Proposed Rule2023-22747
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 16
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
October 19, 2023
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS proposes Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP) and associated implementing regulations. If approved, Amendment 16 and this proposed rule would establish Federal fishery management for all salmon fishing that occurs in the Cook Inlet EEZ, which includes commercial drift gillnet and recreational salmon fishery sectors. This action is necessary to comply with rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act). This action 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 88 Issue 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72314-72341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22747]
[[Page 72313]]
Vol. 88
Thursday,
No. 201
October 19, 2023
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 600 and 679
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon;
Amendment 16; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 72314]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 679
[Docket No. 231005-0237]
RIN 0648-BM42
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet
Salmon; Amendment 16
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of a fishery management
plan amendment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for
the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska
(Salmon FMP) and associated implementing regulations. If approved,
Amendment 16 and this proposed rule would establish Federal fishery
management for all salmon fishing that occurs in the Cook Inlet EEZ,
which includes commercial drift gillnet and recreational salmon fishery
sectors. This action is necessary to comply with rulings from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). This action 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 December 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065,
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-2023-0065 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 Gretchen Harrington,
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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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 proposed Amendment 16; the Environmental
Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Social Impact
Analysis (contained in a single document and collectively referred to
as the ``Analysis''); and the draft Finding of No Significant Impact
prepared for this action may be 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>.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and to
<a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45212a30226b21302b26242b052b2a24246b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15717a60723b71607b76747b557b7a74743b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for Action
NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries off of Alaska under the Salmon
FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (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. NMFS is authorized to prepare an FMP amendment necessary for the
conservation and management of a fishery managed under the FMP if the
Council fails to develop and submit such an amendment after a
reasonable period of time (section 304(c)(1)(A); 16 U.S.C
1854(c)(1)(A)). Because the Council failed to take action to recommend
a required FMP amendment in time for NMFS to implement it by a court-
ordered deadline, NMFS developed a Secretarial FMP amendment and this
proposed rule.
NMFS has determined that it is necessary and appropriate, under
section 304(c)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to develop a
Secretarial amendment--Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP--and proposed
regulations in order to comply with rulings from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 16 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at
59[deg]46.15' N) into the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit. This
proposed rule would implement Amendment 16. Amendment 16 adds another
management area to the Salmon FMP in addition to the existing West Area
and East Area. This action would not modify management of the West Area
and East Area.
NMFS is soliciting public comments on Amendment 16 and this
proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the
comment period for this action (See DATES), whether specifically
directed to the proposed FMP amendment or the implementing regulations,
will be considered by NMFS in deciding whether to adopt and implement
Amendment 16.
Amendment 16 Overview
This action, if approved, would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into
the Salmon FMP as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, thereby bringing the salmon
fishery that occurs within it under Federal management by the Council
and NMFS.
Two different sectors participate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon
fishery: the commercial drift gillnet sector and the recreational
sector. The commercial drift gillnet fleet harvests over 99.99 percent
of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Currently, both drift gillnet and
recreational salmon fishing occur in the State and EEZ waters of Cook
Inlet under State management without regard to the boundary between
State and Federal waters. Under this action, the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon
fishery will be managed by NMFS and the Council separately from
adjacent State water salmon fisheries.
Amendment 16 would revise the Salmon FMP, beginning with an updated
history of the FMP and introduction in Chapter 1, as well as a revised
description of the fishery management unit in Chapter 2 that would
include the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as a separate and distinctly managed
[[Page 72315]]
area. The management and policy objectives in Chapter 2 would also be
revised to include consideration of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Current
chapters describing management of the Salmon FMP's East Area and West
Area would be consolidated into Chapter 3. No substantive changes would
be made to Salmon FMP content related to the East Area and West Area.
A new Chapter 4 would include a comprehensive description of
Federal management for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This chapter would
describe management measures and the roles and responsibilities of NMFS
and the Council in managing the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery.
Centrally, Chapter 4 would include descriptions of all conservation and
management measures, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum
yield (OY), status determination criteria, and an outline of the
harvest specifications process. Chapter 4 would also describe
authorized fishery management measures and authorities including
required Federal permits; fishing gear restrictions; fishing time and
area restrictions; NMFS inseason management provisions; and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as well as information about
ongoing Council review of the FMP.
Chapter 5 would contain all content related to domestic annual
harvesting and processing capacity, which indicates that all salmon
fisheries off Alaska can be fully utilized by U.S. harvesters and
processors, which is unchanged by this action.
Chapter 6 contains information on Essential Fish Habitat and
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and would not be modified by this
action. Amendment 16 would remove the outdated Fishery Impact Statement
in the Salmon FMP. The Analysis prepared for Amendment 16 contains the
Fishery Impact Statement for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery and this
action.
History of the Salmon FMP
The Council's Salmon FMP manages the Pacific salmon fisheries in
the EEZ from 3 nautical miles (nmi) to 200 nmi 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 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. Prior to
Amendment 12, the Salmon FMP authorized commercial fishing in the East
Area, recreational 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
adjacent areas of 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 referred to
the 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 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.
By removing the traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's
West Area, the Council intended for the State to continue managing
these areas, which the State has done since before the inception of the
Salmon FMP in 1979. In developing Amendment 12, the Council considered
recommending Federal management of salmon fishing in the three
traditional net fishing areas, 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 determined that dividing management
into two separate salmon fishery jurisdictions--State and Federal--
would not be optimal. The Council also recognized the State's expertise
and well-developed management infrastructure from 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 a lawsuit challenging Amendment 12 and its implementing
regulations. In United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 2014 WL 10988279
(D. Alaska 2014), the district court held that Amendment 12's removal
of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon FMP was lawful. 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 determined that
the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery requires conservation and management
by some entity, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it must be included in the
Salmon FMP.
Developing Management Alternatives for Amendment 14
In response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the Council began work
on Amendment 14. Because the history of Amendment 14 is integral to the
need for and development of this action, a brief history is provided
here. The Council worked from 2017 to 2020 developing and evaluating
management alternatives for Amendment 14. The Council broadly
identified two management approaches to amend the FMP to include the
Cook Inlet EEZ: one that would delegate authority over specific
management measures to the State with review and oversight by the
Council, and one that would retain all management within the Federal
process.
[[Page 72316]]
The Council also formed the Cook Inlet Salmon Committee
(Committee), consisting of Cook Inlet salmon fishery stakeholders
tasked with developing recommendations for management of the fishery.
The Committee proposed delegating management to the State, but with
expanded Federal oversight and a management scope that included State
marine and fresh waters in addition to the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet.
This recommendation was not carried forward for further consideration
because NMFS does not have jurisdiction over State waters.
Generally, information in the analysis prepared for Amendment 14
indicated that Federal management would be unlikely to appreciably
change salmon conservation metrics and thresholds established in Cook
Inlet, but would increase costs, complexity, and management uncertainty
without corresponding benefits. While the Council identified some
flexibility with the specific management measures that could be
implemented under either Federal management approach, neither the
Council, NMFS, the State, nor stakeholders identified a fundamentally
different management approach that could satisfy the Ninth Circuit
ruling, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
After the State announced it would not accept delegated management
authority for Cook Inlet, the Council ultimately recommended expanding
the existing adjacent West Area to include the Cook Inlet EEZ, thereby
incorporating the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP and closing the
area to commercial salmon fishing. In short, the rationale was that
closure was a precautionary management approach, consistent with
management throughout the West Area, avoided significantly increased
costs and uncertainty, and drift gillnet fishing could continue
entirely within State waters. On November 3, 2021, NMFS published a
final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP (86 FR 60568,
November 3, 2021).
Amendment 14 was challenged by Cook Inlet commercial salmon
fishermen before the first fishing season. On June 21, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska vacated the implementing
regulations for Amendment 14. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS,
2022 WL 2222879 (D. Alaska 2022). The Court found that the final rule
was arbitrary and capricious, in part because NMFS failed to include
management measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ recreational fishery in the
FMP and because the Court determined the rule still implicitly deferred
too much management authority to the State of Alaska without formally
delegating such authority. Id. at *8-*9, *13-*15. The Court later
ordered NMFS to promulgate a new FMP amendment to federally manage the
Cook Inlet EEZ in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act by May 1,
2024. The 2022 and 2023 Cook Inlet EEZ fishing seasons were managed by
the State under pre-Amendment 14 conditions.
Now, NMFS proposes Amendment 16 and implementing regulations that
would federally manage all Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishing, consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the decisions of the Ninth Circuit
and the District Court.
Developing Management Alternatives for Amendment 16
In response to the District Court's ruling, at its first meeting
since the ruling (October 2022), the Council initiated an analysis for
a new amendment to the Salmon FMP for initial review at its December
2022 meeting. The Amendment 14 analysis was used as a basis for
developing Amendment 16 because it contained the reasonable range of
potential management alternatives. NMFS informed the Council that it
would need to make a recommendation at its April 2023 meeting to allow
NMFS sufficient time to implement a new FMP amendment by the Court's
deadline.
The Council reviewed the updated analysis at its December 2022
meeting, and after considering public comment tasked staff with
analyzing four alternatives for final action: Alternative 1 (status
quo), Alternative 2 (delegated Federal management), Alternative 3
(Federal management), and Alternative 4 (Federal closure). NMFS, the
Council, and the public did not identify any fundamentally new
alternatives. The Council requested staff analyze Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3, include management measures for the recreational salmon
fishery sector, and identify any possible variations in management
approaches under either alternative. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4
were not viable options because of the courts' rulings, but were
retained for analytical comparison.
Prior to the scheduled Council final action in April 2023, staff
worked to improve Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. For Alternative 2,
this included work to identify any added flexibilities under delegated
management that might make delegation more appealing to the State while
still complying with all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Previously,
the State has expressed concerns over (1) the resources needed to
manage fishing in the EEZ through the Council process (in addition to
its Board of Fisheries process), and (2) Council review of State
management targets that would be used to manage both the EEZ and State
water fisheries that are not subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A
fundamental constraint for delegated management under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is that neither the Council nor the Secretary can force the
State to accept delegated management authority. Though some additional
flexibilities were identified in the analysis, ultimately the State
still declined to accept a delegation of management authority for the
fishery.
Alternative 3 was further refined to address concerns expressed by
fishery stakeholders and the Council. The proposed management policy
and objectives were updated to more closely reflect and balance the
Council's approach to salmon management with the proposed Federal
responsibilities under Alternative 3. Options for NMFS to prepare the
fishery stock assessments and a multi-year harvest specification
process were also evaluated in an effort to increase efficiency.
Generally, the description of management measures was refined and
improved to describe the most practicable management regime. This
included the addition of a potential season closure date, expected
Federal regulatory prohibitions, and proposed legal drift gillnet gear
configurations.
During the Council process, Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery
stakeholders generally expressed their perspective that this action,
and all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, must be applied to both the
Federal and State waters of Cook Inlet. However, under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, there is only one narrow authority for NMFS to extend
Federal jurisdiction into State waters. In order for a Federal FMP to
govern fisheries occurring within State marine waters, both of the
following conditions must be met under Magnuson-Stevens Act section
306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)): (1) the fishery must occur predominantly
within the EEZ, and (2) State management must substantially and
adversely affect the carrying out of the FMP. As approximately 75
percent of the total annual upper Cook Inlet salmon harvest occurs
within State waters, there is no authority for NMFS to assert
management authority over the State water salmon fisheries in Cook
Inlet. In addition, even when the two conditions above are met, under
no circumstance does NMFS or the Council have authority to manage
fishing within State internal waters where salmon spawning
[[Page 72317]]
takes place (i.e., landward of the coastline).
Further, NMFS interprets Magnuson-Stevens Act language conferring
``exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic
zone over such anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery
resources'' as granting NMFS jurisdiction to manage salmon further than
200 nmi from shore--i.e., beyond sovereign jurisdictional limits--
rather than within 3nmi. The Magnuson-Stevens Act acknowledges that
marine waters from the Alaskan coastline out to 3 nmi are under State
jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) and provides for Federal management
of those waters only when specific requirements described above are
met, as they are not here. Therefore, Federal authority to manage Cook
Inlet salmon fishing is limited to EEZ waters. Of course, to manage the
EEZ NMFS must and would, pursuant to Amendment 16, consider the
condition of salmon stocks as a whole and the impacts that State salmon
fisheries have on management of the EEZ. But NMFS lacks statutory
authority to establish harvest limits or implement a harvest strategy
that applies in State waters.
As most public commenters during the Council process emphasized,
the jurisdictional issues in Cook Inlet are challenging because salmon
are harvested in both State and Federal waters but originate from the
same stocks that spawn entirely in State freshwaters. This makes
separately managed State and Federal fisheries complex. Stakeholders
and the Council noted with near unanimity that the State has
significantly better tools, data, flexibility, and experience for
inseason management of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. NMFS agrees with
this assessment. NMFS would have preferred delegated management under
Alternative 2 so that State expertise and flexibility could be directly
utilized for management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The State has more
than 60 years of experience managing salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet
while NMFS has no prior experience managing these fisheries. However,
because, pursuant to court order, the Cook Inlet EEZ must be managed
under the FMP and the State declined to accept delegated management,
the only remaining option was to create a new fishery in the Cook Inlet
EEZ managed by the Council and NMFS.
Another concern of stakeholders was transitioning from a management
system that could most quickly open and close an EEZ fishery based on
real-time escapement data to one with established annual catch limits
(ACLs). Federal salmon management challenges are compounded by various
constraints on NMFS's management flexibility: Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements that FMPs include a mechanism to establish ACLs; and
notice and publication requirements for in-season actions under the
Administrative Procedure Act that NMFS must abide by for all fishery
management, including management of the Cook Inlet EEZ. These
requirements make it infeasible for NMFS to implement an escapement-
based salmon management approach in the Cook Inlet EEZ that is
identical to that currently used by the State and familiar to
stakeholders.
Another consistent concern voiced by stakeholders and the Council
was about the impacts and difficulty of coordinating management of
salmon stocks across separate State and Federal jurisdictions.
Management measures under Alternative 3 were designed, within the
limits of Federal authority, to address the impacts of managing salmon
fisheries across jurisdictions. Because Federal managers have less
administrative flexibility and less salmon management expertise than
State managers, NMFS expects initial management of the Cook Inlet EEZ
to be conservative to account for the significant uncertainty and
minimize the risk of overfishing. For example, all existing data on
harvests in the EEZ are estimates because management and catch
reporting have never differentiated between State and EEZ waters. After
the implementation of Federal management, NMFS can begin collecting the
data needed to address some of these uncertainties. Eventually, with
better data NMFS may be able to more accurately project harvestable
surpluses of salmon and liberalize future Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvests
on stocks that can support additional harvest. However, NMFS does not
see a way to immediately increase salmon harvests with less
information, less flexibility, less expertise, more management
uncertainty, and more scientific uncertainty at a time when salmon runs
are experiencing significant volatility across most of Alaska and the
Pacific coast. Further, no data can entirely eliminate the uncertainty
associated with setting preseason catch limits--as required under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act--based on run forecasts that are never perfectly
accurate. Over time, management measures may be refined as Federal
managers gain experience and better data is available to assess harvest
and stock composition within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
Another central contention of drift gillnet fishery stakeholders is
that NMFS must manage to achieve MSY under the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
and that appropriate management targets for Cook Inlet salmon stocks
are not being used. Under any management alternative, NMFS's mandate is
to achieve OY and prevent overfishing, not to achieve MSY. National
Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from
each fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(33) defines ``optimum,''
with respect to the yield from a fishery, as 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; and, in the case of an
overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level consistent
with producing the MSY in such fishery (16 U.S.C. 1802(33)). Simply
put, MSY must be considered in establishing OY, but the actual
management targets established for the fishery can vary considerably
depending on the balancing of factors identified above. The catch
limits established for federally-managed crab, groundfish, and scallop
fisheries off Alaska are regularly set significantly below their
respective MSY values in consideration of these factors.
