Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51017 

to 2021 and placed in the Reserve 

category, in accordance with the 

regulations. Thus, this quota transfer 

would allow fishermen to take 

advantage of the availability of fish on 

the fishing grounds and provide a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest the 

available U.S. BFT quota. 

NMFS also considered the estimated 

amounts by which quotas for other gear 

categories of the BFT fishery might be 

exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iv)) and the 

ability to account for all 2021 landings 

and dead discards. In the last several 

years, total U.S. BFT landings have been 

below the available U.S. quota such that 

the United States has carried forward 

the maximum amount of underharvest 

allowed by ICCAT from one year to the 

next. NMFS will need to account for 

2021 landings and dead discards within 

the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with 

ICCAT recommendations, and 

anticipates having sufficient quota to do 

that. 

NMFS also considered the effects of 

the adjustment on the BFT stock and the 

effects of the transfer on accomplishing 

the objectives of the FMP 

(§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). This transfer 

would be consistent with established 

quotas and subquotas, which are 

implemented consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations (established in 

Recommendation 17–06 and maintained 

in Recommendation 20–06), ATCA, and 

the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and amendments. In 

establishing these quotas and subquotas 

and associated management measures, 

ICCAT and NMFS considered the best 

scientific information available, 

objectives for stock management and 

status, and effects on the stock. This 

quota transfer is in line with the 

established management measures and 

stock status determinations. Another 

principal consideration is the objective 

of providing opportunities to harvest the 

available General category quota 

without exceeding the annual quota, 

based on the objectives of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments, including to achieve 

optimum yield on a continuing basis 

and to optimize the ability of all permit 

categories to harvest available BFT 

quota allocations (related to 

§ 635.27(a)(8)(x)). Specific to the 

General category, this includes 

providing opportunities equitably across 

all time-periods. 

Given these considerations, NMFS is 

transferring 113.8 mt of the available 

138 mt of Reserve category quota to the 

General category. Of this amount, 53.8 

mt accounts for preliminary overharvest 

of the January through March and June 

through August time-period subquotas, 

and 60 mt is added to the September 

subquota. Therefore, NMFS adjusts the 

General category September 2021 

subquota to 207.3 mt after accounting 

for the 53.8 mt of overharvest through 

for the prior 2021 time-periods and 

adjusts the Reserve category quota to 

24.2 mt. The General category fishery 

will remain open until September 30, 

2021, or until the adjusted General 

category quota is reached, whichever 

comes first. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

NMFS will continue to monitor the 

BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required 

to submit landing reports within 24 

hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late 

reporting by dealers compromises 

NMFS’ ability to timely implement 

actions such as quota and retention 

limit adjustments, as well as closures, 

and may result in enforcement actions. 

Additionally, and separate from the 

dealer reporting requirement, General 

category and HMS Charter/Headboat 

vessel owners are required to report the 

catch of all BFT retained or discarded 

dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) 

or end of each trip, by accessing 

hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the 

HMS Catch Reporting app or calling 

(888) 872–8862 (Monday through Friday 

from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.). 

Depending on the level of fishing 

effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS 

may determine that additional 

adjustments (e.g., quota adjustment, 

daily retention limit adjustment, or 

closure) are necessary to ensure 

available quota is not exceeded or to 

enhance scientific data collection from, 

and fishing opportunities in, all 

geographic areas. If needed, subsequent 

adjustments will be published in the 

Federal Register. In addition, fishermen 

may call the Atlantic Tunas Information 

Line at (978) 281–9260, or access 

hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on 

quota monitoring and inseason 

adjustments. 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is taken pursuant to 50 

CFR part 635, which was issued 

pursuant to section 304(c), and is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

The Assistant Administrator for 

NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable 

and contrary to the public interest to 

provide prior notice of, and an 

opportunity for public comment on, this 

action for the following reasons: 

The regulations implementing the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments provide for inseason 

retention limit adjustments to respond 

to the unpredictable nature of BFT 

availability on the fishing grounds, the 

migratory nature of this species, and the 

regional variations in the BFT fishery. 

