Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29977 

more saline and less suitable as habitat 

for Tiehm’s buckwheat. Mineral 

exploration vehicles also can carry the 

seeds of nonnative invasive plant 

species into the area. Road 

improvements also allow easier and 

greater access for recreational vehicles 

and off-highway vehicles (OHVs), with 

OHV impacts documented in 

subpopulation 1. Both livestock grazing 

and OHV use can kill or damage 

individual plants and modify Tiehm’s 

buckwheat habitat through 

fragmentation and soil compaction. 

In addition, Tiehm’s buckwheat is 

adapted to dry upland sites, subject only 

to occasional saturation by rain and 

snow. Under climate change 

predictions, we anticipate alteration of 

precipitation and temperature patterns, 

as models forecast warmer temperatures 

and slight increases in precipitation. 

The timing and type of precipitation 

received (snow vs. rain) may impact 

plant transpiration and the soil water 

recharge needed by Tiehm’s buckwheat. 

Additionally, variability in interannual 

precipitation combined with increasing 

temperatures, as recently seen from 

2015 through 2020, may make 

conditions less suitable for Tiehm’s 

buckwheat by bolstering local rodent 

populations. High rodent abundance 

combined with high temperatures and 

drought may have contributed to the 

large herbivore impacts in 2020 in both 

the transplant experiment and native 

population. Thus, climate change may 

exacerbate impacts from other threats 

currently affecting this species and its 

habitat. 

Tiehm’s buckwheat does not currently 

receive regulatory protection from the 

State of Nevada. BLM has designated 

Tiehm’s buckwheat as a sensitive 

species. However, BLM’s regulations 

require operators to avoid adverse 

effects only to species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Act 

and their habitat (43 CFR 

3809.420(b)(7)), not sensitive species. 

Also, under BLM’s regulations operators 

may explore, place mining claim 

monuments, and cause a surface 

disturbance of up to 5 acres after an 

operator gives notice to BLM and waits 

15 days (43 CFR 3809.21(a)). BLM lacks 

discretion to require conservation 

measures for sensitive species as a 

condition for exploring for or 

developing minerals subject to disposal 

under the Mining Law of 1872, as 

amended (30 U.S.C. 22–54). In some 

circumstances, operators may include 

voluntary commitments to undertake 

protection or conservation measures as 

part of their proposed mining 

operations, as Ioneer has done in its 

proposed mine plan. 

Finding 

Based upon the preceding 

information, the totality of threats 

described above, and other information 

contained in the Tiehm’s buckwheat 

Species Status Assessment (SSA), the 

Service has determined that the 

petitioned action to list Tiehm’s 

buckwheat under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, is 

warranted. The Service, therefore, will 

promptly publish a proposed rule to list 

Tiehm’s buckwheat. We will open a 

public comment period at the time of 

publication of the proposed rule. Any 

information received from the public 

prior to the publication of the proposed 

rule will be considered and addressed 

when we address comments received on 

the proposed rule. 

Author 

This document was prepared by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial 

Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89521 and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, 

Sacramento, CA 95825. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11700 Filed 6–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No.: 210528–0119] 

RIN 0648–BK31 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; 

Amendment 14 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 14 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska 

(Salmon FMP). If approved, 

Amendment 14 would incorporate the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon 

FMP’s West Area, thereby bringing the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the 

commercial salmon fisheries that occur 

within it under Federal management by 

the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) and NMFS. The 

management measure implemented by 

Amendment 14 would be to apply the 

prohibition on commercial salmon 

fishing that is currently established in 

the West Area to the newly added Cook 

Inlet EEZ Subarea. This proposed rule is 

necessary to comply with a U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling 

and to ensure the Salmon FMP is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This 

proposed rule is intended to promote 

the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon 

FMP, and other applicable laws. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 6, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2021–0018, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2021–0018 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS. Mail 

comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 

AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

Electronic copies of the 

Environmental Assessment, the 

Regulatory Impact Review, and the 

Social Impact Analysis (collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Analysis’’), and the 

draft Finding of No Significant Impact 

prepared for this proposed rule may be 

29978 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

obtained from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doug Duncan, 907–586–7228 or 

doug.duncan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for Action 

NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries 

off of Alaska under the Salmon FMP. 

The Council prepared, and the Secretary 

of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the 

Salmon FMP under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. Regulations implementing the 

Salmon FMP are located at 50 CFR part 

679. General regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

The Council is authorized to prepare 

and recommend an FMP amendment for 

the conservation and management of a 

fishery managed under the FMP. NMFS 

conducts rulemaking to implement FMP 

amendments and regulatory 

amendments. 

The Council recommended 

Amendment 14 to incorporate the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Subarea (defined as EEZ 

waters north of a line at 59°46.15′ N) 

into the Salmon FMP’s Fishery 

Management Unit as a part of the West 

Area. The West Area is currently 

defined as the EEZ off Alaska in the 

Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, 

and the Gulf of Alaska west of the 

longitude of Cape Suckling, at 143°53.6′ 

W longitude except for the Cook Inlet 

Area, the Prince William Sound Area, 

and the Alaska Peninsula Area. This 

proposed rule would implement 

Amendment 14. 

A notice of availability (NOA) for 

Amendment 14 was published in the 

Federal Register on May 18, 2021 with 

comments invited through July 19, 

2021. All relevant written comments 

received by July 19, 2021, whether 

specifically directed to the NOA or this 

proposed rule, will be considered by 

NMFS in the decision to approve, 

disapprove, or partially approve 

Amendment 14. Commenters do not 

need to submit the same comments on 

both the NOA and this proposed rule. 