Drift gillnet fishery stakeholders have also opined that because
overfishing has been so rarely observed, there are no conservation
concerns in Cook Inlet and therefore harvests may be increased. NMFS
agrees that the State has successfully avoided overfishing over the
long term. However, this is a result of proactive management that
continually assesses conditions of the various stocks in Cook Inlet and
implements restrictions in real time to avoid overfishing, rather than
an indication that all salmon stocks are healthy and can support
significant additional harvest in all instances. Additional discussion
of the specific factors that may constrain harvest on healthy salmon
stocks in Cook Inlet is provided below in Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial
Salmon Fishing Management Measures.
When evaluating management alternatives, the Council also noted
that Alternative 3 would have increased
[[Page 72318]]
costs, increased burdens on all participants, and overall decreased
efficiencies relative to Alternatives 1 or 2. However, the Council did
not identify any alternative solutions consistent with the applicable
court decisions and did not convince the State to accept delegated
management under Alternative 2. The Council failed to take necessary
action to recommend management measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon
fishery in April 2023 and thus, to comply with the governing court
order, NMFS began developing Amendment 16 and this proposed rule.
When the Secretary develops an FMP Amendment, according to section
304(c)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Secretary must ``conduct
public hearings, at appropriate times and locations in the geographical
areas concerned, so as to allow interested parties an opportunity to be
heard in the preparation and amendment of the plan and any regulations
implementing the plan.'' In addition to the opportunities for public
input provided at two Council meetings in Anchorage, AK, NMFS published
a notice of a public hearing (88 FR 25382) on April 26, 2023 and held a
public hearing on May 18, 2023. This public hearing was held virtually
to maximize accessibility, and written public comments were accepted
through May 25, 2023. Approximately 40 people attended the public
hearing and NMFS received 12 written comments. Nearly all commenters
were drift gillnet fishery stakeholders.
In general, drift gillnet fishery stakeholders that participated in
the hearing expressed concerns about management that would establish
preseason harvest limits rather than open and close the fishery
throughout the fishing season based on real-time escapement data. In
addition, they objected to any commercial fishery season closure date
earlier than August or September, and any management that did not
increase the number of weekly fishing periods over status quo, citing
concerns about the economic viability of the drift gillnet fishery
under conservative management, including existing State management.
Participants emphasized that certain sockeye, chum, and pink salmon
stocks have not been fully utilized in some years under the State
management regime. NMFS took these comments into consideration during
the development of Amendment 16 and this proposed rule. A more detailed
description of comments received can be found in Section 1.5 of the
Analysis.
NMFS also received multiple requests from tribal entities in the
region for engagement meetings and consultations on the issue. NMFS
held 3 tribal consultations and 3 tribal engagement sessions from
February 2023 to June 2023 to provide information, receive input, and
fulfill NMFS's responsibilities to conduct government to government
consultations with tribes. Tribal members throughout Cook Inlet
participate in all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, including the drift
gillnet, as well as other commercial, recreational, subsistence,
tribal, ceremonial, educational, and personal use salmon fisheries.
Participants were universally concerned about the health of Cook Inlet
salmon stocks. There were discussions about the complexity of salmon
management throughout Cook Inlet, including information noting that
Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks are healthy and can support
additional harvest while others are severely depressed or otherwise
require careful consideration. Many tribal groups expressed a
particular concern about the health of Cook Inlet Chinook salmon
stocks.
Throughout all of the tribal meetings, there was support for
Alternatives 3 and 4, but not for Alternative 2. There was general
concern about State management. Several tribal groups reported the
challenges they had getting tribal priorities addressed by the State,
with one group specifically citing the difficulty of getting the
Ninilchik subsistence salmon fishery recognized and implemented. There
was broad support for the establishment of new Federal tribal and
subsistence fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Some also expressed
the sentiment that under the existing State management regime, and
likely Alternative 2, the Federal trust responsibility would be impeded
by the State's involvement. Many felt that this would improve under
either Alternative 3 or 4 with direct Federal management. There were
divergent perspectives on possible management measures for the
commercial fisheries, with some groups advocating for additional
restrictions that would provide more salmon to subsistence harvesters
and others requesting that current EEZ drift gillnet commercial salmon
harvests be maintained or expanded. Finally, there was a general
acknowledgement of the limitations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the
context of salmon management, but tribes expressed the view that this
did not absolve the Federal responsibility to work to improve the
health of Cook Inlet salmon stocks.
Several tribes indicated that the window of time available was too
short and did not allow sufficient time for meaningful tribal
consultations, and that this action should be delayed to allow for it.
NMFS noted it was unable to delay action due to the Court deadline. A
more detailed summary of feedback received at meetings with tribal
groups is provided in Section 1.6 of the Analysis.
Action Summary and Rationale
This action would amend the Salmon FMP and revise Federal
regulations. Amendment 16 would add the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to the
Salmon FMP's fishery management unit. The FMP would also be amended to
include all status determination criteria required by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for determining whether a stock is overfished (in terms of
biomass) or subject to overfishing (in terms of the rate of removal).
Amendment 16 would describe annual management processes, including the
framework approach for establishing harvest specifications. The FMP
would describe management measures related to fishing time, area, gear,
and permits for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
This proposed rule would modify Federal regulations to implement
Amendment 16 by revising the definition of Salmon Management Area at 50
CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
and incorporate it into the Federal Salmon Management Area. This
proposed rule would also create Figure 22 to 50 CFR part 679 to depict
the location of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Regulations at 50 CFR 600.725
would be modified to authorize the use of drift gillnet gear for the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery. Existing regulations
related to salmon fisheries under the Salmon FMP throughout 50 CFR 679
would be moved to Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management beginning at 50
CFR 679.110. Management measures necessary for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
would be added to Subpart J. The following sections provide a summary
of management measures that would be implemented by this proposed rule.
Maximum Sustainable Yield and Optimum Yield
Amendment 16 would amend the Salmon FMP to include definitions of
MSY and OY. All FMPs must be consistent with the 10 National Standards
for fishery conservation and management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
National Standard 1 requires that fishery management measures prevent
overfishing while achieving OY on a continuing basis. OY is the amount
of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation
[[Page 72319]]
in terms of food production and recreational opportunities, while
taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. Establishing
the biological reference points used to prevent overfishing and achieve
OY is a key component of Federal management. One of the required
foundational reference points is MSY, which is the largest long-term
average catch that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under
prevailing conditions. OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY, and MSY
informs the status determination criteria that are used to determine
whether a stock is overfished or subject to overfishing. MSY therefore
also informs the harvest limits set to achieve OY and prevent
overfishing. As further explained below, MSY is a reference point,
informed by the best available scientific information, related to
maximum possible sustainable removals of a stock or stock complex
throughout its range. Therefore, MSY must be defined at the stock or
stock complex level without reference to management jurisdictions. In
contrast, OY is a long term average amount of desired yield from a
particular stock or fishery and is generally set below MSY. Under
Amendment 16, OY would be defined at the EEZ fishery level to both
account for the interactions between salmon stocks in the ecosystem and
provide Federal managers with a target that is within their control to
achieve.
To have a sustainable salmon fishery, sufficient numbers of salmon
from each stock must avoid harvest and reproduce (spawn) in freshwater.
The number of spawning salmon is termed ``escapement'' because they
have escaped capture by all fisheries and predators to spawn. Estimates
of how many salmon are expected to return from a given number of
spawning salmon can be developed through the long term process of
comparing escapement numbers to subsequent return numbers. For most
stocks, the long term management objective is to allow a range of
spawners that is likely to result in the highest potential for future
yield (harvest in excess of spawning escapement). There is always
uncertainty in what number of spawners will result in the highest
future yield because the percentage of salmon that survive is different
each year due to environmental conditions, the quality of the spawning
population, and other factors. As such, the same numbers of spawning
salmon could produce different numbers of returning offspring in
different years. Because of this, the target number of spawning salmon
(escapement goal) is generally defined as a range that is likely to
achieve high yields over a broad range of expected conditions.
For example, if an escapement goal range for a stock is established
as 750,000 to 1,000,000 fish based on the best available scientific
information, then management is adjusted to try and achieve escapement
within that range each year. The escapement target is fixed regardless
of any other factor, unless or until better information becomes
available that would cause fishery managers to revise an escapement
goal. However, because of both changes to actual escapement and the
survival of salmon, the management measures required to achieve the
escapement goal can be very different across years. If the survival
rate of offspring is poor in any given year--perhaps due to prevailing
ocean conditions that year--then it is possible that few or no
returning salmon could be harvested by fisheries while still allowing
sufficient numbers to spawn and achieve the escapement goal. In
contrast, when the survival rate is high, then fishing opportunities
can be liberalized while still meeting the escapement goal. Escapement
goals are often fixed for multiple years, and are only changed when
multiple additional years of spawning and returning salmon show that a
different number of spawning salmon is likely to optimize yields due to
changing environmental conditions, better data, or other
considerations. As described in the Salmon FMP, escapement goals for
each stock will be vetted through the Federal management process.
Harvest specifications established under Federal management would set
ACLs to achieve at least the lower bound of spawning escapement goals
for each stock to provide as much harvest opportunity as possible while
avoiding overfishing on all stocks.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSY is defined as 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)). Under Amendment 16,
MSY would be specified for salmon stocks and stock complexes in Cook
Inlet, consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. MSY would be
defined as the maximum potential yield, which is calculated by
subtracting the lower bound of the escapement goal (or another value as
recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC)
based on the best scientific information available) from the total run
size for stocks where data are available. Any fish in excess of that
necessary to achieve the escapement goal for each stock or stock
complex are theoretically available for harvest under this definition
of MSY. For stocks where escapement is not known, historical catch
would be used as a proxy for MSY.
This definition of MSY is based on escapement goals established for
salmon stocks in Cook Inlet, as informed by salmon stock assessments
that use the best scientific information available, and undergo peer
review by the Council's SSC. Escapement goals account for biological
productivity and other ecological factors. Representative indicator
stocks are used to determine a suitable MSY proxy for stock complexes
where escapement is not directly known for each component stock.
Currently, the best scientific information available to determine
escapement goals for stocks in Cook Inlet are contained in the
escapement goal analysis reports developed by the State of Alaska,
which have been vetted by the SSC (Sections 3.1 and 12 of the
Analysis). The escapement goals and catch history used to establish MSY
for each stock and stock complex would continue be evaluated by the SSC
during the annual stock assessment and harvest specification process
and changed if necessary as new scientific information becomes
available.
As discussed in Section 14 of the Analysis, prior to endorsing this
definition of MSY, the SSC reviewed an independent analysis of the
primary sockeye salmon stocks harvested by the fishery (Late-Run Kenai
and Kasilof) that found that estimates of spawning abundance expected
to maximize yield were in agreement with the State escapement goal
ranges established for these stocks. Further, the SSC considered
alternate analyses submitted through public comment at the Council and
did not find that they provided a better estimate of MSY.
OY is another critical reference point because it defines the long-
term management target for the fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section
(3)(33) defines ``optimum,'' with respect to the yield from a fishery,
as 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; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for
rebuilding to a level
[[Page 72320]]
consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery. Achieving, on a
continuing basis, the OY from each fishery means producing, from each
stock, stock complex, or fishery, an amount of catch that is, on
average, equal to the Council's specified OY; prevents overfishing;
maintains the long term average biomass near or above the level
expected to produce MSY; and rebuilds overfished stocks and stock
complexes consistent with timing and other requirements of section
304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1.
Because OY must be defined on the basis of MSY, the potential upper
bound would be all excess yield above the lower bound of the escapement
goal for each stock in the EEZ. However, because it is not possible to
harvest one stock at a time in this mixed stock fishery, because there
are weak stocks intermingled with stocks that regularly exceed their
escapement goal, and because harvest of all Cook Inlet stocks also
occurs in State marine and fresh waters, OY must be reduced from MSY to
account for these various ecological, economic, and social factors. For
this reason, OY would be defined at the fishery level to account for
mixed stock harvest and variabilities in run strength.
Defining OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery is particularly
challenging. Scientific information critical to defining OY for the
Cook Inlet EEZ includes estimates of stock-specific historical harvests
by fishery sector and escapements, as well as salmon stock assessments.
All of these elements have varied substantially over time as a result
of changes in salmon productivity, the relative abundance of salmon
stocks, management measures intended to protect weak stocks, and
management measures that have changed the allocations among salmon
harvesters in Cook Inlet as the regional population has grown and
fisheries have further developed.
Amendment 16 would define the OY range for the Cook Inlet EEZ
salmon fisheries in the Salmon FMP as the range between the averages of
the three lowest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest and the
three highest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest from 1999 to
2021. The intent of using averages of the years with lowest and highest
years of harvests is to temper the influence of extreme events in
defining OY (e.g., fishery disasters at the low end, or extremely large
harvests at the high end), thereby resulting in a range of harvests
that are likely to be sustainable and provide the greatest net benefit
to the Nation into the future. The period of time under consideration
(1999-2021) represents the full range of years for which reliable
estimates of Cook Inlet EEZ harvest are currently available, and
represents a broad range of recent conditions in the fishery that may
also be reasonably foreseeable in the future. This includes periods
when State regulations allowed additional drift gillnet harvest in the
Cook Inlet EEZ, as well as periods when time and area restrictions have
limited harvest in the area. Harvests by the recreational sector in the
area have averaged under 100 salmon per year, but are also included in
the OY range. This results in a proposed OY range of approximately
291,631 to 1,551,464 salmon of all species.
This OY also reflects a range of harvests that have provided for
viable fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ in both high and low salmon
abundance years across a wide range of ecological conditions while also
avoiding overfishing and achieving escapement goals for most stocks in
most years. Looking at average total EEZ salmon harvest in years of
high and low abundance accounts for the fact that the different stocks
and species of salmon will have varying total and relative abundances
each year--a high abundance year for one species may be a low abundance
year for another. It also acknowledges that the Cook Inlet EEZ
commercial salmon fishery sector, which harvests over 99.99 percent of
salmon in the EEZ (the remaining harvest being recreational), cannot
individually target strong stocks of salmon without also harvesting
other stocks that may not be able to support as much harvest and still
meet their escapement goal. OY would therefore be defined as the
average range of target EEZ harvest across all species that maximizes
fishing opportunities while preventing overfishing on any one stock.
This OY range provides the greatest overall net benefits to the Nation
because it would ensure sustainable stock levels throughout the
ecosystem, preserve a viable commercial fishery sector that ensures
continued food production, maintain a viable recreational fishing
sector that attracts participants from throughout the Nation, and
protect subsistence harvest opportunities.
Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits
Amendment 16 would specify objective and measurable criteria for
determining when a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing or
overfished. These are referred to as status determination criteria, and
are established during the harvest specification process and evaluated
each year after fishing is complete.
Amendment 16 would establish a tier system to assess salmon stocks
based on the amount of available information for each stock. NMFS would
annually assign each salmon stock into a tier based on the best
available scientific information during the harvest specifications
process as follows:
<bullet> Tier 1: salmon stocks with escapement goals and stock-specific
estimates of harvests
<bullet> Tier 2: salmon stocks managed as a complex, with specific
salmon stocks as indicator stocks
<bullet> Tier 3: salmon stocks or stock complexes with no reliable
estimates of escapement
The tier system uses a multi-year approach for calculating the
status determination criteria. This accounts for high uncertainty in
the estimate of fishery mortality in the most recent year, high stock
abundance fluctuations, assessments that are not timely enough to
forecast such changes, and the fact that a cohort of salmon spawned in
a single year may return at different ages to be harvested or spawn.
For stocks and stock complexes where escapement is known (e.g.,
Tier 1), or is thought to be a reliable index for the number of
spawners in a stock complex (Tier 2), overfishing is defined as
occurring when the fishing mortality rate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
(F<INF>EEZ</INF>) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality threshold
(MFMT). The MFMT for a stock or stock complex is calculated as the sum
of maximum potential yield for that stock in the EEZ for the most
recent generation (e.g., the most recent 5 years for sockeye salmon),
divided by the sum of total run size of that stock for the most recent
generation. This calculation would be used to evaluate whether
overfishing occurred each year. For this definition, maximum potential
yield in the EEZ means harvest in excess of the spawning escapement
goal (e.g., lower bound of the spawning escapement goal) when
accounting for harvests in other fisheries. Escapement goals used in
calculating the status determination criteria for each stock would be
recommended by NMFS and adopted by the SSC based on the best scientific
information available.