Affording prior notice and opportunity 

for public comment to implement the 

quota transfer for the September 2021 

time-period is contrary to the public 

interest as such a delay would likely 

result in closure of the General category 

fishery when the baseline subquota for 

the September time-period is met and 

the need to re-open the fishery, with 

attendant costs to the fishery, including 

administrative costs and lost fishing 

opportunities. The delay would 

preclude the fishery from harvesting 

BFT that are available on the fishing 

grounds and that might otherwise 

become unavailable during a delay. This 

action does not raise conservation and 

management concerns. Transferring 

quota from the Reserve category to the 

General category does not affect the 

overall U.S. BFT quota, and the 

adjustment would have a minimal risk 

of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. 

NMFS notes that the public had an 

opportunity to comment on the 

underlying rulemakings that established 

the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason 

adjustment criteria. Therefore, the AA 

finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the 

opportunity for public comment. For 

these reasons, there also is good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30- 

day delay in effectiveness. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 

et seq. 

Dated: September 9, 2021. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19777 Filed 9–9–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[RTID 0648–XA696] 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; West 

Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 

21 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of agency decision. 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with RULES1
51018 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The SRKW Workgroup’s risk assessment report 

can be found on the Council’s website: https://

www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/05/e-2-srkwworkgroup-report-1-pacific-fishery-managementcouncil-salmon-fishery-management-plan-impactsto-southern-resident-killer-whales-risk-assessmentelectronic-only.pdf/. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

approval of Amendment 21 to the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 

21 establishes an annual Chinook 

salmon abundance threshold below 

which the Council and NMFS will 

implement specific management 

measures, through the annual ocean 

salmon management measures, to limit 

ocean salmon fishery impacts on the 

availability of Chinook salmon as prey 

for the Southern Resident killer whale 

(SRKW) distinct population segment 

(DPS) of Orcinus orca, which is 

classified as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

DATES: The amendment was approved 

on August 31, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The amended FMP is 

available on the Council’s website 

(www.pcouncil.org). The final National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

environmental assessment (EA) is 

available on the NMFS website at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/westcoast/laws-and-policies/west-coastsalmon-harvest-nepa-documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeromy Jording at 360–763–2268, email 

at jeromy.jording@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ocean 

salmon fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) (3–200 nautical 

miles, 5.6–370.4 kilometers) off 

Washington, Oregon, and California are 

managed under the FMP. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) requires that each regional 

fishery management council submit any 

FMP or plan amendment it prepares to 

NMFS for review and approval, 

disapproval, or partial approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The 

MSA also requires that NMFS, upon 

receiving an FMP or amendment, 

immediately publish a notice that the 

FMP or amendment is available for 

public review and comment. 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for 

Amendment 21 was published in the 

Federal Register on June 2, 2021 (86 FR 

29544), with a 60-day comment period 

that ended on August 2, 2021. In the 

NOA, NMFS also announced that a draft 

EA analyzing the environmental 

impacts of the actions implemented 

under Amendment 21 was available for 

public review and comment. NMFS 

received nearly forty thousand 

comments during the public comment 

period on the NOA. The comments 

included 39,432 comments that 

reiterated 6 scripts verbatim, and 448 

unique comments from individuals and 

organizations. The majority of 

comments received were supportive of 

Amendment 21; however, some 

comments raised issues with the 

amendment. NMFS’ authority for this 

action is limited by the MSA to 

approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval of the amendment submitted 

by the Council. NMFS is not 

disapproving Amendment 21 in 

response to the comments received. 

NMFS summarized and responded to 

these comments in the final EA, and 

under Comments and Responses, below. 

