salmon fisheries. Thus, NMFS finds that the proposed OY for the Cook
Inlet salmon fishery would be achieved on a continuing basis under
Amendment 14.
In addition, by prohibiting commercial salmon harvest in the Cook
Inlet EEZ, the Council and NMFS would avoid creating new management
uncertainty and reduce the risk of overfishing inherent to an
independent Federal management regime that would not be well-suited to
respond to in-season data as necessary to adjust harvest levels.
Amendment 14 and this proposed rule would enable the State to continue
to manage salmon fisheries in State waters to achieve escapement goals
and maximize economic and social benefits from the fishery. While the
closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to commercial fishing impacts a
significant proportion of the drift gillnet fleet's harvest, the
closure would minimize the possibility of overfishing and would be
expected to allow utilization of salmon to be maximized over the long-
term among all fishery participants as State management measures are
refined to account for a predictable closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ
Subarea (Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis).
The Council and NMFS properly weighed the adverse economic impacts
that are anticipated to occur for some EEZ commercial salmon fishery
participants from a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea against the
risk of overfishing and long-term achievement of OY through State
fisheries. The Council and NMFS continue to recognize that the State is
best situated to respond to changing conditions inseason to fully
utilize salmon stocks consistent with the constraints of weak stock
management in a mixed stock fishery. In light of this fact, through
this action, the Council and NMFS are fulfilling their duty to manage
the Cook Inlet EEZ and have determined that closing the Cook Inlet EEZ
to commercial salmon fishing is the management approach most likely to
maximize utilization of the resource while preventing overfishing.
Management measures under the Salmon FMP and other Federal FMPs,
together with the State's scientifically-based management program in
State waters of Cook Inlet adjacent to the West Area, would continue to
ensure that overfishing of salmon does not occur.
National Standard 2
National Standard 2 states that conservation and management
measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.
The Council carefully evaluated the available biological, ecological,
environmental, economic, and sociological scientific information to
determine how to most effectively conserve and manage Cook Inlet salmon
resources. This process included SSC review to provide scientific
advice for the fishery management decision, evaluation of uncertainty
in the development of salmon escapement goals (Section 11 of the
Analysis), and a comprehensive description of social and economic
conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery (Section 4 of the
Analysis), as well as consideration of alternative scientific points of
view regarding the potential for overcompensation in Cook Inlet salmon
stocks (Section 13 of the Analysis). From this analysis, the Council
determined that the State's escapement goal management system is based
on and uses the best available scientific information to manage Cook
Inlet salmon fisheries. Section 3.1 of the Analysis found State salmon
management to be almost entirely consistent with proposed Federal
measures for status determination criteria and reference points
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, this Analysis
indicated that the State has and is appropriately conserving and
managing Cook Inlet salmon stocks, that the State largely could have
achieved Federal reference points over that time period, and that
independent Federal management would not have been expected to produce
significant conservation changes or benefits relative to State
management of the salmon fishery based on Federal reference points. The
Council also evaluated the social and economic impacts of their action
using the best available scientific information.
National Standard 7
The very high degree of consistency between existing State
management and proposed Federal management was also important in the
Council's consideration of National Standard 7, which states that
conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize
costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. The proposed management
approach of closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon fishing
avoids unnecessary duplication of management to the greatest possible
extent. The
[[Page 29983]]
Council did recognize that this action could have significant costs
because it closes an area responsible for just under 50 percent of
drift gillnet fleet harvests, on average. However, under the only other
viable alternative, the Council also expected significant reductions in
EEZ harvests and possible fishery closures, but with added
participation costs, management costs, and uncertainty, as described
above. Ultimately, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this
action would provide for sufficient salmon harvest opportunity in State
waters to largely offset the costs. In addition, closure of the Cook
Inlet EEZ minimizes regulatory burden and participants would not have
to track or participate in management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery
across multiple jurisdictions to plan their businesses. Finally,
closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ would create the most efficient Cook
Inlet salmon management arrangement of the two available management
approaches. Under National Standard 7, management measures should not
impose unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on private
or public organizations, or on Federal, state, or local governments. As
explained in more detail below under Potential Impacts of the Action,
when the Council considered the costs and benefits of management by
closure under Amendment 14 (Alternative 4), the Council determined, and
NMFS agrees, that Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 7.