For Tier 3 stocks, which have no reliable estimates of escapement,
overfishing would occur when harvest exceeds the overfishing limit
(OFL). The OFL for Tier 3 stocks would be set as the maximum EEZ catch
of the stock multiplied by the generation time (years). The result of
this calculation would be compared against the
[[Page 72321]]
cumulative EEZ catch of the stock for the most recent generation. The
SSC may recommend an alternative catch value for OFL on the basis of
the best scientific information available.
Under National Standard 1, a stock or stock complex is considered
``overfished'' when its biomass declines below a minimum stock size
threshold (MSST). MSST means the level of biomass below which the
capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing
basis has been jeopardized. Escapement is used to evaluate a salmon
stock's capacity to produce MSY. For Cook Inlet salmon, the MSST will
be calculated for stocks in Tier 1 and 2 as follows: a stock or stock
complex is overfished when summed escapements over a generation fall
below one half of summed spawning escapement goals over that
generation. Escapement goals used in establishing Federal status
determination criteria would be recommended by NMFS and adopted by the
SSC.
For Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks, the Salmon FMP would specify OFL as
the amount of salmon harvest in the EEZ for the coming year that would
correspond with the MFMT, based on information available preseason.
Acceptable biological catch (ABC) would then be established based on
OFL. As an ABC control rule, ABC must be less than or equal to OFL, and
the SSC may recommend reducing ABC from OFL to account for scientific
uncertainty, including uncertainty associated with the assessment of
spawning escapement goals, forecasts, harvests, and other sources of
uncertainty. The annual catch limit (ACL) for each stock would then be
set equal to ABC.
For Tier 3 stocks there is not information to determine MSST. ABC
for these stocks would be based on the OFL with an additional buffer
for scientific uncertainty. As an ABC control rule, ABC could be set
lower by applying a more conservative buffer to the OFL to account for
greater scientific uncertainty regarding the stock. ACL would then be
set at ABC.
While ABC and ACL would be calculated based on the best scientific
information available preseason when harvest specifications must be
established, realized harvest and escapement data would be used
postseason to determine whether ACLs were exceeded, whether overfishing
occurred, and if any stocks were overfished. Accountability measures
would be applied to prevent the recurrence of any ACL overages.
De Minimis Fishing Provision
There are significant concerns about some Cook Inlet salmon stocks
that are at low levels of abundance and productivity. For example,
despite extensive fishery restrictions, there have been several recent
years in which Chinook salmon escapements for some stocks did not meet
their escapement goals and drift gillnet fishing was still allowed. As
discussed later in Mixed Stock Management Considerations, the drift
gillnet fleet harvests only small quantities of Chinook salmon, and
they are not a primary target species for the fishery.
De minimis fishing provisions would allow small amounts of
incidental catch of stocks that are at low levels of abundance and for
which there is minimal or no available projected yield, so long as de
minimis harvest would not result in overfishing or the stock becoming
overfished. De minimis fishing provisions give flexibility to the
process of setting status determination criteria when the escapement
goals for limiting stocks are projected to not be met, but harvest by
the fishery is not expected to have significant impacts to the stock or
result in a conservation concern. This can provide opportunity to
harvest salmon stocks that are more abundant and reduce the risk of
fishery restrictions that impose severe economic consequences on
fishing communities without substantive management or conservation
benefits. While de minimis provisions would be intended to provide
management flexibility, there is an overriding mandate to prevent
overfishing on and preserve the long-term productive capacity of all
stocks to ensure meaningful contributions to all fisheries in the
future.
Under Amendment 16, if a preseason forecast suggests that the lower
bound of the escapement goal will not be achieved for a given stock, de
minimis harvest on the stock may be allowed if the SSC determines that
the de minimis harvest will not result in overfishing. Thus, the
maximum allowable de minimis harvest amount would be established to
keep the post-season fishing mortality rate below MFMT.
The SSC may recommend limiting allowable de minimis catch as needed
to address uncertainties or year-specific circumstances. When
recommending a de minimis catch limit in a given year, the SSC may also
consider recent and projected abundance levels; the predicted magnitude
of harvest in the EEZ; the status of other stocks in the mixed-stock
fishery; indicators of marine and freshwater environmental conditions;
impacts from other fisheries; whether the stock is currently subject to
overfishing or approaching an overfished condition; whether the stock
is currently overfished; and any other scientific considerations as
appropriate.
Management measures and any required accountability measures
necessary to implement a de minimis harvest provision and prevent
overfishing or any stock becoming overfished would be considered during
the harvest specifications process.
Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes
Amendment 16 would establish the annual harvest specification
process for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, along with specific definitions of
required status determination criteria using the tier system described
in the previous section.
The Federal fishery management cycle begins with the preparation of
a Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) report. The SAFE
report would provide the SSC and Council with a summary of the most
recent biological condition of the salmon stocks, including all status
determination criteria, and the social and economic condition of the
fishing and processing industries. NMFS would develop the SAFE for the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area and public review would occur through the SSC and
Council process. The Council could choose to establish a plan team
through subsequent action.
The SAFE report would summarize the best available scientific
information concerning the past, present, and possible future condition
of Cook Inlet salmon stocks and fisheries, along with ecosystem
considerations. This would include recommendations of OFL, ABC, ACL,
and MSST that are calculated following the tier system in the FMP and
described in Section 2.5.2 of the Analysis. The SAFE report would
include a final post-season evaluation of the previous fishing year
based on realized catches and escapement with all information needed to
make ``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' determinations, as well as
recommendations to develop harvest specifications for the upcoming
fishing year. All recommendations would be based on the best scientific
information available and would take into account any applicable
uncertainty. In providing this information, the Salmon SAFE would use a
time series of historical catch for each salmon stock, including
estimates of retained and discarded catch taken in the salmon fishery;
bycatch taken in other fisheries; catch in
[[Page 72322]]
State commercial, recreational, personal use, and subsistence
fisheries; and catches taken during scientific research (e.g., test
fisheries).
The Salmon SAFE report would also provide information to the
Council for documenting significant trends or changes in the stocks,
marine ecosystem, and fisheries over time, as well as the impacts of
management. The Cook Inlet EEZ Area Salmon SAFE would be structured
like other Council SAFEs such that stock assessments, economic
analyses, and ecosystem considerations comprise the three major themes
of the SAFE document. The SAFE could contain economic, social,
community, essential fish habitat, and ecological information pertinent
to the success of salmon management or the achievement of Salmon FMP
objectives.
The SSC would review the SAFE and recommend the OFL, ABC, ACL,
MFMT, and MSST, which are cumulatively used to determine the maximum
allowable harvest for each stock based on biology and scientific
uncertainty in the assessments. This SSC review would constitute the
official, peer review of scientific information used to manage the Cook
Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery for the purposes of the Information
Quality Act. Upon review and acceptance by the SSC, the Salmon SAFE and
any associated SSC comments would constitute the best scientific
information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Council would then recommend total allowable catches (TACs) for
each salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery to the
Secretary. The TAC is referred to as an ``Annual Catch Target'' in the
National Standard 1 guidelines, but hereafter referred to as a TAC
given common usage of the term by the Council. Closing a fishery when
TACs are met is a recommended form of an accountability measure (AM)
used to ensure an ACL is not exceeded. A TAC is an amount of annual
catch of a stock, stock complex, or species that is the management
target of the fishery, accounts for management uncertainty in
controlling the catch at or below the ACL, and must be set equal to or
less than ABC. The TACs would be set at the species level because
estimates of stock contribution to EEZ fishery harvests cannot
currently be made until after the fishing season. As such, in setting
the TAC for each species, the Council would consider the estimated
proportional contribution of each stock to total harvest of a species
such that ACLs are not expected to be exceeded for any component stock
if the TAC is fully achieved. If inseason genetic information becomes
available, it may be possible to establish and manage for TACs for
individual stocks within the same species (e.g., Kenai River sockeye
and Kasilof River sockeye). Because NMFS and the Council have never
previously managed a drift gillnet salmon fishery in Alaska, and as
described in Section 2.5.2.6 of the Analysis, there are significant new
management uncertainties that are introduced by this action, TACs will
be a crucial management tool.
To establish these Magnuson-Stevens Act required ACLs and their
implementing TACs, NMFS would publish proposed and final salmon harvest
specifications in the Federal Register. Under the Federal rulemaking
process, the public is informed through the Federal Register of Federal
actions and can comment on them and provide additional information to
the agency. A final rule is then issued with modifications, as needed,
and includes the agency responses to issues raised by public comments.
This is a lengthy process: it takes a significant amount of time to
conduct the stock assessments, review them through the SSC and Council,
make any overfishing or overfished determinations, recommend TACs, and
then conduct notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Because harvest specifications must be in place before the fishery
begins, this process must rely on salmon forecasts. NMFS would use
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) pre-season salmon forecasts
(subject to NMFS and SSC review) or develop suitable alternate
forecasts. Fundamentally, status determination criteria and harvest
specifications would be calculated in terms of potential yield for the
Cook Inlet EEZ and would be based, in part, on the forecasted run size
minus the minimum number of salmon required for spawning and the
expected mortality in other fisheries. If no forecasts are available,
NMFS would use fishery catch in prior years to inform harvest
specification, as it does for other data-limited fisheries.
Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures
Salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet are complex and must take into
account many different factors when establishing management measures
for each component sector. The drift gillnet fleet generally harvests
the largest proportion of salmon in Cook Inlet of any fishery sector
and has significant harvest power. The State has historically managed
the drift gillnet fishery through the combination of time and areas
open to fishing. This section provides a discussion of key
considerations related to status quo management of the Cook Inlet drift
gillnet fleet and proposed Cook Inlet EEZ management measures under
this action.
Seasonal Fishery Progression
Commercial salmon fishing in Cook Inlet is bounded by when salmon
return to the Cook Inlet en route to natal freshwater locations to
spawn. Commercial salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet begin in June under
State regulations. Around this time, Chinook salmon are already present
in Cook Inlet and sockeye salmon begin migrating into Cook Inlet from
the Gulf of Alaska. As salmon begin to move into Cook Inlet, with the
exception of Chinook, they typically group in large tide rips in the
middle of Cook Inlet (i.e., the EEZ) to start moving north up the inlet
toward their spawning streams, rivers, and lakes. The first commercial
fishery that salmon typically encounter when moving up Cook Inlet is
the upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery. Commercial salmon fisheries
south of this area occur entirely in State waters.
In the Cook Inlet EEZ, salmon stocks originating from throughout
Cook Inlet are mixed together. As they move northward up farther into
Cook Inlet, individual salmon stocks will eventually move shoreward
into State waters to reach their spawning streams. Stocks returning to
freshwater systems farther north in Cook Inlet tend to stay close to
the middle of the inlet when they move through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
The Upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery occurs entirely within the
State's ``Central District,'' which are waters north of the Anchor
Point line at 59[deg]46.15' N to approximately Boulder Point at
60[deg]46.39' N. Commercial, subsistence, recreational, and personal
use salmon fisheries also occur northward of Boulder Point, which
includes the waters of Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm, and this area is
generally referred to as the State's ``Northern District.'' All salmon
returning to the Northern District must first past through fisheries in
the Central District before reaching fisheries and spawning grounds in
the Northern District.
Mixed Stock Management Considerations
In recent years, the State's management of Cook Inlet salmon has
been complicated by the relative abundance of salmon stocks, and the
characteristics of the different user groups and gear types. Central
District
[[Page 72323]]
drift gillnet, set gillnet, recreational, and personal use fishermen
all target valuable Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon, which in recent
years have been in relatively high abundance. As described in Section
4.5 of the Analysis, sockeye salmon accounted for more than 80 percent
of the salmon caught in the drift gillnet fishery, and an even greater
percentage of fishery value from 1990-2021. Over this same time, the
drift gillnet fishery has harvested approximately 42 percent of the
sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet, while the set gillnet fishery harvested
around 40 percent, and non-commercial harvests accounted for the
remainder.
The amount and proportion of harvest by each fishery is
significantly impacted by which salmon stocks it targets, or cannot
avoid, and whether unintended catch can be released alive. Gillnet gear
generally catch all species of salmon in the area and cannot target
individual stocks. It is assumed that salmon that become entangled in
commercial gillnet gear generally do not survive being released.
Therefore, management must consider all stocks that would be harvested
by each drift gillnet fishery opening, the conservation status of each
stock, and their relative abundance. While Kenai and Kasilof sockeye
salmon stocks have been abundant in recent years, salmon abundance can
be highly variable over time and management plans must be able to
account for a wide variety of absolute and relative salmon stock
abundance scenarios.
The drift gillnet fishery harvests only approximately 1 percent of
upper Cook Inlet Chinook salmon, on average. This is because Chinook
salmon generally migrate in State waters near the shore outside of EEZ
and State waters open to drift gillnet fishing, or at depths below
drift gillnet gear. However, the drift gillnet fishery, particularly in
the Cook Inlet EEZ, can catch significant quantities of Cook Inlet
sockeye and coho salmon stocks bound for the Northern District. These
are smaller and less productive stocks that cannot support as much
harvest as co-occurring Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks. The
Cook Inlet EEZ is a productive fishing area for all Cook Inlet sockeye
salmon and coho stocks, as they are aggregated in tide rips within the
Cook Inlet EEZ.
Fishing at a rate to fully harvest the most abundant stocks would
likely result in overfishing on these weaker or less abundant salmon
stocks. Therefore, to support conservation of these Northern District
stocks, and to ensure at least some harvestable surplus for Northern
District salmon fisheries, the State has reduced the number of drift
gillnet fishing periods in Cook Inlet EEZ waters after July 15 to
minimize mixed stock harvests. After this date, State management
measures in the last decade generally reduced fishing time in the EEZ
and provided additional fishing time in State waters on the east side
of Cook Inlet, adjacent to the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers to focus
harvests on Kenai and Kasilof salmon stocks during the peak of the run.
This management approach was in response to significant declines in
coho salmon stocks and long term yield concerns for Northern District
sockeye salmon, as well as an increasing populations in the Anchorage
and Kenai Peninsula areas utilizing Cook Inlet salmon resources. This
has also limited the drift gillnet fleet's harvests of pink and chum
salmon stocks.
Additionally, reducing Cook Inlet EEZ harvests after July 15 allows
for the collection of more data on escapement and realized salmon
abundance in order to either avoid overharvesting a given stock or
increase harvest to more fully utilize abundant runs. After July 15,
the amount of fishing time available to the drift gillnet fleet under
State management has varied widely depending on run strength. For Kenai
and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks, managers get robust information on
run strength from an inseason abundance model around July 25. Prior to
July 25, there is significant uncertainty from the inseason model about
run strength for these stocks, which increases management uncertainty.
A major concern is harvesting too many fish and not meeting spawning
escapement goals, potentially resulting in overfishing. This issue is
exacerbated for Northern District stocks, for which there is
significant time lag (relative to Kenai and Kasilof stocks) between
harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ and information on escapement becoming
available.
The State has adjusted management within State waters, where stocks
are more distinctly separated, to focus on harvests on Kenai or Kasilof
stocks while minimizing drift gillnet harvests of Northern District
salmon stocks. Fishery managers must also account for harvest in
freshwater fisheries upstream of escapement monitoring when making
management decisions to reach final escapement goal targets (e.g., 1.4
million salmon may be counted at the monitoring station, but if 200,000
are subsequently caught in freshwater fisheries, than only 1.2 million
salmon would actually spawn).