NMFS completed a biological opinion 

under section 7 of the ESA on the 

implementation of the FMP, including 

Amendment 21, and determined this 

action was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the SRKW 

distinct population segment or destroy 

or adversely modify its designated or 

proposed critical habitat (NMFS 

Consultation Number: WCRO–2019– 

04074; biological opinion signed April 

21, 2021). 

NMFS determined that Amendment 

21 is consistent with the MSA and other 

applicable laws, and the Secretary of 

Commerce approved Amendment 21 on 

August 31, 2021. The June 2, 2021, NOA 

contains additional information on this 

action. Amendment 21 will be 

implemented through the annual 

salmon management measures; no 

changes to existing Federal regulations 

are necessary. 

Amendment 21 was developed by the 

Council to address impacts of the 

salmon fisheries managed under the 

FMP on Chinook salmon as prey for 

endangered SRKW. Amendment 21 

establishes an annual Chinook salmon 

abundance threshold below which the 

Council and NMFS will implement 

specific management measures to limit 

ocean salmon fishery impacts on the 

availability of Chinook salmon as prey 

for SRKW. The development of 

Amendment 21 was informed by the 

risk assessment prepared by the 

Council’s ad hoc SRKW Workgroup 

(Workgroup).1 The risk assessment 

affirmed Chinook salmon as the primary 

prey of SRKW based on a review of the 

scientific literature. The risk assessment 

assessed the potential overlap between 

SRKW and ocean salmon fisheries and 

the effects of these fisheries on SRKW. 

Chinook salmon, as well as coho 

salmon, are targeted in ocean salmon 

fisheries managed under the FMP. The 

Council adopted Amendment 21 at its 

November 2020 meeting. Amendment 

21 was transmitted to NMFS by the 

Council on May 25, 2021. A detailed 

description of Amendment 21 is 

included in the NOA (86 FR 29544, June 

2, 2021). 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 39,880 comments 

during the 60-day public comment 

period on the NOA and the draft EA. 

The comments included 39,432 

comments that reiterated 6 scripts 

verbatim (i.e., form responses), and 448 

unique comments from individuals and 

organizations, during the 60-day public 

comment period. The majority of 

comments, 99.8 percent, were in 

support of Amendment 21 (39,432 of the 

form responses and 366 of the 

individual responses). To address the 

volume of comments, NMFS identified 

each unique theme raised in the 

comments that were not simply 

supportive of Amendment 21. NMFS’s 

responses to these themes are presented 

below. 

Theme 1: General support of 

Amendment 21. Of the 448 individual 

responses NMFS counted, 366 

responses were received in support of 

the amendment. The 39,432 form 

responses were also in support of the 

amendment. 

Response: Thank you for your 

comment, your support for the 

amendment is noted and your 

participation in the public process is 

appreciated. 

Theme 2: General opposition of the 

amendment or requested changes to the 

amendment. Eighty two individual 

comments were received that were in 

opposition of the amendment, with 

rationale for their opposition in the 

general themes listed in the comments 

below. 

NMFS’ response: Thank you for your 

comment, your opposition to the 

amendment is noted and your 

participation in the public process is 

appreciated. Responses to points made 

in your comments are addressed below. 

Theme 3: Alter hatchery production. 

Seventeen commenters requested 

Amendment 21 alter hatchery 

production to address prey availability 

for SRKW before altering fishery 

management. 

Response: The Council has no 

jurisdiction to alter hatchery production 

of salmon stocks, and NMFS’s decision 

under Section 304 of the MSA is 

whether to approve, disapprove or 

partially approve Amendment 21. 

Therefore, altering hatchery production 

is outside the scope of this action. 