National Standard 3
The Council highlighted that management of salmon in Cook Inlet is
highly complex, requiring multiple interdependent management plans to
achieve sustainable harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks that benefit
all user groups. National Standard 3 states that to the extent
practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit
throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed
as a unit or in close coordination. Given the significant degree of
interaction among salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, management of salmon
stocks as a unit throughout all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries is
particularly important. Management action in one Cook Inlet salmon
fishery often has direct relationships with harvest rates and harvest
composition by stock in other regional salmon fisheries. With
commercial salmon fishing being prohibited in the Cook Inlet EEZ, all
salmon fishing in Cook Inlet would occur within State waters under
State management which continues to promote unity of management of Cook
Inlet salmon stocks across their range. Separate Federal management
under Alternative 3 would significantly disrupt management unity and
would impose unnecessary duplication without additional benefits.
Optimizing yield within acceptable management uncertainty thresholds is
best accomplished by a single management entity in Cook Inlet.
Developing Amendment 14 required extensive discussions and coordination
between the managers of State and Federal jurisdictions to determine
the best means of achieving the FMP's objectives and implementing a
comprehensive approach to fishery management. The Council determined,
and NMFS agrees, that management by closure of the federal fishery,
which allows one jurisdiction (the State) to manage the harvest of
salmon stocks as a unit, is consistent with National Standard 3.
National Standard 8
The Council acknowledged that this action would likely have adverse
impacts on drift gillnet salmon harvesters operating in the Cook Inlet
EEZ and their associated communities, but would also likely have
corresponding benefits to other salmon users within many of the same
communities. National Standard 8 requires that conservation and
management measures shall, consistent with the conservation
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing
economic and social data that are based upon the best scientific
information available, in order to (a) provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent practicable,
minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. The Analysis
considered the social and economic importance of the Cook Inlet salmon
fisheries to fishing communities, and recognized these communities
participate in a variety of salmon fisheries apart from the drift
gillnet fishery. While the Analysis identified varying dependence on
the Cook Inlet EEZ portion of the Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishery,
no community was identified as solely dependent on the EEZ portion of
the drift gillnet fishery (Section 4.5.5 of the Analysis). In addition,
the Council recognized that closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial
salmon fishing would result in additional harvest opportunity in State
waters, and that the associated benefits would be distributed across
Cook Inlet fishing communities given the diversity of users involved.
In all, the Analysis supports a finding that this action would provide
for the sustained participation of fishing communities in Cook Inlet
salmon fisheries, even if there is some redistribution of benefits.
Under this proposed action, it is likely that at least some of these
benefits would accrue to communities that also experience adverse
impacts based on their engagement and dependence on multiple Cook Inlet
salmon fisheries. Therefore, this action is consistent with National
Standard 8.
In addition, closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would minimize
adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable by avoiding the
costs of additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that would
be required to access the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea under Alternative 3,
despite reduced harvest opportunities and the annual possibility of
closure to account for added uncertainty. Further, National Standard 8
requires NMFS to consider adverse economic impacts within the
constraints of conservation and management goals. This action is
explicitly intended to prevent overfishing and achieve the conservation
and management goals of the Salmon FMP while recognizing that an
economically viable fishery would still occur within State waters.
Potential Impacts of the Action
This action would close a portion of the historically used fishing
area for the Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) drift gillnet salmon fishery. The
UCI drift gillnet salmon fishery currently operates in both State and
EEZ Cook Inlet waters without specific reference to the boundary and is
the only commercial salmon fishery that would be directly regulated by
this action.
As described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, the impacts of
closing the Cook Inlet EEZ on UCI salmon drift gillnet vessels would be
proportional to the extent that they rely on the EEZ. The entire active
UCI salmon drift gillnet fleet likely fishes in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Subarea at some time during each fishing season, but over the entire
season, each vessel differs with respect to its level of economic
dependency on fishing in this area. Section 4.5.2.3 of the Analysis
describes that from 2009 through 2018 an estimated average of 48.7
percent of gross revenue ($10.3 million) for the UCI drift gillnet
fleet was generated from salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea.
In the last 5 years, an estimated average of approximately 42.7 percent
of gross revenue ($5.8 million) was generated in the EEZ for the
fishery. While UCI drift gillnet vessels could relocate their
[[Page 29984]]
current EEZ salmon fishing effort to State waters under existing State
regulations, their overall harvests may be reduced due to less
productive fishing areas, increased travel costs, increased fishery
congestion, and potentially less overall productive fishing time
available in State waters. Conversely, catch rates in State waters may
improve without commercial fishery catch in the EEZ. In addition, State
management measures could be adjusted to allow more harvest in state
waters to account for the Cook Inlet EEZ closure.