Proposed Federal Commercial Fishing Season and Fishing Periods
Under this proposed rule, the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would open to
commercial drift gillnet fishing on a Monday, either the third Monday
in June or the Monday on or after June 19, whichever is later. Prior to
this time, salmon stocks harvested by the drift gillnet fleet are not
present in commercially viable quantities. Historically, estimated
harvests in the EEZ have been relatively small during the initial
openings as sockeye salmon are just beginning to move into the area and
the bulk of the fish do not arrive until July. Opening after mid-June
helps avoid potential additional impacts to early-run Cook Inlet
Chinook salmon stocks. These stocks migrate through upper Cook Inlet in
May and early June. Opening the drift gillnet fishery after mid-June
would also continue to provide consistent data to inform State and
Federal managers about preliminary estimates of run strength compared
to historical averages. The scientific test fishery carried out by the
State, which also helps provide information about salmon run strength
in Cook Inlet, would not be affected by this action and could continue
to occur.
After the season start date, this proposed rule would open the Cook
Inlet EEZ Area for drift gillnet fishing for two,12-hour periods each
week, from 7 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, and from 7 a.m. Thursday
until 7 p.m. Thursday until either (1) the TAC is reached, or (2)
August 15, whichever comes first. This schedule would align possible
drift gillnet fishing periods in the Cook Inlet EEZ with current State
drift gillnet periods, thereby maintaining a similar number of regular
drift gillnet fishing periods per week. If the State and Federal
fisheries were open on separate days, there could be additional drift
gillnet openings that could result in significantly increased harvest
(the drift gillnet fleet has the potential to harvest over 300,000
salmon per opening), and there are not existing data to inform managers
about the potential impacts of additional openings on spawning
escapement and other salmon users.
Some drift gillnet fishery stakeholders requested that NMFS open
the drift gillnet fishery for three, 12-hour periods per week from June
through October. If NMFS were to allow that amount of fishing
opportunity, overfishing on some Cook Inlet salmon stocks--particularly
Northern District stocks of low abundance--would be more likely. Under
such a management approach, it is possible that even a complete closure
[[Page 72324]]
of State fisheries would be insufficient to prevent overfishing on low
abundance stocks.
NMFS received input from other Northern District salmon users and
tribes in Northern Cook Inlet requesting that Federal management
measures limit EEZ harvests during the middle of the season to allow
for a harvestable surplus of salmon for Northern District salmon
fisheries.
As a result of this conflicting feedback, NMFS carefully considered
when the commercial drift gillnet fishery in the EEZ should be closed.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ACLs must be established for each
fishery, along with accountability measures to prevent ACLs from being
exceeded. Because there is both scientific and management uncertainty
surrounding the ACLs set for each stock or stock complex, TACs are set
as the management target for the fishery to prevent exceeding ACLs. The
fishery would be closed when the TAC for a single species is reached.
Because of the mixed-stock nature of the fishery, the drift gillnet
fleet could not avoid continuing to harvest stocks for which the TAC
had been reached and target only those stocks for which there was still
TAC remaining.
In addition to closing the fishery when a TAC is reached, NMFS
considered whether a fixed commercial fishery season closure date may
be required. Season closure dates are commonly used to end fisheries
when a TAC is not reached, and to achieve other conservation and
management objectives. To describe how these management measures would
interact, the fishery would close before the closure date if the TAC is
reached prior to that date. NMFS may also close the fishery before a
TAC or the closure date is reached in the event it has information
showing further fishery openings could result in overfishing of any
stock. One potential example of this is if actual salmon returns were
significantly below the salmon forecasts. In this instance, fishing to
fully achieve a TAC based on a forecast that is much higher than
realized abundance could result in not meeting at least the lower bound
of the escapement goal, overfishing occurring, or both.
In developing this proposed rule NMFS evaluated a range of
potential options, including no closure date and a closure date as
early as July 9. After receiving input from drift gillnet stakeholders
that a fixed July closure could severely restrict fishing opportunities
and would not account for delayed run timing that has been observed in
recent years, NMFS is proposing an August 15 closure date. In years
when there is sufficient TAC and salmon abundance to support a longer
fishing season, this could result in additional EEZ fishing days in
mid-July and greater harvest of one or more stocks in the EEZ relative
to status quo management. However, due to mixed stock management
considerations, total annual removals in the Cook Inlet EEZ and
throughout Cook Inlet would generally be expected to remain consistent
with historical averages that, when accounting for run size, have
prevented overfishing. NMFS would still manage to protect weak stocks
in Northern Cook Inlet in years of low abundance. As under existing
management, the number of EEZ fishing days is expected to vary based on
the abundance of salmon (i.e., amount of fishing time required to
achieve the target harvest when accounting for all stocks that are
being harvested before the fishery is closed). NMFS also received input
from other Cook Inlet stakeholders concerned about the potential
negative impacts of an extended EEZ drift gillnet fishery on salmon
stocks and later occurring fisheries in Cook Inlet, particularly
without restrictions in mid-July that have been occurring under State
management. These stakeholders raised concerns about reduced
harvestable surplus for other fisheries outside of the EEZ and concerns
about achieving spawning escapement goals. NMFS anticipates addressing
these concerns through the annual harvest specification process, which
would account for total removals of each stock and scientific
uncertainty.
NMFS is particularly interested in feedback from the public about
the implications of an August 15 closure date--or an earlier or later
closure date--on fishery resources and participants, or impacts on any
other part of the ecosystem. NMFS will take all public comments into
consideration and may modify the closure date in the final rule.
NMFS has significant concerns about management measures that would
significantly increase salmon harvests above the status quo,
particularly of Northern District salmon stocks, because that may
decrease prey availability for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Reduced availability of salmon prey in the Northern District, where
Cook Inlet beluga whales are concentrated during the summer, has been
identified in the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Recovery Plan as a threat for
Cook Inlet beluga whales. If this proposed action results in reduced
prey availability, take of belugas would need to be authorized under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) assuming such take could be authorized
and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. NMFS
Sustainable Fisheries Division is consulting under ESA section 7 with
NMFS Protected Resources Division to evaluate the potential impacts of
these proposed management measures to all ESA listed species that may
be affected.
Inseason Management
NMFS would carry out inseason management of the commercial salmon
fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Fishing would occur during the
regularly scheduled fishing periods described above. As the fishing
season progresses, NMFS would project the additional harvest expected
from each additional opening of the fishery based on the number of
participating vessels, catch rates, and any other available
information. NMFS would carry out an inseason action to close the
fishery if projections indicate that an additional fishery opening
would be expected to exceed the TAC specified for one or more salmon
stocks or species. Inseason actions also may be necessary to ensure
that overfishing of salmon stocks or species does not occur. NMFS would
publish every inseason action in the Federal Register to notify the
public of the effectiveness.
NMFS would monitor all available sources of information during the
fishery to evaluate whether the TAC was specified correctly. If
information indicates that the number of salmon returning to Cook Inlet
is significantly different than what was forecasted, NMFS may make
adjustments to management of the fishery. If information indicates that
run strength is significantly below what was forecasted, then fishing
to fully achieve that TAC would likely result in overfishing.
Therefore, NMFS may close the fishery before the season closure date to
prevent overfishing if information indicates that abundance is
significantly lower than expected. This may be determined based on
fishery catches, test-fishery catches, escapement, or any other
scientific information.
NMFS may consider an inseason adjustment to modify the TAC if
scientific information indicates that salmon abundance is significantly
higher than forecasted. To implement an inseason adjustment, NMFS must
publish a temporary rule in the Federal Register and consider all
public comments on the action. Any such action must not result in
overfishing on any other co-occurring fish stocks and
[[Page 72325]]
would also consider the potential impacts of such an action to all Cook
Inlet salmon harvesters. Depending on the specifics of the situation,
it may take up to 30 days to implement an inseason adjustment to the
TAC. NMFS could not adjust the TAC above any ABC or allowable de
minimis amounts set forth in the harvest specifications established for
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in that fishing year without engaging in notice
and comment rulemaking to amend the specifications.
This proposed rule also considers the potential for adjustments to
fishing time and area, as well as reopening the fishery within the
fishing season defined in regulation to achieve conservation and
management goals. These tools may be used to either increase or
decrease harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery as
appropriate based on the specified TAC amounts, the amount already
harvested, and other available information. NMFS expects to refine
application of these management tools as it develops management
expertise and collects data over time.
Proposed Federal Management Area
The proposed management area is all Federal waters of upper Cook
Inlet (EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N).
This is analogous to previous State management of the area under ``Area
1'' openings, excluding the State water portion of the area off the
Southeast corner of Kalgin Island. The State's ``Districtwide''
openings included all of the Federal waters in ``Area 1'' and also
allowed fishing in all State waters of the Central District. The
State's openings of these areas include approximately all Federal
waters of upper Cook Inlet.
Retention of Bycatch
Drift gillnet vessels fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be
able to retain and sell non-salmon bycatch including groundfish (e.g.,
Pacific cod, pollock, flounders, etc.). These are referred to as
incidental catch species and this proposed rule allows fishermen to
retain these species up to a specified maximum retainable amount (MRA).
Drift gillnet vessels retaining non-salmon incidental catch species
would be required to have a groundfish Federal fisheries permit (FFP)
as well as comply with all State requirements when landing these fish
in Alaska. The MRA of an incidental catch species is determined as a
proportion of the weight of salmon on board the vessel.
Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 is used to calculate MRA amounts in the
Gulf of Alaska, and would also be used to calculate MRA amounts for the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area. For commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area, the basis species would be salmon, which would be classified
as ``Aggregated amount of non-groundfish species'' for the purposes of
the calculation. To obtain the MRAs for each incidental catch species,
multiply the retainable percentage for the incidental catch species by
the round weight of salmon (Basis Species--Aggregated amount of non-
groundfish species) on board. For example, if there were 100 pounds
(45.36 kg) of salmon aboard the vessel, then 20 pounds (9.07 kg) of
pollock could be retained, 5 pounds (2.27 kg) of aggregated rockfish,
20 pounds (9.07 kg) of sculpins. Pacific halibut are not defined as a
groundfish and could not be retained by drift gillnet vessels.
Vessels landing bycatch species in Alaska would have to comply with
all State requirements, including any applicable State permits.
Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishery Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
This action would manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery
separately from the adjacent State waters salmon fisheries. To manage
the fishery successfully and avoid overfishing, Federal managers need
accurate and rapidly reported catch data from the EEZ. The eLandings
system is an electronic system for reporting commercial fishery
landings in Alaska used to manage both State and Federal fisheries.
Landings submitted through eLandings are transmitted to NMFS multiple
times per day which would allow managers to have the most up to date
information possible. This proposed rule would require processors to
report all landings of Cook Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ through
eLandings by noon of the day following completion of the delivery. In
order to implement this reporting requirement and other monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting measures, fishing vessels (harvesters),
processors, and other entities receiving deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ
salmon (i.e., fish transporters, catcher sellers, and direct markets)
would have to obtain Federal permits and comply with Federal
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements.
Requirements for Catcher Vessels
Harvesting vessel owners would be required to obtain a Salmon
Federal Fisheries Permit (SFFP). NMFS would issue SFFPs at no charge to
the owner or authorized representative of a vessel. An SFFP would
authorize a vessel of the United States to conduct commercial salmon
fishing operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, subject to all other
Federal requirements. An SFFP applicant must be a citizen of the United
States. NMFS would issue SFFPs after receipt, review, and approval of a
complete SFFP application. SFFPs would have a 3-year application cycle.
Once a vessel owner or authorized representative obtains an SFFP, it
would be valid for 3 years. Participants must maintain a physical or
electronic copy of their valid SFFP aboard the named vessel. As with
other Federal fisheries, if a vessel owner or authorized representative
surrenders an SFFP, they could not obtain a new SFFP for that vessel
until the start of the next 3-year permit cycle. This prevents vessels
from regularly surrendering and reobtaining SFFPs to avoid Federal
monitoring requirements.
The SFFP is associated with a specific vessel and not transferable
to another vessel. If the vessel is sold, the new owner would need to
apply for an SFFP amendment from NMFS to reflect the new owner or
authorized representative of the vessel. A vessel could not operate in
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery until the SFFP amendment was complete
and the amended SFFP issued. The SFFP number would be required to be
displayed on the vessel's hull and buoys attached to the vessel's drift
gillnet.
For a vessel being leased, the vessel operator would be considered
the authorized representative of the SFFP holder and no amendments to
the permit would be required. The vessel operator would be subject to
all SFFP requirements and limitations and liable for any violations.
To monitor participation in the fishery and help Federal managers
estimate expected removals from each opening, as well as to ensure that
participants remain within EEZ waters open to fishing, the proposed
rule would require commercial salmon fishing vessels to operate a
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). VMS transmits the real-time GPS
location of fishing vessels to NMFS. This would also help ensure that
vessels are not fishing in both State and EEZ waters during the same
fishing trip, which would be prohibited under this proposed rule to
improve the accuracy of catch accounting for Federal managers. VMS
would also aid in verifying when a vessel may be lawfully transiting
through Cook Inlet EEZ Area waters after participating in a State
fishery. A vessel with an SFFP would be required to keep their VMS
active within State waters to ensure that entire fishing trips are
monitored and to help verify that no fishing occurred within
[[Page 72326]]
State waters during a fishing trip that included salmon harvest in the
Cook Inlet EEZ.
During fishing operations, a drift gillnet is not always attached
to the vessel. Therefore, the position of the vessel as determined by
VMS may be different than the exact location of the net it deployed.
However, because drift gillnet vessels in Cook Inlet remain relatively
close to their nets due to the significant tidal currents in the area,
VMS data, when combined with logbook information and vessel or aircraft
enforcement patrols, provides robust information to determine
compliance with Federal fishing area, time, and catch accounting
regulations. This approach is also more practicable and cost-efficient
to fishery participants than the alternatives of comprehensive
electronic monitoring systems or human fishery observers.
To collect catch and bycatch information, this proposed rule would
require a Federal fishing logbook. Commercial salmon fishing vessels
would record the start and end time and GPS position of each set, as
well as a count of the catch and bycatch. In addition, any interactions
or entanglements with marine mammals would be required to be recorded
in the logbook. Logbook sheets would be submitted electronically to
NMFS by the vessel operator when the fish are delivered to a processor.
There is currently no quantitative information available on discards of
salmon and groundfish in the Cook Inlet drift gillnet salmon fisheries
or other closely analogous fisheries to estimate bycatch amounts and
mortality. The data provided by the logbooks would provide this
information and satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act Standardized Bycatch
Reporting Methodology (SBRM) requirement (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)).
Information from logbooks would also be used to corroborate VMS data in
the event of a suspected Federal fishery violation.
State requirements, including an appropriate State Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit(s), would still apply for
drift gillnet vessels to land salmon or other species caught in the EEZ
within the State or enter State waters.
This proposed rule would prohibit commercial salmon harvesting
vessels from landing or otherwise transferring salmon caught within the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the EEZ. Harvesting vessels delivering to
tenders would have to do so within State waters. This proposed rule
would also prohibit processing salmon (as defined by Federal
regulations) in the EEZ aboard either the harvesting vessel or another
vessel. Harvesting vessels would be permitted to gut, gill, and bleed
salmon prior to landing, but could not freeze or further process salmon
prior to landing their catch.
Requirements for Processors and Other Entities Receiving Deliveries of
Commercially Caught Cook Inlet EEZ Salmon
The proposed rule would require processors that receive and process
landings of salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area by a vessel
authorized by an SFFP to obtain a Salmon Federal Processor Permit
(SFPP). This includes any person, facility, vessel, or stationary
floating processor that receives, purchases, or arranges to purchase
and processes unprocessed salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area,
except registered salmon receivers. Persons or businesses that receive
landings (deliveries) of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon from harvesting vessels
but do not immediately process it, or transport it to another location
for processing, would be required to obtain a Registered Salmon
Receiver Permit (RSRP).