However, hatchery production levels 

affect the overall abundance of Chinook 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51019 

salmon in the area north of Cape Falcon, 

OR, and could therefore affect the 

frequency at which abundance would 

fall below the low-abundance threshold 

included in Amendment 21 and 

additional management actions would 

be required. Hatchery production was 

included in the range of abundances 

evaluated by the Workgroup’s risk 

assessment that informed framework of 

Amendment 21. We considered varying 

levels of abundances of salmon for 

different thresholds that would trigger 

fishery management restrictions in our 

analysis. These different levels could 

result from either increased hatchery 

releases or from natural production 

increases, or combinations of the two; 

therefore, our analysis takes into 

account salmon abundance changes 

regardless of source. Should hatchery 

production initiatives increase salmon 

abundance in the Council area, because 

the conservation objectives used to 

manage the ocean salmon fishery are 

mostly based on impacts to wild fish, 

additional hatchery fish would likely be 

disproportionately available as prey for 

SRKW. 

Theme 4: Address tribal fisheries. 

Forty-nine individual commenters 

requested addressing tribal fisheries 

equally as non-tribal fisheries in 

Amendment 21’s requirements. 

Response: Under Section 304 of the 

MSA, NMFS approves, disapproves or 

partially approves the FMP amendment 

recommended by the Council. Requiring 

additional measures from tribal fisheries 

is therefore outside the scope of this 

action. The Council, which includes 

representatives of the affected states and 

of the treaty tribes, did not recommend 

an alternative that would have required 

limits on tribal fisheries beyond those 

already required to avoid exceeding 

conservation objectives for salmon 

stocks. NMFS concluded in its 

biological opinion that the fisheries 

implemented with the Council’s 

recommended amendment are not likely 

to jeopardize SRKW. We have further 

concluded that Amendment 21 is 

consistent with the MSA and other 

applicable laws, including the ESA and 

treaty rights. Further, the fact that the 

Council did not recommend imposing 

limits on tribal fishing does not create 

an inconsistency with the MSA or other 

applicable laws. 

Theme 5: Address dams. Eighteen 

individual commenters requested 

addressing dams simultaneously in 

Amendment 21. 

Response: The Council has no 

jurisdiction over the operation of dams 

in the United States, and under Section 

304 of the MSA, NMFS’ action, with 

respect to the Council’s 

recommendation of Amendment 21, is 

approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval. Therefore addressing the 

effects of dams on SRKW is outside the 

scope of this action. We sought, to the 

degree possible, to compare alternatives 

by quantifying their relative effects 

across varying degrees of abundance of 

salmon stocks. Therefore, to the degree 

that freshwater dam operations would 

alter the level of salmon abundance, we 

have captured that impact in the 

analysis. 

Theme 6: Address salmon predation 

by pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea lions). 

Sixteen individual commenters 

requested managing seals or sea lions 

via Amendment 21 instead of taking 

action to limit the impacts of the 

fisheries on SRKW. 

Response: The Council has no 

authority nor responsibility for 

managing pinnipeds in the United 

States, and under Section 304 of the 

MSA, NMFS’ action, with respect to the 

Council’s recommendation of 

Amendment 21, is approval, 

disapproval or partial approval. 

Therefore, it is beyond the scope of this 

action to address the impacts of 

pinniped predation on salmon 

populations. Our analysis determined 

that pinniped populations that may 

interact with ocean salmon fisheries are 

at stable and historically high levels. 

Theme 7: Address salmon 

interception in Canadian, Alaskan, and 

inland fisheries, or interception in other 

sectors of the West Coast salmon 

fisheries. Thirty-three individual 

commenters requested that NMFS 

address the interception of salmon in 

other fisheries or sectors via 

Amendment 21. Additionally, several of 

the letter comments brought up a 

similar theme that the EA was not 

addressing prior fishery interceptions. 