It is not possible to estimate the magnitude of potential harvest
reductions to the UCI drift gillnet fleet because of the complexities
of Cook Inlet mixed-stock salmon fisheries and intertwined State
management plans. If the UCI drift gillnet fleet cannot offset
reductions in harvest within State waters due to the closure of the
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, it is likely that the UCI drift gillnet fleet's
revenues and participation in the fishery would decrease. Reductions in
harvest by the affected drift gillnet vessels are expected to provide
additional harvest opportunity for other commercial and non-commercial
salmon users in Cook Inlet. This is expected to offset forgone salmon
harvest in the event the drift gillnet fleet is unable to make up its
historical EEZ harvest amounts in State waters (Section 4.7.1.4 of the
Analysis).
This action would not prohibit or otherwise modify management of
salmon fishing in State waters. The UCI drift gillnet fleet is expected
to continue to operate in State waters under Amendment 14. It is
important to note that State salmon management plans for Cook Inlet
have been predicated on the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea being open to
commercial salmon fishing by the drift gillnet fleet. The State would
be able to modify management of all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries within
State waters to account for the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea closure.
This action is not expected to have significant impacts to salmon
stocks or other affected parts of the environment. The State would
continue to manage Cook Inlet salmon stocks within State waters
consistent with current practices, and as described above, the State
has consistently achieved conservation objectives. As described in
Section 3.1.4 of the Analysis, harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks is
expected to remain near or marginally below existing levels resulting
in salmon escapements near or marginally above existing levels.
While no significant impacts to Cook Inlet salmon stocks are
expected, a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would have
conservation and management benefits resulting from decreased
management uncertainty. Importantly, commercial catch of Cook Inlet
salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would be prohibited as a
result of this action. This could improve management precision and
better avoid overfishing as these stocks would be harvested nearer to
natal streams where improved escapement data and better information
about realized run strength is more likely to be available. This is
particularly important given the life history of salmon that only
allows for harvest in a single season for terminal fisheries. In the
event of lower than expected salmon returns, the State has additional
escapement data and can more rapidly take action to avoid a
conservation concern using their Emergency Order authority when
compared to the Federal rulemaking process because of the challenges
described in Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.10. Similarly, if realized run
strength is better than expected, the State can better maximize
utilization of surplus production by issuing an Emergency Order to
allow for additional harvest opportunities, avoiding uncertainties from
unpredictable EEZ closure timing identified in Section 4.7.1.3 of the
Analysis.
Additionally, increased passage of salmon stocks into Northern Cook
Inlet may have other benefits. Prohibiting commercial catch in the Cook
Inlet EEZ Subarea could improve the density of salmon prey available to
endangered Cook Inlet belugas present in northern Cook Inlet during the
summer months as noted in Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. If there is
insufficient harvest capacity operating only in State waters, the
escapement of some Cook Inlet salmon stocks could increase. While
increased escapement may not be desirable for all stocks in all years,
a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to commercial harvest minimizes
the possibility of overfishing and would be expected to allow
utilization to be maximized over the long term as State management
measures are refined to account for a predictable closure of the Cook
Inlet EEZ Subarea (Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis).
This action would not directly regulate salmon processors, but may
affect them. To the extent that this action would decrease catches by
the drift gillnet fleet in Cook Inlet that are not offset by increased
catch in State waters by the drift gillnet fleet or by other commercial
salmon fishing sectors, deliveries of Cook Inlet salmon and associated
revenues to processors would be reduced. The impacts to individual
processors would be influenced by the dependency on Cook Inlet salmon
harvested in the EEZ as described in Section 4.5.4 of the Analysis. The
later entry of salmon stocks into the State waters of Cook Inlet may
also lead to a later and shorter period of Cook Inlet salmon processing
activity. Depending on the business models of individual processors,
this could reduce processing efficiency.
The previously mentioned impacts to Cook Inlet salmon harvesters
and processors would also have impacts to associated communities in
Cook Inlet and elsewhere as described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the
Analysis. Decreases in the harvest levels of the UCI drift gillnet
fleet under this action would have the potential to differentially
affect communities, including communities associated with the UCI drift
gillnet fleet and other salmon user groups. For communities engaged in
or dependent on harvests by the UCI drift gillnet fleet, the potential
adverse impacts to businesses connected to the harvest, processing, or
support service sectors could result in greater or lesser localized
impacts, depending on the specific nature and magnitude of community
engagement in or dependency on the fishery in combination with the
varying demographic and socioeconomic attributes of the relevant
communities. However, reductions in salmon harvest by the UCI drift
gillnet fleet are expected to be offset over the long term by increases
to other salmon fishery sectors in these communities. Communities
associated with these other salmon fishery sectors (e.g., the
commercial set net, sport, and personal use salmon fisheries), may
experience localized benefits based on the specific nature and
magnitude of community engagement in or dependency on those other
sectors but, as previously noted, it is not possible to estimate the
magnitude of potential harvest benefits to these communities. Community
level distributive impacts under this action are not anticipated to
substantially affect net benefits to the nation (Section 4.10 of the
Analysis).