SFPP and RSRP holders would be required to be report all salmon
landings through eLandings by noon of the day following completion of
the delivery. This would ensure that Federal fishery managers would
receive timely catch information from all Federal landings to inform
Federal management actions. Landings would be reported using existing
Cook Inlet drift gillnet statistical areas, with the addition of an EEZ
identifier and a requirement to identify the Federal permit associated
with each landing. This approach would maintain the continuity of long-
term datasets for fishery managers and scientists while clearly
delineating EEZ harvests.
NMFS would issue SFPPs and RSRPs on a 1-year cycle. The shorter
timeframe reflects the need to maintain a current and comprehensive
inventory of all Federal salmon landings in Cook Inlet given frequent
business or ownership changes for Cook Inlet salmon processing and
buying operations. If the ownership of an entity holding a SFPP or RSRP
changes, the new owner would need to submit an application for an
amended permit. The amended permit would be issued with a new permit
number to reflect the change.
Because SFPPs would be facility-specific, one SFPP would be
required for every processing facility, even if a facility was
controlled by a company already holding an SFPP at another processing
facility. An RSRP would be required for each entity receiving but not
processing landings of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon at the location of the
delivery. This includes fish transporters or buying stations that
receive deliveries directly from harvesting vessels. The RSRP would
ensure that there is not a significant time lag between a landing
occurring across all entities that receive deliveries of Cook Inlet
salmon and that information being reported to Federal managers.
These proposed regulations are intended to accommodate vessels that
catch and then sell unprocessed or processed fish directly to
consumers. For direct-marketing operations where the owner or operator
of a harvesting vessel catches and processes their catch, both an SFFP
and an SFPP would be required. For catcher-seller operations where the
owner or operator of a harvesting vessel catches and sells unprocessed
salmon (e.g., whole fish or headed and gutted) themselves, both an SFFP
and an RSRP would be required.
The proposed rule would prohibit processing Cook Inlet EEZ salmon
in EEZ waters in order to ensure historical participants and operation
types are not displaced. Viscera and gills may be removed at sea.
Freezing is considered processing per Federal regulations and therefore
would be prohibited in Cook Inlet EEZ waters.
Other Commercial Fishery Management Measures and Prohibitions
This proposed rule would define the legal gear for the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery consistent with existing State gear to
the extent practicable. Legal drift gillnet gear would be no longer
than 200 fathoms (365.76 m) in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a mesh
size no greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm). Maintaining gear definitions
consistent with State regulations would prevent participants from
having to acquire new gear to participate in the Federal fishery, and
is expected to help maintain existing gear selectivity for
comparability with historical data that would help Federal managers
estimate expected catches. Buoys at each end of the drift gillnet would
have to be marked with the participants' SFFP number.
Gillnets would be measured, either wet or dry, by determining the
maximum or minimum distance between the first and last hanging of the
net when the net is fully extended with traction applied at one end
only. It would be illegal to stake or otherwise fix a drift gillnet to
the seafloor. The float line and floats of drift gillnets would be
required to float on the surface of the water while the net is fishing,
unless
[[Page 72327]]
natural conditions cause the net to temporarily sink.
This proposed rule includes the following prohibitions for drift
gillnet fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
<bullet> Vessels would be prohibited from fishing in both State and
Federal waters on the same day, or otherwise have on board or deliver
fish harvested in both EEZ and State waters, to ensure accurate catch
accounting for Federal managers.
<bullet> Vessels could not have salmon harvested in any other
fishery on board.
<bullet> Vessels would be prohibited from having gear in excess of
the allowable configuration or deploying multiple nets.
<bullet> Vessels would be prohibited from participating in other
fisheries while drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
and would not be allowed to have other fishing gear on board capable of
catching salmon while commercial fishing (e.g., drift gillnetting) for
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
<bullet> Because vessels legally participating in adjacent salmon
fisheries transit across the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, vessels could have
other fishing gear on board while moving through the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area, but would be prohibited from commercial fishing for salmon within
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
<bullet> Manned or unmanned aircraft could not be used to locate
salmon or otherwise direct fishing.
<bullet> Vessels would be prohibited from discarding any salmon
caught while drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishing
The saltwater recreational fishery sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ is
extremely small relative to the drift gillnet sector, harvesting an
estimated annual average of 66 salmon of all species, or less than 0.01
percent of all salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ. This includes
harvests by both guided (charter) anglers and unguided anglers. Over
the course of a year, the limits historically established by the State
are not constraining, and nearly all recreational salmon fishing occurs
within State waters. Therefore, relatively limited management of Cook
Inlet EEZ recreational salmon fishing is required at this time.
Recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area primarily targets
Chinook and coho salmon. Pink and chum salmon are sometimes also caught
and retained for personal consumption and bait. Sockeye salmon are
rarely caught in the saltwater recreational fishery as recreational
fishing gear does not target them effectively.
A small portion of recreational salmon fishing occurs during the
winter, targeting immature Chinook salmon originating from stocks
outside of Cook Inlet from October to the end of March. Other salmon
species are not generally available and are not harvested by the
recreational salmon fishery during this period.
The primary salmon species of potential conservation concern are
Chinook salmon. Cook Inlet origin Chinook salmon generally migrate
through Cook Inlet close to shore and are almost exclusively caught
within State waters. Declines in Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks have
resulted in significant restrictions and closures of this early season
recreational fishery. In some years, restrictions on recreational
anglers retaining coho salmon may also be required.
Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishery Management Measures
This proposed rule includes management measures for recreational
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS would establish bag and
possession limits in Federal regulations consistent with current State
regulations. For Chinook salmon, from April 1 to August 31, the bag
limit would be one Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of
one in possession of any size. From September 1 to March 31, the bag
limit would be two Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of
two in possession of any size. For coho (silver) salmon, sockeye
salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon there would be a combined six fish
bag limit per day, including a total limit of six in possession of any
size. However, only 3 per day, including a total limit of three in
possession, may be coho salmon.
In addition to these proposed Federal limits, recreational anglers
would also be constrained by State bag and possession limits if landing
fish in Alaska. Because of this, an angler could not exceed State
limits when landing fish in Alaska, or otherwise have both an EEZ limit
and a State limit on board at the same time in either area.
Recreational fishing would be open for the entire calendar year.
Because recreational anglers can release fish with limited mortality,
NMFS could prohibit retention of individual salmon species while still
allowing harvest of other salmon stocks if necessary. Inseason
management actions for the recreational sector would be published in
the Federal Register for effectiveness and subject to the same process
and timing limitations outlined for the commercial sector in the Cook
Inlet EEZ. Given the limited Cook Inlet EEZ recreational salmon harvest
and slow pace of the fishery, these notice and publication requirements
are expected to be less problematic for managing the recreational
sector.
Recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area could
only be done using hook and line gear with a single line per angler
with a maximum of two hooks. Salmon harvested could not be filleted or
otherwise mutilated in a way that could prevent determining how may
fish had been retained prior to landing. Gills and guts could be
removed from retained fish prior to landing. Any salmon that is not
returned to the water with a minimum of injury would count toward an
angler's bag limit.
There is little or no inseason catch information available for the
recreational salmon sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. However, Federal
managers would review any available developing inseason information,
including escapement data, and may prohibit retention of one or more
salmon species if additional harvest could not be supported. This
proposed rule would not establish a TAC specific to the recreational
sector, but estimated removals in combination with commercial harvests
would still be evaluated against the ABC and ACL to ensure they are not
exceeded, and to implement accountability measures, if required, for
future seasons. This is analogous to the process used to account for
recreational harvests in Federal groundfish and halibut fisheries.
Information provided by the State's existing Saltwater Charter
Logbook, the Statewide Harvest Survey, and creel surveys provide
information to account for recreational harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area, as well as satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act SBRM requirement.
This is consistent with the measures established for recreational
salmon fishing in the East Area.
If the recreational sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area significantly
increases its harvests of salmon, additional management measures may be
required and implemented through subsequent actions.
Consistency of Proposed Action With the National Standards
In developing Amendment 16 and this proposed rule, NMFS considered
whether the proposed action is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act's 10 National Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851) and designed this proposed
action
[[Page 72328]]
to balance their competing demands. While all of the National Standards
were considered in Section 5.1 of the Analysis, five National Standards
figured prominently in the NMFS's recommendation for Amendment 16 and
this proposed rule: National Standard 1, National Standard 2, National
Standard 3, National Standard 7, 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. As described above, this action specifies MSY on the basis of
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. The escapement goal values that inform OY will be
regularly assessed and updated as new information becomes available.
For the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery, as further discussed above,
OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY in that it represents a range of
total fishery removals in the EEZ that target harvesting as much of the
EEZ potential yield in excess of escapement goals as possible for each
stock without causing any stock to miss the lower bound of its
escapement goal or result in overfishing. Because the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area fishery is a mixed-stock fishery and involves harvest of co-
occurring stocks of varying abundance, OY is based on a range of
harvest levels that have provided for a viable fisheries and avoided
overfishing over the long-term. This OY ensures the Cook Inlet salmon
fishery produces the greatest net benefit to the Nation by maintaining
an economically viable commercial fishery while still providing
recreational and subsistence opportunities for people dependent on
these same salmon stocks, accounting for consumption of salmon by a
variety of marine predators, and protecting weaker stocks. NMFS finds
that the proposed OY for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery would be
achieved on a continuing basis under Amendment 16.
National Standard 2
National Standard 2 states that conservation and management
measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.
Among other things, NMFS considered the relevance, inclusiveness,
objectivity, transparency, timeliness, and peer review of available
information when evaluating the available biological, ecological,
environmental, economic, and sociological scientific information to
determine how to most effectively conserve and manage Cook Inlet
salmon. This process included SSC review of proposed fishery management
policies and reference points, evaluation of uncertainty in the
development of salmon escapement goals used to initially inform Federal
reference points (Section 12 of the Analysis), a comprehensive
description of social and economic conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon
fishery (Section 4 of the Analysis), and consideration of alternative
scientific points of view regarding the potential for overcompensation
in Cook Inlet salmon stocks (Section 14 of the Analysis). From this
analysis, NMFS determined that escapement goals established by the
State currently rely on the best scientific information available to
manage Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. It is on the basis of this
information that Federal status determination criteria are initially
established. Each year, NMFS will rely on the best scientific
information available to assess the status of the stocks and calculate
the status determination criteria--the best scientific information
available is not static and may change with developments in data
collection and processing. NMFS will collect data from the fisheries,
routinely evaluate the best scientific information available, and may
modify the escapement goals used in Federal management as scientific
information related to Cook Inlet salmon stocks is improved. In
addition, the SSC will provide objective, ongoing scientific advice to
the Council regarding appropriate harvest specifications for the Cook
Inlet EEZ Area based on information the SSC determines to meet the
guidelines for the best scientific information available.
National Standard 3
Management of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is highly complex,
requiring consideration of other management jurisdictions in order to
achieve sustainable harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks that benefits
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 or in close coordination 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. Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under
Amendment 16 achieves National Standard 3 objectives through
coordination with the State before, during, and after each fishing
season, as described in Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes.
NMFS and the Council will evaluate both where harvest of salmon stocks
may be constrained by the presence of weak stocks and where there may
be opportunities to harvest additional salmon that would not otherwise
be utilized. NMFS will provide data on early EEZ catches to the State
to inform run-strength forecasts for management of all other upper Cook
Inlet salmon fisheries. As stated above, because NMFS has no
jurisdiction over State marine or fresh water salmon fisheries, it is
impossible for NMFS to unilaterally manage Cook Inlet salmon as a unit
throughout their range, and the State of Alaska declined to accept
delegated management authority for the EEZ. Thus, two separate
management jurisdictions are unavoidable in Cook Inlet. Still, under
Amendment 16 NMFS anticipates close coordination with the State and
Cook Inlet salmon stocks would be managed as a unit throughout their
range to the extent practicable.
National Standard 7
National Standard 7 states that conservation and management
measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary
duplication. Though some Federal management measures for the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area may duplicate similar requirements in adjacent State waters,
any such duplication is necessary to implement a new Federal management
regime and incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Area into the Salmon FMP
consistent with the applicable court decisions. Amendment 16 would
include no unnecessary duplication of any State or Federal management
measures. Further, the management measures proposed under Amendment 16
impose only those costs necessary to ensure accurate catch accounting
and reporting. As explained in Cook Inlet EEZ
[[Page 72329]]
Commercial Salmon Fishery Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements, the management infrastructure and resulting costs are
required by NMFS for successful management of the fishery. Therefore
Amendment 16 is consistent with National Standard 7.
National Standard 8
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. This action is expected to result in Cook Inlet EEZ
salmon harvests near existing levels. In some years, EEZ harvests may
fall below the status quo (as a percentage of total Cook Inlet salmon
harvest) to account for increased uncertainty. If EEZ harvests are
reduced, additional salmon would be available for harvest in State
waters by the drift gillnet fishery sector and all other salmon users.
Therefore, any such reductions are not anticipated to result in
community level impacts. Some adjustments to EEZ harvest totals are
unavoidable as NMFS takes over a management of a new fishery, as NMFS
will have less data, experience, and expertise than State managers upon
implementation. However, by coordinating with State managers and
carefully vetting stock assessments through the SSC, NMFS will be able
to continue managing a viable commercial salmon fishery that minimizes
adverse impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable.
Providing for the sustained participation of fishing communities by
protecting the long-term health of the fishery depends on conserving
stocks with low abundance and ensuring no stock becomes overfished,
which could result in further restrictions on harvest in some years.
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. In general, total removals of salmon in Cook
Inlet are expected to remain consistent with the status quo--harvests
will vary from year to year depending on run size and the abundance of
any constraining stocks, but all participating fishing communities will
continue to have the same access to fishery resources (as constrained
by stock status). Community level distributive impacts under this
action are not anticipated to substantially affect net benefits to the
nation (Section 4.10 of the Analysis). Therefore, the Analysis supports
a finding that this action would provide for the sustained
participation of fishing communities in Cook Inlet salmon fisheries and
minimize any adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable,
consistent with National Standard 8.
Potential Impacts of the Action
The entire active salmon drift gillnet fleet likely fishes in the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area 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 4.7.1.4 of the
Analysis describes that from 2009 through 2021 an estimated average of
46.9 percent of gross revenue ($13.9 million) for the drift gillnet
fleet was generated from salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. In
the last 5 years, an estimated average of approximately 41.3 percent of
gross revenue ($7.3 million) was generated in the EEZ for the drift
gillnet fishery. This action would likely allow drift gillnet fishery
participants to continue a significant portion of their EEZ fishing
activities. Some reduction in EEZ harvest may occur to account for the
uncertainty inherent in creating a new management jurisdiction and
establishing pre-season catch limits consistent with Magnuson-Stevens
Act requirements, but drift gillnet vessels may also have the
opportunity to increase harvests within State waters. This action would
also impose some additional costs on fishery participants (such as
installing and operating VMS) and involves additional recordkeeping,
reporting, and permit requirements compared to the status quo (though
at no additional cost beyond the labor needed to comply).
This rule will largely preserve existing EEZ fishing opportunities
in terms of time and location, and may result in additional openers
compared to the status quo in years with strong runs and a high TAC.
Vessels will be able to continue fishing in the same EEZ areas they
have historically fished so long as they comply with new Federal
permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the EEZ. While
the uncertainty associated with a new management jurisdiction will
require conservative management as NMFS builds expertise and collects
data, the goal of this rule is to preserve or facilitate as much
fishing opportunity in the EEZ as possible without causing overfishing
and creating adverse impacts on stocks of low abundance or any other
part of the ecosystem. This action would not directly modify management
of salmon fishing in State waters. The drift gillnet fleet is expected
to continue to operate in State waters under Amendment 16. Though EEZ
harvest levels are expected to remain close to historic averages, the
State, in its discretion, could modify management measures in State
waters to account for any changes to EEZ harvest levels. In all, total
harvests throughout Cook Inlet are expected to remain close to the
status quo. As described in Section 3.1.3 of the Analysis, total
harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks is expected to remain near existing
levels resulting in salmon escapements near existing levels. NMFS finds
these harvest levels have consistently prevented overfishing and
ensured the majority of stocks in Cook Inlet meet their escapement
goals, thus ensuring sustainable salmon stocks for future generations.