Response: Under Section 304 of the 

MSA, NMFS’ action with respect to the 

Council’s recommendation of 

Amendment 21 is approval, disapproval 

or partial approval. Thus, it is not 

within the scope of this action to 

address fisheries managed under other 

Council FMPs. Also, as the Council does 

not have jurisdiction outside the EEZ off 

the coasts of the states of Washington, 

Oregon, and California, it would not be 

appropriate for the Council to 

recommend management measures to 

NMFS for salmon fisheries in other 

areas for implementation under the 

MSA. Finally, it is not within the scope 

of this action for NMFS to change the 

Council’s recommended approach 

regarding different sectors of the ocean 

salmon fishery. We have accounted for 

the interception of salmon stocks in 

fisheries outside the Council’s 

geographic areas of jurisdiction in 

evaluating the proposed action and 

alternatives. We recognize in the EA 

(page 5) that salmon fisheries in the 

Council area affect salmon abundances 

in other areas, including shoreward of 

the EEZ. With respect to interactions 

that occur before salmon reach the area 

under the jurisdiction of the Council, 

we note that salmon fisheries are 

managed consistent with the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty Agreement. The Council 

takes projected catch in fisheries in 

Canada and Alaska into account when 

designing its annual fishery 

recommendations, and that projected 

catch is factored into the estimation of 

Chinook salmon abundance that would 

be used to implement Amendment 21. 

The conservation objectives that the 

Council uses to manage fishery impacts 

to salmon stocks are in many cases 

overall exploitation rates that include 

catch in most or all of the fisheries that 

catch those stocks including those of 

interest to the commenters. The 

management for inside fisheries, 

including in fresh water and Puget 

Sound, similarly takes into account 

catch in the ocean. In the preseason 

planning process for the salmon 

fisheries, scientists from Federal, state, 

and tribal governments collectively 

analyze available data on salmon stocks 

using peer-reviewed models to forecast 

stock abundance and the impacts of 

various fisheries scenarios on those 

forecast abundances. Post-season 

analyses are used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of salmon fisheries 

management in meeting the adopted 

goals. The models used for these 

analyses are routinely evaluated and 

updated. 

We disagree with comments that there 

is no explanation or guide to explain to 

the reader how information was 

modeled in the EA to address the effects 

of these other fisheries. We offer this 

clarifying response by pointing out the 

multiple elements of the EA. We point 

to Section 4.1.2, Fish & Fisheries, where 

we explain how we included the suite 

of all fisheries restrictions that occur 

along the West Coast that might affect 

the SRKW in order to isolate the effects 

of implementing the proposed action 

from the effects of other fisheries that 

affect salmon abundance in the EEZ. We 

explain in the EA (page 59) that the 

catch that occurred in the past, notably 

in the 1990s, occurred under fishery 

management regimes that were not as 

restrictive as of those today, now that 

additional ESA restrictions for salmon 

stocks are in place. We describe the 

newly negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Agreement, which places further 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with RULES1
51020 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

restrictions on fisheries from those that 

occurred in the past. Under Section 304 

of the MSA, NMFS’ action with respect 

to the Council’s recommendation is 

approval, disapproval or partial 

approval, but we still account in our 

analysis for the removal of all fish in 

areas regulated in other management 

forums that would otherwise reach the 

EEZ. In fact, the Council’s Workgroup 

report and methodology, which we 

explain in the EA at Appendix A 

(Description of modeling methods and 

results), very specifically stated that 

‘‘[f]or fisheries from Southeast Alaska 

(SEAK) to Cape Falcon, Oregon, we 

modified the postseason fishery data in 

an effort to ensure compliance with 

some of the key contemporary 

conservation requirements that 

currently drive fishery planning.’’ More 

simply put, this means we set harvest 

levels in Alaska, Canada, and Puget 

Sound fisheries at levels consistent with 

the regulatory framework in place in 

2020, and ran coast-wide abundance 

estimates from years prior to 2020 

through these contemporary fisheries. 

This gave us an estimate of the 

remaining abundance in the area under 

the jurisdiction of the Council, to which 

Amendment 21 would be applied. 

Theme 8: Evaluate a higher threshold 

or add in additional alternatives in the 

EA. Multiple letters commented that 

evaluating either higher thresholds, or a 

no fishing alternative, would have been 

more informative. 