As this action would prohibit commercial salmon fishing in the Cook
Inlet EEZ Subarea consistent with existing management in adjacent West
Area waters, no additional Federal fishery management measures are
required. The West Area prohibition on commercial salmon fishing would
continue to be enforced by State and Federal authorities under the
revised boundaries resulting from this proposed action.
[[Page 29985]]
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration
after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended and
NMFS proposes Amendment 14 and these regulations based on those
measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of
the economic analysis are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis section.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared
for this proposed rule, as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact
this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA
describes the action; the reasons why this proposed rule is proposed;
the objectives and legal basis for this proposed rule; the number and
description of directly regulated small entities to which this proposed
rule would apply; the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance
requirements of this proposed rule; and the relevant Federal rules that
may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. The IRFA
also describes significant alternatives to this proposed rule that
would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant
economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
description of the action, its purpose, and the legal basis are
explained in the preamble and are not repeated here.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size
standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary
industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily
engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a
small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has
combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its
affiliated operations worldwide.
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed
Rule
This action would directly regulate holders of State of Alaska S03H
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Limited Entry salmon permits
(S03H permits). In 2021, 567 S03H permits were held by 502 individuals,
all of which are considered small entities based on the $11 million
threshold. Additional detail is included in Sections 4.5.3 and 4.9 in
the Analysis prepared for this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES).
Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts
on Small Entities
The Council considered, but did not select three other
alternatives. The alternatives, and their impacts to small entities,
are described below.
Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing
management measures and conditions in the fishery within recently
observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities.
This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with
the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included
within the Salmon FMP
Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully
implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions
within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens
of obtaining a Federal Fisheries Permit, maintaining a Federal fishing
logbook, and monitoring their fishing position with respect to EEZ and
State waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 of the
Analysis. However, the State is unwilling to accept a delegation of
management authority. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not a viable
alternative.
Alternative 3 would result in a Cook Inlet EEZ drift gillnet salmon
fishery managed directly by NMFS and the Council. Alternative 3 would
increase direct costs and burden to S03H permit holders and fishery
stakeholders due to requirements including a Federal Fisheries Permit,
VMS, logbooks, and accurate GPS positioning equipment as described in
Sections 2.5.7 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. Alternative 3 would also
require that a total allowable catch (TAC) be set before each fishing
season. The TAC would be set conservatively relative to the status quo
in order to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of
inseason harvest data. Commercial salmon harvest in the EEZ would be
prohibited if the Council and NMFS do not project a harvestable
surplus, with an appropriate buffer for the increased management
uncertainty. Further, as described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis,
gaps in data could also require closing the EEZ to commercial fishing
in any given year. Finally, Alternative 3 would increase uncertainty
each year for fishery participants in developing a fishing plan because
NMFS would determine whether the Cook Inlet EEZ could be open to
commercial fishing on an annual basis and shortly before the start of
the fishing season.
As discussed, Alternative 3 would impose substantial direct
regulatory costs on participants while at the same time is not expected
to result in consistent commercial salmon fishing opportunities in the
Cook Inlet EEZ. Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not
impose any additional direct regulatory costs on participants and would
allow directly regulated entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ harvest
inside State waters. As a result, Alternative 4 minimizes impacts to
small entities.
Based upon the best available scientific data, and in consideration
of the Council's objectives of this action, it appears that there are
no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that have the
potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and any other applicable statutes and that have the potential to
minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities. After public process, the Council concluded that
Alternative 4, the proposed Amendment 14, would best accomplish the
stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this proposed rule,
and in applicable statutes, and would minimize to the extent
practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly
regulated small entities.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict
between this proposed rule and existing Federal rules.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 29986]]
Dated: May 28, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50
CFR part 679 as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
0
2. In Sec. 679.2, amend the definition ``Salmon Management Area,'' by
revising the introductory text of paragraph (2) and removing and
reserving paragraph (2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(2) The West Area means the area of the EEZ off Alaska in the
Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of
the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W), including the Cook
Inlet EEZ Subarea, but excludes the Prince William Sound Area and the
Alaska Peninsula Area. The Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea means the EEZ waters
of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N. The Prince William
Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area are shown in Figure 23 and
described as:
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Figure 23 to Part 679 to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN21.007
[FR Doc. 2021-11716 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 4, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.