This action is not expected to have significant impacts on salmon
stocks or other affected parts of the environment.
This action would also directly regulate salmon processors and
buyers. It would impose additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting burden on processors receiving deliveries from the Cook Inlet
EEZ. To the extent that this action results in slight decreases in
catch by the drift gillnet fleet in the Cook Inlet EEZ 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 could 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
4.5.1.4 of the Analysis. Because minimal reductions in harvest are
anticipated, no significant impacts on processors are expected under
this proposed rule compared to the status quo.
While no significant impacts on Cook Inlet salmon stocks are
expected, any reductions of salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
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. As noted above, NMFS is
undertaking consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA regarding
this proposed action. While increased escapement may not be
[[Page 72330]]
desirable for all stocks in all years, conservative management of
commercial harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will prevent overfishing
and would be expected to allow utilization to be maximized over the
long term as management measures are developed and refined.
Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this action 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). NMFS proposes Amendment 16 and
these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to
the Nation when considering the viable management alternatives.
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 action, as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact
this action, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA
describes the action; the reasons why this action is proposed; the
objectives and legal basis for this action; the number and description
of directly regulated small entities to which this action would apply;
the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements of this
action; and the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this action. The IRFA also describes significant
alternatives to this action 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 action 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 small business size
standards for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary
industries are commercial fishing, charter fishing, seafood processing,
and seafood buying (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. For charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 713990), this
threshold is combined annual receipts not in excess of $9 million. For
shoreside processors (NAICS code 311710), the small business size is
defined in terms of number of employees, with the threshold set at not
greater than 750 employees. For entities that purchase seafood but do
not process it (NAICS code 424460), the small business threshold is not
greater than 100 employees.
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Action
This action would directly regulate holders of State of Alaska S03H
CFEC Limited Entry salmon permits (S03H permits) fishing in the Cook
Inlet EEZ Area, charter guides and charter businesses fishing for
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and entities receiving deliveries of
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 to 2021, there
was an average of 567 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of
361 active permit holders, all of which are considered small entities
based on the $11 million threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an
average of 11 shoreside processors and 6 direct marketers, all of which
are considered small entities based on the 750 employee threshold. From
2019 to 2021, there was an average of 4 catcher-sellers, all of which
are considered small entities based on the 100 employee threshold. From
2019 to 2021, there was an average of 58 charter guides that fished for
salmon at least once in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, all of which are
considered small entities based on the $9 million threshold. Additional
detail is included in Sections 4.5 and 4.9 in the Analysis prepared for
this action (see ADDRESSES).
Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts
on Small Entities
NMFS 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 and managed according to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
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 Salmon 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, section 306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
provides that NMFS cannot delegate management to the State without a
three-quarter majority vote by the Council, which did not occur.
Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be implemented and is not a viable
alternative.
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. However, the District Court ruled that Alternative 4 was
contrary to law. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not a viable alternative.
This action (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 burdens to S03H permit
holders due to requirements including obtaining a SFFP, installing and
operating a VMS, and maintaining a Federal logbook as described in
Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. This action would also
require that TACs be set before each fishing season. The TAC would
likely be set conservatively to reduce the risk of overfishing without
the benefit of inseason harvest data, but is likely to remain near
existing levels. As is possible under the status quo, salmon harvest in
the EEZ could be reduced or prohibited in years when a harvestable
surplus is not certain, with an appropriate buffer to account for
scientific and management uncertainty.
Processors receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required to obtain a SFPP. Entities
receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet
EEZ but not processing the fish would be required to have a RSRP. All
of these permits would be available at no cost from NMFS. However,
entities with these permits
[[Page 72331]]
would be required to use eLandings with its associated requirements and
report landings with all associated information by noon of the day
following the completion of each delivery, which would increase direct
costs and burden.
While these measures do increase costs to commercial fishery
participants, all of these elements are required by NMFS to manage the
fishery and prevent overfishing. Specific consideration was given in
their development to minimize burden to the extent practicable while
also providing required information to Federal fishery managers in a
timely manner. All entities that would be directly regulated by this
action could also choose to continue participating in only the State
waters fisheries to avoid being subject to these Federal requirements.
Charter fishing vessels would not have any additional Federal
recordkeeping, reporting, or monitoring requirements, but would be
subject to Federal bag, possession, and gear regulations. These
proposed measures would be the same as existing State requirements and
not add additional burdens.
Based upon the best available scientific data, it appears that
there are no significant alternatives to the action that have the
potential to comply with applicable court rulings, accomplish the
stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other statutes,
and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on
small entities while preventing overfishing. After public process, NMFS
concluded that of the viable alternatives, Alternative 3, the proposed
Amendment 16, would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated
in the preamble for this action, 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 action and existing Federal rules.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
This action would implement new recordkeeping, reporting, and
compliance requirements. These requirements are necessary for the
management and monitoring of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fisheries.
All Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery participants
would be required to provide additional information to NMFS for
management purposes. As in other North Pacific fisheries, processors
would provide catch recording data to managers to monitor harvest.
Processors would be required to record deliveries and processing
activities to aid in fishery administration.
To participate in the fishery, persons are required to complete
application forms, reporting requirements, and monitoring requirements.
These requirements impose costs on small entities in gathering the
required information and completing the information collections.
NMFS has estimated the costs of complying with the requirements
based on information such as the burden hours per response, number of
responses per year, and wage rate estimates from industry or the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Persons are required to complete many of the
requirements prior to fishing, such as obtaining permits. Persons are
required to complete some requirements every year, such as the SFPP and
RSRP applications. Other requirements are more periodic, such as the
SFFP which is applied for every 3 years. The impacts of these changes
are described in more detail in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2 of the
Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
Vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ area
would be required to obtain a SFFP, complete a Federal fishing logbook,
and install and maintain an operational VMS. The vessel would also be
required to mark buoys at each end of their drift gillnet with their
SFFP number. While commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area, participants must remain within Federal waters and cannot
also fish in State waters on the same calendar day or conduct any other
types of fishing while in Federal waters.
Processors and other entities receiving landings of commercially
caught Cook Inlet salmon from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required
to obtain a SFPP, a RSRP, and report landings through eLandings by noon
of the day following completion of the delivery. NMFS would issue SFPPs
and RSRPs at no cost.
For recreational salmon fishing, no additional Federal
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are established. The existing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements implemented by the State are
expected to be sufficient to inform management and satisfy Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements given the small scale and limited removals of
the recreational sector. These include creel sampling, the ADF&G's
Statewide Harvest Survey, harvest records for annual limits, and the
Saltwater Guide Logbooks.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action contains collection of information requirements subject
to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This action would add a new
collection of information for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery under a
new OMB control number and revise and extend for 3 years existing
collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445
(NMFS Alaska Region VMS Program). The public reporting burden estimates
provided below for these collections of information include the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
OMB Control Number 0648-NEW
A new collection of information would be created for reporting,
recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements implemented by this action
that are necessary to federally manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon
fishery. This new collection would contain the applications and
processes used by harvesters, processors, and other entities receiving
deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon to apply for and manage their
permits; provide catch, landings, and processing data; and mark drift
gillnet buoys. The data would be used to ensure that the fishery
participants adhere to harvesting, processing, and other requirements
for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery.
The public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to
average 15 minutes for the SFFP application, 25 minutes for the SFPP
application, 20 minutes for the RSRP application, 15 minutes to
register for eLandings, 10 minutes for landing reports, 15 minutes for
the daily fishing logbook, and 30 minutes to mark drift gillnet buoys.
OMB Control Number 0648-0445
NMFS proposes to revise and extend by 3 years the existing
requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445. This collection contains
the VMS requirements for the federally managed groundfish and crab
fisheries off Alaska. This collection would be revised because this
action would require vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area to install and
[[Page 72332]]
maintain an operational VMS. The public reporting burden per individual
response is estimated to average 6 hours for installation of a VMS
unit, 4 hours for VMS maintenance, and 2 hours for VMS failure
troubleshooting. VMS transmissions are not assigned a reporting burden
because the transmissions are automatic.
Public Comment
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is
required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign
relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 10, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR parts 600 and 679 as follows:
TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. Amend Sec. 600.725, in the table in paragraph (v), under the
heading ``VII. North Pacific Fishery Management Council'' by revising
entry ``8'' to read as follows:
Sec. 600.725 General prohibitions.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
VII--North Pacific Fishery Management Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8. Alaska Salmon Fishery (FMP):
A. East Area....................... A. Hook and line.
B. Cook Inlet EEZ Area................. B. Drift gillnet, handline, rod
and reel, hook and line.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
3. The authority citation for 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
4. Amend Sec. 679.1 by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) Regulations in this part govern commercial fishing for salmon
by fishing vessels of the United States in the West Area and commercial
and recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the
Salmon Management Area.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 679.2 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Daily bag limit'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Federally permitted vessel'';
0
c. Adding paragraph (7) to the definition of ``Fishing trip'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Possession limit''
and ``Registered Salmon Receiver'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Salmon Management Area''; and
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Salmon shoreside
processor''.
The additions and revision reads as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Daily bag limit means the maximum number of salmon a person may
retain in any calendar day from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
* * * * *
Federally permitted vessel means a vessel that is named on a
Federal fisheries permit issued pursuant to Sec. 679.4(b), a Salmon
Federal Fisheries Permit issued pursuant to Sec. 679.114(b), or a
Federal crab vessel permit issued pursuant to Sec. 680.4(k) of this
chapter. Federally permitted vessels must conform to regulatory
requirements for purposes of fishing restrictions in habitat
conservation areas, habitat conservation zones, habitat protection
areas, and the Modified Gear Trawl Zone; for purposes of anchoring
prohibitions in habitat protection areas; for purposes of requirements
for the BS and GOA nonpelagic trawl fishery pursuant to Sec.
679.7(b)(9), Sec. 679.7(c)(5), and Sec. 679.24(f); and for purposes
of VMS requirements.
* * * * *
Fishing trip means:
* * * * *
(7) For purposes of subpart J of this part, the period beginning
when a vessel operator commences commercial fishing for any salmon
species in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and ending when the vessel operator
offloads or transfers any unprocessed salmon species from that vessel.
* * * * *
Possession limit means the maximum number of unprocessed salmon a
person may possess.
* * * * *
Registered Salmon Receiver means a person holding a Registered
Salmon Receiver Permit issued by NMFS.
* * * * *
[[Page 72333]]
Salmon Management Area means those waters of the EEZ off Alaska
(see Figure 22 and Figure 23 to part 679) under the authority of the
Salmon FMP. The Salmon Management Area is divided into three areas: the
East Area, the West Area, and the Cook Inlet EEZ Area:
(1) The East Area means the area of the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska
east of the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W).
(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), but excludes the Cook
Inlet EEZ Area, Prince William Sound Area, and the Alaska Peninsula
Area. The Prince William Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area are
shown in Figure 23 to this part and described as:
(i) the Prince William Sound Area means the EEZ shoreward of a line
that starts at 60[deg]16.8' N and 146[deg]15.24' W and extends
southeast to 59[deg]42.66' N and 144[deg]36.20' W and a line that
starts at 59[deg]43.28' N and 144[deg]31.50' W and extends northeast to
59[deg]56.4' N and 143[deg]53.6' W.
(ii) the Alaska Peninsula Area means the EEZ shoreward of a line at
54[deg]22.5' N from 164[deg]27.1' W to 163[deg]1.2' W and a line at
162[deg]24.05' W from 54[deg]30.1' N to 54[deg]27.75' N.
(3) The Cook Inlet EEZ Area, shown in Figure 22 to this part, means
the EEZ of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N.
* * * * *
Salmon shoreside processor means any person or vessel that
receives, purchases, or arranges to purchase, and processes unprocessed
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, except a Registered Salmon
Receiver.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 679.3 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.3 Relation to other laws.
* * * * *
(f) Domestic fishing for salmon. Management of the salmon
commercial troll fishery and recreational fishery in the East Area of
the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec. 679.2, is delegated to the
State of Alaska. Regulations governing the commercial drift gillnet
salmon fishery and recreational salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area, defined at Sec. 679.2, are set forth in subpart J of this
Section.
* * * * *
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 679.7 by removing and reserving paragraph (h).
0
8. Amend Sec. 679.25 by
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(vi), (a)(2)(vi) and (vii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text, (b)(3), and (b)(8).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.25 Inseason adjustments.
(a) * * *
(1) Types of adjustments. Inseason adjustments for directed fishing
for groundfish, fishing for IFQ or CDQ halibut, or fishing for Cook
Inlet EEZ Area salmon issued by NMFS under this section include:
* * * * *
(vi) Adjustment of TAC for any salmon species or stock and closure
or opening of a season in all or part of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
(2) * * *
(vi) Any inseason adjustment taken under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of
this section must be based on a determination that such adjustments are
necessary to prevent:
(A) Overfishing of any species or stock of fish or shellfish;
(B) Harvest of a TAC for any salmon species or stock that, on the
basis of the best available scientific information, is found by NMFS to
be incorrectly specified; or
(C) Underharvest of a TAC for any salmon species or stock when
catch information indicates that the TAC has not been reached, and
there is not a conservation or management concern for any species or
stock that would also be harvested with additional fishing effort.
(vii) The selection of the appropriate inseason management
adjustments under paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) of this section must be from
the following authorized management measures and must be based on a
determination by the Regional Administrator that the management
adjustment selected is the least restrictive necessary to achieve the
purpose of the adjustment:
(A) Closure of a management area or portion thereof, or gear type,
or season to all salmon fishing; or
(B) Reopening of a management area or season to achieve the TAC for
any of the salmon species or stock without exceeding the TAC of any
other salmon species or stock.
(viii) The adjustment of a TAC for any salmon species or stock
under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section must be based upon a
determination by the Regional Administrator that the adjustment is
based upon the best scientific information available concerning the
biological stock status of the species in question and that the
currently specified TAC is incorrect. Any adjustment to a TAC must be
reasonably related to the change in biological stock status.
(b) Data. Information relevant to one or more of the following
factors may be considered in making the determinations required under
paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) of this section:
* * * * *
(3) Relative distribution and abundance of stocks of groundfish
species, salmon species or stocks, and prohibited species within all or
part of a statistical area;
* * * * *
(8) Any other factor relevant to the conservation and management of
groundfish species, salmon species or stocks, or any incidentally
caught species that are designated as prohibited species or for which a
PSC limit has been specified.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 679.28 by adding paragraph (f)(6)(x) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.28 Equipment and operational requirements
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(x) You operate a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP
issued under Sec. 679.114 in the waters of Cook Inlet and have drift
gillnet gear on board.
* * * * *
0
10. Add subpart J, consisting of Sec. Sec. 679.110 through 679.119, to
read as follows:
Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management
Sec.
679.110 Applicability.
679.111 [Reserved]
679.112 [Reserved]
679.113 [Reserved]
679.114 Permits.
679.115 Recordkeeping and Reporting.
679.116 [Reserved]
679.117 Salmon Fisheries Prohibitions.
679.118 Management Measures.
679.119 Recreational Salmon Fisheries.
Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management
Sec. 679.110 Applicability.
This subpart contains regulations governing the commercial and
recreational harvest of salmon in the Salmon Management Area (See Sec.
679.2).
[[Page 72334]]
Sec. 679.111 [Reserved]
Sec. 679.112 [Reserved]
Sec. 679.113 [Reserved]
Sec. 679.114 Permits.
(a) Requirements--
(1) What permits are available? The following table describes the
permits available under this subpart that authorize the retention,
processing, and receipt of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area,
respectively, along with date of effectiveness for each permit and
reference paragraphs for further information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit is in effect For more
If permit type is: from issue date information, see . .
through the end of: .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Salmon Federal Fisheries 3 years or until Paragraph (b) of
Permit (SFFP). expiration date this section.
shown on permit.