Response: Thank you for your 

comments. We have updated the EA 

incorporating a ‘‘no fishing scenario’’ 

alternative incorporating the analysis 

the Workgroup had already performed 

in order to examine the impacts to the 

environment of a no fishing scenario. 

Therefore, by incorporating an 

alternative that completely closes 

Council-area salmon fisheries, including 

a threshold higher than those in the 

range of alternatives analyzed in the EA 

is unnecessary. Alternative 4 captures 

the maximum amount of prey that could 

be available to SRKW in the absence of 

fisheries. Comments requesting 

evaluating higher thresholds were 

focused on assuming that a particular 

threshold level of Chinook salmon 

abundance would promote sustained 

growth of SRKW. The results of 

evaluating Alternative 4, based on the 

available data, indicate a complete 

closure of ocean salmon fisheries within 

the EEZ would not significantly benefit 

SRKW. 

The preferred alternative was 

developed through the Council process, 

and the action before NMFS is to 

approve, disapprove, or partially 

approve Amendment 21. NMFS does 

not have the authority to substitute one 

threshold for another, and has now 

evaluated multiple levels of abundance 

that would act as threshold for SRKW as 

prey to determine if there is a specific 

level that provides a significant benefit 

to the whales. Our analysis, consistent 

with that of the Workgroup, could find 

no significant quantifiable benefit, even 

when Council-area salmon fisheries 

were completely closed. The preferred 

alternative, analyzed under the ESA, 

and concluded the action was not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

SRKW or adversely modify their critical 

habitat, provides more benefit to SRKW 

than continuation of the No Action 

alternative, and therefore, NMFS 

approved the Amendment. 

Theme 9: Require additional 

management measures as part of the 

responses required [e.g., multiple letters 

commented vessel-monitoring systems 

(VMS) should have been required]. 

Response: Under Section 304 of the 

MSA, NMFS’ action, with respect to the 

Council’s recommendation, is approval, 

disapproval or partial approval of 

Amendment 21. Additional 

management measures are therefore 

outside the scope of this action. The 

commenters have not identified any 

inconsistency of Amendment 21 to the 

MSA and other applicable law resulting 

from the lack of a VMS requirement or 

other specific measures suggested. 

Theme 10: Amendment 21 will not 

recover SRKW. 

Response: Under Section 304 of the 

MSA, NMFS’ action is to approve, 

disapprove, or partially approve 

Amendment 21. Recovery of SRKW, 

such that listing under the ESA is no 

longer required, will take actions, in 

addition to those proposed under 

Amendment 21, that are outside the 

scope of this action. NMFS’ final 

recovery plan for SRKW (which we 

provide a link for in the EA at page 74) 

reviews and assesses the potential 

factors affecting their survival and 

recovery, and lays out a recovery 

program to address each of the threats 

(reduced prey availability and quality, 

high levels of contaminants from 

pollution, and disturbances from vessels 

and sound). The recovery plan also 

emphasizes that these threats act 

synergistically, and that addressing one 

factor on its own will not recover the 

species. ESA recovery plans provide 

important context for NMFS’ 

determinations pursuant to section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA including assessment 

of the management framework under 

Amendment 21. NMFS issued a 

biological opinion analyzing the effects 

of salmon fisheries managed under the 

FMP, including Amendment 21, and 

concluded such action was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

SRKW or adversely modify their critical 

habitat. The goal of Amendment 21 is to 

help ensure that Council’s harvest 

management is responsive to the status 

of SRKWs and supports recovery. The 

Council’s ocean salmon fisheries are 

required to be consistent with the 

conservation and management 

objectives of the FMP, the MSA, and the 

ESA. 