(ii) Salmon Federal Until expiration Paragraph (c) of
Processor Permit (SFPP). date shown on this section.
permit.
(iii) Registered Salmon 1 year.............. Paragraph (d) of
Receiver Permit (RSRP). this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Permit and logbook required by participant and fishery. For the
various types of permits issued pursuant to this subpart, refer to
Sec. 679.115 for recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(3) Permit application.
(i) A person may obtain an application for a new permit, or for
renewal or revision of an existing permit, from NMFS for any of the
permits under this section and must submit forms to NMFS as instructed
in application instructions. All permit applications may be completed
online and printed from the NMFS Alaska Region website (See Sec.
679.2);
(ii) Upon receipt of an incomplete or improperly completed permit
application, NMFS will notify the applicant of the deficiency in the
permit application. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency,
the permit will not be issued. NMFS will not approve a permit
application that is untimely or incomplete;
(iii) The owner or authorized representative of a vessel, owner or
authorized representative of a processor, and Registered Salmon
Receiver must obtain a separate permit for each vessel, entity,
operation, or facility, as appropriate to each Federal permit in this
section;
(iv) All permits are issued free of charge;
(v) NMFS will consider objective written evidence in determining
whether an application is timely. The responsibility remains with the
sender to provide objective written evidence of when an application to
obtain, amend, or to surrender a permit was received by NMFS (e.g.,
certified mail or other method that provides written evidence that NMFS
Alaska Region received it); and
(vi) For applications delivered by hand delivery or carrier, the
date the application was received by NMFS is the date NMFS staff signs
for it upon receipt. If the application is submitted by fax or mail,
the receiving date of the application is the date stamped received by
NMFS.
(4) Disclosure. NMFS will maintain a list of permit holders that
may be disclosed for public inspection.
(5) Sanctions and denials. Procedures governing permit sanctions
and permit denials for enforcement purposes are found at subpart D of
15 CFR part 904. Such procedures are not required for any other
purposes under this part.
(6) Harvesting privilege. Permits issued pursuant to this subpart,
are neither a right to the resource nor any interest that is subject to
the ``Takings Clause'' provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Rather, such permits represent only a harvesting
privilege that may be revoked or amended subject to the requirements of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
(7) Permit surrender.
(i) NMFS will recognize the voluntary surrender of a permit issued
under this subpart, if a permit is authorized to be surrendered and if
an application is submitted by the permit holder or authorized
representative and approved by NMFS; and
(ii) For surrender of an SFFP and SFPP, refer to paragraphs
(b)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii) of this section, respectively.
(b) Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit (SFFP)--
(1) Requirements.
(i) No vessel of the United States may be used to commercially fish
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area unless the owner or authorized
representative first obtains an SFFP for the vessel issued under this
part. Only persons who are U.S. citizens are authorized to obtain an
SFFP; and
(ii) Each vessel used to commercially fish for salmon within the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area must have a legible copy of a valid SFFP on board
at all times. The vessel operator must present the valid SFFP for
inspection upon the request of any authorized officer.
(2) Vessel operation. An SFFP authorizes a vessel to conduct
operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
(3) Duration.
(i) Length of permit effectiveness. NMFS issues SFFPs on a three-
year cycle, and an SFFP is in effect from the effective date through
the expiration date, as indicated on the SFFP, unless the SFFP is
revoked, suspended, or modified under Sec. 600.735 or Sec. 600.740 of
this chapter, or surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of
this section.
(ii) Surrendered permit.
(A) An SFFP may be voluntarily surrendered in accordance with
paragraph (a)(7) of this section. NMFS will not reissue a surrendered
SFFP to the owner or authorized representative of a vessel named on an
SFFP until after the expiration date of the surrendered SFFP as
initially issued.
(B) An owner or authorized representative who applied for and
received an SFFP must notify NMFS of the intention to surrender the
SFFP by submitting an SFFP application found at the NMFS Alaska Region
website and indicating on the application that surrender of the permit
is requested. Upon receipt and approval of an SFFP surrender
application, NMFS will withdraw the SFFP from active status.
(4) Amended permit. An owner or authorized representative who
applied for and received an SFFP must notify NMFS of any change in the
permit information by submitting an SFFP application found at the NMFS
Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized representative must
submit the application form as instructed on the form. Except as
provided under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, upon receipt
and approval of an application form for permit amendment, NMFS will
issue an amended SFFP.
(5) SFFP application. To obtain, amend, renew, or surrender an
SFFP, the vessel owner or authorized representative must complete an
SFFP
[[Page 72335]]
application form per the instructions from the NMFS Alaska Region
website. The owner or authorized representative of the vessel must sign
and date the application form, certifying that all information is true,
correct, and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the
application form is completed by an authorized representative, proof of
authorization must accompany the application form.
(6) Issuance.
(i) Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, upon
receipt and approval of a properly completed permit application, NMFS
will issue an SFFP required by this section (Sec. 679.114(b)).
(ii) NMFS will send an SFFP with the appropriate logbooks to the
owner or authorized representative, as provided under Sec. 679.115.
(7) Transfer. An SFFP issued under this this section (Sec.
679.114(b)) is not transferable or assignable and is valid only for the
vessel for which it is issued.
(c) Salmon Federal Processor Permit (SFPP)--
(1) Requirements. No salmon shoreside processor, as defined at
Sec. 679.2, may process salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area,
unless the owner or authorized representative first obtains an SFPP
issued under this subpart. A salmon shoreside processor may not be
operated in a category other than as specified on the SFPP. A legible
copy of a valid SFPP must be on site at the salmon shoreside processor
at all times and must be presented for inspection upon the request of
any authorized officer.
(2) SFPP application. To obtain, amend, renew, or surrender an
SFPP, the owner or authorized representative of the salmon shoreside
processor must complete an SFPP application form per the instructions
from the NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized
representative of the salmon shoreside processor must sign and date the
application form, certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the application
form is completed by an authorized representative, proof of
authorization must accompany the application form.
(3) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904,
upon receipt and approval of a properly completed permit application,
NMFS will issue an SFFP required by this section (Sec. 679.114(c)).
(4) Duration--
(i) Length of effectiveness. An SFPP is in effect from the
effective date through the date of permit expiration, unless it is
revoked, suspended, or modified under Sec. 600.735 or Sec. 600.740 of
this chapter, or surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of
this section.
(ii) Surrendered permit.
(A) An SFPP may be voluntarily surrendered in accordance with
paragraph (a)(7) of this section. NMFS may reissue an SFPP to the
person to whom the SFPP was initially issued in the same fishing year
in which it was surrendered.
(B) An owner or authorized representative who applied for and
received an SFPP must notify NMFS of the intention to surrender the
SFPP by submitting an SFPP surrender application form found at the NMFS
Alaska Region website and indicating on the application form that
surrender of the SFPP is requested. Upon receipt and approval of an
SFPP surrender application form, NMFS will withdraw the SFPP from
active status.
(5) Amended permit. An owner or authorized representative who
applied for and received an SFPP must notify NMFS of any change in the
permit information by submitting an SFPP amendment application form
found at the NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized
representative must submit the application form as instructed on the
form. Upon receipt and approval of an SFPP amendment application form,
NMFS will issue an amended SFPP.
(6) Transfer. An SFPP issued under this paragraph (c) is not
transferable or assignable and is valid only for the salmon shoreside
processor for which it is issued.
(d) Registered Salmon Receiver Permit (RSRP)--
(1) Requirements. An RSRP authorizes the person identified on the
permit to receive a landing of salmon from an SFFP holder at any time
during the fishing year for which it is issued until the RSRP expires,
as indicated on the RSRP, or is revoked, suspended, or modified under
Sec. 600.735 or Sec. 600.740 of this chapter, or surrendered in
accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this section. An RSRP is required
for any person, other than an SFPP holder, to receive salmon
commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area from the person(s)
who harvested the fish. A legible copy of the RSRP must be present at
the time and location of a landing. The RSRP holder or their authorized
representative must make the RSRP available for inspection upon the
request of any authorized officer.
(2) Application. To obtain, renew, or surrender an RSRP, the owner
or authorized representative must complete an RSRP application form per
the instructions from the NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or
authorized representative of a Registered Salmon Receiver must sign and
date the application form, certifying that all information is true,
correct, and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the
application form is completed by an authorized representative, proof of
authorization must accompany the application form.
(3) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904,
upon receipt and approval of a properly completed permit application,
NMFS will issue an SFFP required by this section (Sec. 679.114(d)).
(4) Duration. An RSRP is issued on an annual cycle defined as May
through the end of April of the next calendar year, to persons who
submit a Registered Salmon Receiver Permit application that NMFS
approves.
(i) An RSRP is in effect from the first day of May in the year for
which it is issued or from the date of issuance, whichever is later,
through the end of the current annual cycle, unless it is revoked,
suspended, or modified under Sec. 600.735 or Sec. 600.740 of this
chapter, or surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this
section.
(ii) An RSRP may be voluntarily surrendered in accordance with
paragraph (a)(7) of this section. An RSRP may be reissued to the permit
holder of record in the same fishing year in which it was surrendered.
(5) Amended permit. An owner or authorized representative who
applied for and received an RSRP must notify NMFS of any change in the
permit information by submitting an RSRP application form found at the
NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized representative must
submit the application form as instructed on the form. Upon receipt and
approval of an RSRP amendment application form, NMFS will issue an
amended RSRP.
Sec. 679.115 Recordkeeping and Reporting.
(a) General Recordkeeping and Reporting (R&R) requirement--R&R
requirements include, but are not limited to, paper and electronic
documentation, logbooks, forms, reports, and receipts.
(1) Salmon logbooks and forms.
(i) The Regional Administrator will prescribe and provide logbooks
required under this section. All forms required under this section are
available from the NMFS Alaska Region website or may be requested by
calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division at 907-586-7228. These forms
may be completed online, or submitted according to the instructions
shown on the form.
(ii) The operator must use the current edition of the logbooks and
current
[[Page 72336]]
format of the forms, unless they obtain prior written approval from
NMFS to use logbooks from the previous year. Upon approval from NMFS,
electronic versions of the forms may be used.
(iii) Commercial salmon harvest that occurred in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area must be recorded in eLandings by an SFPP or RSRP holder. See
paragraph (b) of this section for more information.
(2) Responsibility. (i) The operator of a vessel, the manager of a
salmon shoreside processor (hereafter referred to as the manager), and
a Registered Salmon Receiver are responsible for complying with
applicable R&R requirements in this section.
(ii) The owner of a vessel, the owner of a salmon shoreside
processor, and the owner of a Registered Salmon Receiver are
responsible for ensuring their employees and agents comply with
applicable R&R requirements in this section.
(3) Fish to be recorded and reported. The operator of a vessel or
manager must record and report the following information (see
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section) for all salmon,
groundfish (see Table 2a to this part), halibut and crab, forage fish
(see Table 2c to this part), and sculpins (see Table 2c to this part).
The operator of a vessel or manager may record and report the following
information (see paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section) for
other species (see Table 2d to this part):
(i) Harvest information from vessels;
(ii) Receipt information from vessels, buying stations, and tender
vessels, including fish received from vessels not required to have an
SFFP or FFP, and fish received under contract for handling or
processing for another processor;
(iii) Discard or disposition information, including fish reported
but not delivered to the operator or manager (e.g., fish used on board
a vessel, retained for personal use, discarded at sea), when receiving
catch from a vessel, buying station, or tender vessel; and
(iv) Transfer information, including fish transferred off the
vessel or out of the facility.
(4) Inspection and retention of records--
(i) Inspection of records. The operator of a vessel, a manager, and
a Registered Salmon Receiver must make available for inspection R&R
documentation they are required to retain under this section upon the
request of an authorized officer; and
(ii) Retention of records. The operator of a vessel, a manager, and
a Registered Salmon Receiver must retain the R&R documentation they are
required to make under this section as follows:
(A) Retain these records on board a vessel, on site at the salmon
shoreside processor or stationary floating processor (see Sec. 679.2),
or at the Registered Salmon Receiver's place of business, as
applicable, until the end of the fishing year during which the records
were made and for as long thereafter as fish or fish products recorded
in the R&R documentation are retained on site.
(B) Retain these records for three years after the end of the
fishing year during which the records were made.
(5) Maintenance of records. The operator of a vessel, a manager,
and a Registered Salmon Receiver must maintain all records described in
this section in English and in a legible, timely, and accurate manner,
based on Alaska local time (A.l.t.); if handwritten, in indelible ink;
if computer-generated, as a readable file or a legible printed paper
copy;
(6) Custom processing. The manager or Registered Salmon Receiver
must record products that result from custom processing for another
person in eLandings consistently throughout a fishing year using one of
the following two methods:
(i) For combined records, record landings, discards or
dispositions, and products of custom-processed salmon routinely in
eLandings using processor name, any applicable RSRP number or SFPP
number, and ADF&G processor code; or
(ii) For separate records, record landings, discards or
dispositions, and products of custom-processed salmon in eLandings
identified by the name, SFPP number or RSRP number, and ADF&G processor
code of the associated business entity.
(7) Representative. The operator of a vessel, manager, and RSRP
holder may identify one contact person to complete the logbook and
forms and to respond to inquiries from NMFS.
(b) Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS) and eLandings--
(1) Responsibility.
(i) An eLandings User must obtain at his or her own expense
hardware, software, and internet connectivity to support internet
submissions of commercial fishery landings for which participants
report to NMFS: landing data, production data, and discard or
disposition data. The User must enter this information via the internet
by logging on to the eLandings system at <a href="http://elandings.alaska.gov">http://elandings.alaska.gov</a> or
other NMFS-approved software or by using the desktop client software.
(ii) If the User is unable to submit commercial fishery landings of
Cook Inlet EEZ salmon due to hardware, software, or internet failure
for a period longer than the required reporting time, the User must
contact NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division at 907-586-7228 for
instructions. When the hardware, software, or internet is restored, the
User must enter this same information into eLandings or other NMFS-
approved software.
(2) eLandings processor registration. (i) Before a User can use the
eLandings system to report landings, production, discard, or
disposition data, he or she must request authorization to use the
system, reserve a unique UserID, and obtain a password by using the
internet to complete the eLandings processor registration at <a href="https://elandings.alaska.gov/elandings/Register">https://elandings.alaska.gov/elandings/Register</a>;
(ii) Upon registration acceptance, the User must print, sign, and
mail or fax the User Agreement Form to NMFS at the address or fax
number shown on the form. Confirmation will be emailed to indicate that
the User is registered, authorized to use eLandings, and that the
UserID and User's account are enabled; and
(iii) The User's signature on the registration form means that the
User agrees to the following terms:
(A) To use eLandings access privileges only for submitting
legitimate fishery landing reports;
(B) To safeguard the UserID and password to prevent their use by
unauthorized persons; and
(C) To ensure that the User is authorized to submit landing reports
for the processor permit number(s) listed.
(3) Information required for eLandings processor registration form.
The User must enter the following information (see paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (ix) of this section) to obtain operation registration and
UserID registration:
(i) Select the operation type from the dropdown list;
(ii) Enter a name that will refer to the specific operation. For
example, if the plant is in Kodiak and the company is East Pacific
Seafoods, the operation name might read ``East Pacific Seafoods--
Kodiak;''
(iii) Enter ADF&G processor code;
(iv) Enter all the Federal permits associated with the operation;
(A) If a processor for Cook Inlet EEZ salmon, enter the SFPP
number; and
(B) If a Registered Salmon Receiver, enter the RSRP number;
(v) Enter the home port code (see Tables 14a, 14b, and 14c to this
part) for the operation;
[[Page 72337]]
(vi) If a tender operation, the operator must enter the ADF&G
vessel identification number of the vessel;
(vii) If a buying station or Registered Salmon Receiver operation
is a vehicle, enter vehicle license number and the state of license
issuance;
(viii) If a buying station, tender vessel, or custom processor,
enter the following information to identify the associated processor
where the processing will take place: operation type, ADF&G processor
code, and applicable SFPP number, and RSRP number; and
(ix) Each operation requires a primary User. Enter the following
information for the primary User for the new operation: create and
enter a UserID, initial password, company name, User name (name of the
person who will use the UserID), city and state where the operation is
located, business telephone number, business fax number, business email
address, security question, and security answer.