NMFS is committed to working with 

the Council, states, tribes and our other 

partners to take actions to improve 

conditions for the whales, and we 

recognize the fisheries are only one 

activity that has contributed to the 

current SRKW condition, and only one 

source of potential risk. Federal funding 

associated with the 2019 Pacific Salmon 

Treaty Agreement is currently being 

used to produce additional hatchery fish 

to increase prey availability for SRKW, 

and to improve the status of Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon populations 

through habitat restoration and 

conservation hatchery production, 

which is expected to further increase 

prey availability. As noted above, the 

2019 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement 

itself includes reductions to fisheries. In 

addition we are working closely with 

state and local partners to improve 

water quality in SRKW habitat, and 

reduce vessel disturbance and 

interference with foraging so that the 

existing Chinook salmon are more 

accessible to the whales. Working with 

a variety of partners, we are 

implementing actions identified in our 

review of the existing vessel regulations 

to improve compliance with regulations 

and guidelines to improve habitat 

conditions for the whales. NMFS 

recently designated critical habitat for 

SRKW along coastal waters of 

Washington, Oregon, and California (86 

FR 41668, August 2, 2021), and 

additionally we are implementing 

actions recommended through the 

Governor of Washington’s SRKW Task 

Force process. For more information 

about SRKW conservation and recovery 

actions underway, please refer to NMFS’ 

West Coast Region website: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/ 

endangered-species-conservation/ 

southern-resident-killer-whale-orcinusorca. 

Theme 11: NMFS failed to directly 

respond to public comments during this 

process. Several letters commented that 

written comments submitted by 

organizations throughout the process 

did not receive written responses. 

Response: NMFS is responding to 

public comments on proposed 

Amendment 21 and the draft EA, 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51021 

consistent with legal requirements. 

Until this point, the process that has 

occurred has been through the Council 

and is governed by the MSA. Both the 

Workgroup and Council meetings were 

open to the public and public 

participation was encouraged. Each 

Workgroup meeting and Council 

meeting were noticed in the Federal 

Register at least 23 calendar days prior 

so the public was informed and able to 

attend. The Council heard input from 

members of the public at all stages of 

the Council’s development and 

consideration of Amendment 21, and 

the Council considered the publics’ 

input in making its decision to 

recommend Amendment 21 to NMFS. 

Theme 12: NMFS failed to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

instead of an EA. Several letters 

commented that NMFS should instead 

have performed an EIS. 

Response: NMFS determined that 

preparing an EA here was the 

appropriate level of analysis. NMFS did 

not receive any comments that indicate 

the methodology utilized for assessing 

the effects of the fisheries from the 

alternatives considered in the EA is 

inadequate, was not based on the best 

available scientific information, or 

otherwise flawed. The comments also 

did not reveal new information that had 

not been considered by the Workgroup, 

the Council, or NMFS in their analysis 

or decision making or identify any 

significant effects of the proposed 

action. NMFS used this methodology to 

evaluate the effects of the alternatives, 

including proposed Amendment 21, on 

the environment including SRKW, and 

concluded there are no significant 

impacts to the environment from the 

preferred alternative. 

Theme 13: NMFS should alter critical 

habitat or designate Marine Protected 

Areas through the proposed action (e.g., 

designate critical habitat in Hood Canal 

and should ‘‘enforce ’’ critical habitat). 

Response: Under Section 304 of the 

MSA, NMFS’ decision is to approve, 

disapprove, or partially approve 

Amendment 21. Therefore, alterations to 

critical habitat or Marine Protected 

Areas are outside the scope of the 

action. 

Theme 14: Address or construct 

management measures that include 

climate change considerations (e.g., 

multiple letters commented on 

recommending risk-averse Chinook 

salmon management procedures in the 

context of rising environmental stresses 

on Chinook salmon populations due to 

effects from climate change). 

Response: Basing the proposed 

action’s triggered response on an 

aggregate abundance threshold of 

Chinook salmon is inherently 

responsive to climate change, as this 

approach anticipatorily incorporates 

any effect that climate change may have 

on Chinook salmon abundances. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 8, 2021. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19783 Filed 9–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with RULES1