(4) Information entered automatically for eLandings landing report.
eLandings autofills the following fields from processor registration
records (see paragraph (b)(2) of this section): UserID, processor
company name, business telephone number, email address, port of
landing, operation type (for catcher/processors, motherships, or
stationary floating processors), ADF&G processor code, and Federal
permit number. The User must review the autofilled cells to ensure that
they are accurate for the landing that is taking place. eLandings
assigns a unique landing report number and an ADF&G electronic fish
ticket number upon completion of data entry.
(5) Registered Salmon Receiver landing report. The manager and a
Registered Salmon Receiver that receives salmon from a vessel issued an
SFFP under Sec. 679.114 and that is required to have an SFPP or RSRP
under Sec. 679.114(c) or (d) must use eLandings or other NMFS-approved
software to submit a daily landing report during the fishing year to
report processor identification information and the following
information under paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) Information entered for each salmon delivery to a salmon
shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver. The User for a
shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or Registered
Salmon Receiver must enter the information specified at (b)(5)(i)(A)
through (C) of this section for each salmon delivery provided by the
operator of a vessel, the operator or manager of an associated buying
station or tender vessel, and from processors for reprocessing or
rehandling product into eLandings or other NMFS-approved software:
(A) Delivery information--The User must:
(1) For crew size, enter the number of licensed crew aboard the
vessel, including the operator;
(2) Enter the management program name in which harvest occurred
(see paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section);
(3) Enter the ADF&G salmon statistical area of harvest;
(4) For date of landing, enter date (mm/dd/yyyy) that the delivery
was completed;
(5) Indicate (YES or NO) whether delivery is from a buying station
or tender vessel;
(6) If the delivery is received from a buying station, indicate the
name of the buying station;
(7) If the delivery is received from a tender vessel, enter the
ADF&G vessel registration number;
(8) If delivery is received from a vessel, indicate the ADF&G
vessel registration number of the vessel; and
(9) Mark whether the vessel logsheet has been received.
(B) Catch information--The User must record the number and landed
scale weight in pounds of salmon, including any applicable weight
modifier such as delivery condition code, and disposition code of fish
by species.
(C) Discard or disposition information--
(i) The User must record discard or disposition of fish: that
occurred on and was reported by a vessel; that occurred on and was
reported by a salmon shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver;
and that occurred prior to, during, and/or after production at the
salmon shoreside processor.
(ii) The User for a salmon shoreside processor or Registered Salmon
Receiver must submit a landing report containing the information
described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for each salmon
delivery from a specific vessel by 1,200 hours, A.l.t., of the day
following completion of the delivery. If the landed scale weight
required in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B) of this section is not available by
this deadline, the User must transmit an estimated weight and count for
each species by 1,200 hours, A.l.t., of the day following completion of
the delivery, and must submit a revised landing report with the landed
scale weight for each species by 1,200 hours, A.l.t., of the third day
following completion of the delivery.
(iii) By using eLandings, the User for a salmon shoreside processor
or a Registered Salmon Receiver and the operator of the vessel
providing information to the User for the salmon shoreside processor or
Registered Salmon Receiver accept the responsibility of and acknowledge
compliance with Sec. 679.117(b)(5).
(c) Logbooks--
(1) Requirements.
(i) All Cook Inlet EEZ Area logbook pages must be sequentially
numbered.
(ii) Except as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) or (iv) of this
section, no person may alter or change any entry or record in a
logbook;
(iii) An inaccurate or incorrect entry or record in printed data
must be corrected by lining out the original and inserting the
correction, provided that the original entry or record remains legible.
All corrections must be made in ink; and
(iv) If after an electronic logsheet is signed, an error is found
in the data, the operator must make any necessary changes to the data,
sign the new logsheet, and export the revised file to NMFS. The
operator must retain both the original and revised logsheet reports.
(2) Logsheet distribution and submittal. The operator of a vessel
must distribute and submit accurate copies of logsheets to the salmon
shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver and to NOAA Fisheries
Office of Law Enforcement Alaska Region according to the logsheet
instructions.
(3) Salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing log. The operator of
a vessel that is required to have an SFFP under Sec. 679.114(b), and
that is using drift gillnet gear to harvest salmon in the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area, must maintain a salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing
log.
(4) Reporting time limits. The operator of a vessel using drift
gillnet gear must record in the daily fishing log the information from
the following table for each set within the specified time limit:
[[Page 72338]]
Reporting Time Limits, Catcher Vessel Drift Gillnet Gear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required information Time limit for recording
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) SFFP number, set number, date and time Within 2 hours after
gear set, date and time gear hauled, completion of gear
beginning and end positions of set, length retrieval.
of net deployed, total number of salmon,
marine mammal interaction code, and
estimated hail weight of groundfish for each
set.
(ii) Discard and disposition information..... Prior to landing.
(iii) Submit an accurate copy of the At the time of catch
groundfish discards reported on the daily delivery.
fishing log to shoreside processor or
Registered Salmon Receiver receiving catch.
(iv) All other required information.......... At the time of catch
delivery.
(v) Operator sign the completed logsheets.... At the time of catch
delivery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 679.116 [Reserved]
Sec. 679.117 Salmon Fisheries Prohibitions.
In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec. 600.725
of this chapter and Sec. 679.7, it is unlawful for any person to do
any of the following:
(a) The East Area and the West Area.
(1) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon using any gear except
troll gear, defined at Sec. 679.2, in the East Area of the Salmon
Management Area, defined at Sec. 679.2 and Figure 23 to this part.
(2) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the West Area of the
Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec. 679.2 and Figure 23 to this
part.
(b) Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
(1) Commercial fishery participants.
(i) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area with a vessel of the United States that does not have on board a
legible copy of a valid SFFP issued to the vessel under Sec. 679.114;
(ii) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon using any gear except
drift gillnet gear, described at Sec. 679.118, in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area of the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec. 679.2 and Figure
22 to this part;
(iii) Have on board, retrieve, or deploy any gear, except a drift
gillnet legally configured for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial
salmon fishery while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area;
(iv) Deploy more than one drift gillnet while commercial fishing
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
(v) Set drift gillnet gear within, or allow any portion of drift
gillnet gear to enter, Alaska State waters on the same calendar day
that drift gillnet gear is also deployed in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
(vi) Deploy drift gillnet gear in excess of the allowable
configuration for total length and mesh size specified at Sec.
679.118(f) while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Area;
(vii) Use a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP to
fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if that vessel fishes for
salmon in Alaska State waters on the same calendar day;
(viii) Possess salmon, harvested in Alaska State waters, on board a
vessel commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
(ix) Have salmon on board a vessel at the time a fishing trip
commences in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
(x) Conduct recreational fishing for salmon, or have recreational
or subsistence salmon on board, while commercial fishing for salmon in
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
(xi) Use or employ aircraft (manned or unmanned) to locate salmon
or to direct commercial fishing while commercial fishing for salmon in
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area one hour before, during, and one hour after a
commercial salmon fishing period;
(xii) Land salmon harvested in Alaska State waters concurrently
with salmon harvested commercially in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
(xiii) Land or transfer salmon harvested while commercial fishing
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, within the EEZ off Alaska;
(xiv) Operate a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP
to commercially fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area without a
functioning VMS as described in Sec. 679.28(f).
(xv) Discard any salmon harvested while commercial fishing for
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
(2) Recreational fishery participants.
(i) Engage in recreational fishing for salmon using any gear except
for handline, rod and reel, or hook and line gear, defined at Sec.
600.10, in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the Salmon Management Area,
defined at Sec. 679.2 and Figure 22 to this part;
(ii) Use more than a single line, with more than two hooks
attached, per angler;
(iii) No person shall possess on board a vessel, including charter
vessels and pleasure craft used for fishing, salmon that have been
filleted, mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in any manner, except that
each salmon may be cut into no more than 2 pieces with a patch of skin
on each piece, naturally attached. One piece from one salmon on board
may be consumed.
(iv) Exceed the daily bag limits and possession limits established
under Sec. 679.119.
(3) Processors and Registered Salmon Receivers.
(i) Receive, purchase or arrange for purchase, discard, or process
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area without having on site a
legible copy of a valid SFPP or valid RSRP issued under Sec. 679.114;
(ii) Process or receive salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
without submitting a timely and complete landing report as required
under Sec. 679.115;
(iii) Process salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the
EEZ off Alaska; and
(iv) Receive or transport salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
without an SFPP or RSRP issued under Sec. 679.114.
(4) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(i) Fail to comply with or fail to ensure compliance with
requirements in Sec. Sec. 679.114 or 679.115.
(ii) Alter or forge any permit or document issued under Sec. Sec.
679.114 or 679.115;
(iii) Fail to submit or submit inaccurate information on any
report, application, or statement required under this part; and
(iv) Intentionally submit false information on any report,
application, or statement required under this part.
(5) Fail to comply with any other requirement or restriction
specified in this part or violate any provision under this part.
Sec. 679.118 Management Measures.
This section applies to vessels engaged in commercial fishing and
recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
(a) Harvest limits--(1) TAC. NMFS, after consultation with the
Council, will specify the annual TAC amounts for commercial fishing for
each salmon
[[Page 72339]]
stock or species after accounting for projected recreational fishing
removals.
(2) Annual TAC determination. The annual determinations of TAC for
each salmon species or stock may be based on a review of the following:
(i) Resource assessment documents prepared regularly for the
Council that provide information on historical catch trends; updated
estimates of the MSY of the salmon stocks or stock complexes;
assessments of the stock condition of each salmon stock or stock
complex; SSC recommendations on reference points established for salmon
stocks; management uncertainty; assessments of the multispecies and
ecosystem impacts of harvesting the salmon stocks at current levels,
given the assessed condition of stocks, including consideration of
rebuilding depressed stocks; and alternative harvesting strategies and
related effects on the salmon species;
(ii) Social and economic considerations that are consistent with
Salmon FMP goals for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, including the need to
promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources, including
minimizing costs; the desire to conserve, protect, and rebuild depleted
salmon stocks; the importance of a salmon fishery to harvesters,
processors, local communities, and other salmon users in Cook Inlet;
and the need to promote utilization of certain species.
(b) Annual specifications--
(1) Proposed specifications.
(i) As soon as practicable after consultation with the Council,
NMFS will publish proposed specifications for the salmon fishery in the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area; and
(ii) NMFS will accept public comment on the proposed specifications
established by this section for a period specified in the notice of
proposed specifications published in the Federal Register.
(2) Final specifications. NMFS will consider comments received on
the proposed specifications and will publish a notice of final
specifications in the Federal Register unless NMFS determines that the
final specifications would not be a logical outgrowth of the notice of
proposed specifications. If the final specifications would not be a
logical outgrowth of the notice of proposed specifications, NMFS will
either:
(i) Publish a revised notice of proposed specifications in the
Federal Register for public comment, and after considering comments
received on the revised proposed specifications, publish a notice of
final specifications in the Federal Register; or
(ii) Publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal
Register without an additional opportunity for public comment based on
a finding that good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
justifies waiver of the requirement for a revised notice of proposed
specifications and opportunity for public comment thereon.
(c) Management Authority--
(1) Fishery closures. (i) For commercial fishing, if NMFS
determines that any salmon TAC for commercial fishing as specified
under paragraph (b) of this section has been or may be reached for any
salmon species or stock, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal
Register prohibiting commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area.
(ii) For recreational fishing, if NMFS determines that any salmon
ABC as specified under paragraph (b) of this section has been or may be
reached, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register
prohibiting retention for that salmon species when recreational fishing
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
(d) Commercial Fishery maximum retainable amounts (MRA)--
(1) Proportion of basis species. The MRA of an incidental catch
species is calculated as a proportion of the basis species retained on
board the vessel using the retainable percentages in Table 10 to this
part for the GOA species categories.
(2) Calculation. (i) To calculate the MRA for a specific incidental
catch species, an individual retainable amount must be calculated with
respect to each basis species that is retained on board that vessel.
(ii) To obtain these individual retainable amounts, multiply the
appropriate retainable percentage for the incidental catch species/
basis species combination, set forth in Table 10 to this part for the
GOA species categories, by the amount of the relevant basis species on
board, in round-weight equivalents.
(iii) The MRA for that specific incidental catch species is the sum
of the individual retainable amounts for each basis species.
(e) Seasons--
(1) Fishing Season. Directed fishing for salmon using drift gillnet
gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area may be conducted from 0700 hours,
A.l.t., from the third Monday in June or June 19, whichever is later,
through 1900 hours, A.l.t., August 15.
(2) Fishing Periods. Notwithstanding other provisions of this part,
fishing for salmon with drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area
is authorized during the fishing season only from 0700 hours, A.l.t.,
until 1900 hours, A.l.t., Mondays and from 0700 hours, A.l.t., until
1900 hours, A.l.t., Thursdays. Fishing for salmon using drift gillnet
gear at times other than during the specified fishing periods is not
authorized.
(f) Legal gear--
(1) Size. Drift gillnet gear must be no longer than 200 fathoms
(1.1 kilometer) in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a mesh size of no
greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm).
(2) Marking. Drift gillnet gear must be marked at both ends with
buoys that legibly display the vessel's SFFP number.
(3) Floating. The float line and floats of gillnets must be
floating on the surface of the water while the net is fishing, unless
natural conditions cause the net to temporarily sink. Staking or
otherwise fixing a drift gillnet to the seafloor is not authorized.
(4) Measurement. For purposes of paragraph (f)(1), nets must be
measured, either wet or dry, by determining the maximum or minimum
distance between the first and last hanging of the net when the net is
fully extended with traction applied at one end only.
Sec. 679.119 Recreational Salmon Fisheries.
(a) Daily bag limits and possession limits--For each person
recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, the
following daily bag and possession limits apply:
(1) Chinook salmon. From April 1 to August 31, the daily bag limit
is one Chinook salmon of any size and the possession limit is one daily
bag limit (one Chinook salmon). From September 1 to March 31, the daily
bag limit is two Chinook salmon of any size and the possession limit is
one daily bag limit (two Chinook salmon).
(2) Coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon. For
coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon, the daily
bag limit is a total of six fish combined, of any size, of which a
maximum of three may be coho salmon. The possession limit for coho
salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon is one daily bag
limit (six fish total).
(3) Combination of bag/possession limits. A person who fishes for
or possesses salmon in or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, may not combine such bag or possession
limits with any bag or possession limit applicable to Alaska State
waters.
(4) Responsibility for bag/possession limits. The operator of a
vessel that
[[Page 72340]]
fishes for or possesses salmon in or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is
responsible for the cumulative bag or possession limit specified in
paragraph (a) of this section that apply to that vessel, based on the
number of persons aboard.
(5) Transfer at sea. A person who fishes for or possesses salmon in
or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under a bag or possession limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section may not transfer a salmon at
sea from a fishing vessel to any other vessel, and no person may
receive at sea such salmon.
(b) Careful release--Any salmon brought aboard a vessel and not
immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be
included in the daily bag limit of the person catching the salmon.
0
11. Add figure 22 to part 679 to read as follows:
Figure 22 to Part 679--Cook Inlet EEZ Area (see Sec. 679.2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC23.012
0
12. Amend table 15 to part 679 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the entry ``Gillnet, drift'' under the
heading ``NMFS AND ADF&G GEAR CODES''; and
0
b. Removing the entry ``Gillnet, drift'' under the heading ``ADF&G GEAR
CODES''.
The addition reads as follows:
[[Page 72341]]
Table 15 to Part 679--Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS and ADF&G Gear Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Gillnet, drift................. ...................... 03 X X
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2023-22747 Filed 10-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 19, 2023.
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.