Comments submitted on this proposed 

rule by the end of the comment period 

for this proposed rule (See DATES) will 

be considered by NMFS in our decision 

whether to approve and implement 

Amendment 14. 

Background 

In December 2020, the Council 

recommended Amendment 14 to the 

Salmon FMP. Amendment 14 would 

incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 

into the Salmon FMP’s West Area, 

thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Subarea and the commercial salmon 

fisheries that occur within it under 

Federal management by the Council and 

NMFS. The management measure 

implemented by Amendment 14 would 

apply the prohibition on commercial 

salmon fishing that is currently 

established in the West Area to the 

newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. 

This proposed rule would implement 

Amendment 14 by removing the 

regulation that excludes the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea from the directly adjacent 

West Area. This action specifically 

addresses management of the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea and the commercial 

salmon fishery that occurs there. 

History of the Salmon FMP 

The Council’s Salmon FMP manages 

the Pacific salmon fisheries in the EEZ 

from 3 nautical miles to 200 nautical 

miles off Alaska. The Council developed 

the Salmon FMP under the MagnusonStevens Act, and it first became effective 

in 1979. The Salmon FMP was 

comprehensively revised by 

Amendment 3 in 1990 (55 FR 47773, 

November 15, 1990), and again most 

recently by Amendment 12 in 2012 (77 

FR 75570, December 21, 2012). 

Since 1979, the Council has divided 

the Salmon FMP’s coverage into the 

West Area and the East Area, with the 

boundary between the two areas at Cape 

Suckling, at 143°53.6′ W longitude. This 

action focuses on commercial salmon 

fishing management in the West Area. 

Prior to Amendment 12, the Salmon 

FMP authorized commercial fishing in 

the East Area, sport salmon fishing in 

both areas, and prohibited commercial 

salmon fishing in the West Area. 

However, the commercial salmon 

fishing prohibition in the West Area was 

not applied to three areas in the EEZ 

where commercial salmon fishing with 

nets was originally authorized by the 

International Convention for the High 

Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific 

Ocean, as implemented by the North 

Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act). 

The Salmon FMP refers to these three 

areas of the EEZ where commercial net 

fishing for salmon occurs as the ‘‘Cook 

Inlet EEZ,’’ the ‘‘Alaska Peninsula EEZ,’’ 

and the ‘‘Prince William Sound EEZ,’’ 

and refers to these areas collectively as 

the ‘‘traditional net fishing areas.’’ 

Under the authority of the 1954 Act, 

NMFS issued regulations that set the 

outside fishing boundaries for the 

traditional net fishing areas as those set 

forth under State of Alaska (State) 

regulations and stated that any fishing 

in these areas was to be conducted 

pursuant to State regulations. 

In 1990, the Council amended the 

Salmon FMP, continuing to prohibit 

commercial salmon fishing with nets in 

the EEZ, with the exception of the 

traditional net fishing areas managed by 

the State. The next major modification 

to the Salmon FMP occurred when the 

Council recommended Amendment 12 

in December 2011. In developing 

Amendment 12, the Council recognized 

that the law governing the three 

traditional net fishing areas (the 1954 

Act) had changed and the Salmon FMP 

was vague with respect to Federal 

management of the traditional net 

fishing areas. After considering various 

alternatives, the Council recommended 

and NMFS approved Amendment 12, 

which removed the three traditional net 

fishing areas from the Salmon FMP’s 

Fishery Management Unit. 

Removing the traditional net fishing 

areas from the Salmon FMP’s West Area 

allowed the State to continue managing 

these areas independently, which the 

State has done since before the 

inception of the Salmon FMP in 1979. 

Any commercial fishing for salmon by 

State registered vessels in the traditional 

net fishing areas is managed solely by 

the State. In developing Amendment 12, 

the Council considered Federal 

management of the three traditional net 

fishing areas and the salmon fisheries 

that occur within them, but determined 

that (1) the State was managing the 

salmon fisheries within these three 

areas consistent with the policies and 

standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

(2) the Council and NMFS did not have 

the expertise or infrastructure (such as 

personnel, monitoring and reporting 

systems, and processes for salmon stock 

assessments) to manage Alaska salmon 

fisheries, and (3) Federal management of 

these areas would not serve a useful 

purpose or provide additional benefits 

and protections to the salmon fisheries 

within these areas. The Council 

recognized that salmon are best 

managed as a unit throughout their 

range and separate Federal management 

of a portion of the fishery would not be 

optimal. The Council also recognized 

the State’s long-standing expertise and 

well developed infrastructure for 

salmon management and the fact that 

the State has been adequately managing 

the salmon fisheries in Alaska since 

Statehood. The Council determined that 

Amendment 12 was consistent with the 

management approach established in 

the original Salmon FMP in 1979. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 12 was published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2012 

(77 FR 75570). On January 18, 2013, 

Cook Inlet commercial salmon 

fishermen and seafood processors filed 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29979 

a lawsuit in Federal district court 

challenging Amendment 12 and its 

implementing regulations. United Cook 

Inlet Drift Ass’n v. NMFS, No. 3:13–cv– 

00104–TMB, 2014 WL 10988279 (D. 

Alaska 2014). The lawsuit included a 

challenge to Amendment 12’s removal 

of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon 

FMP. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held 

that section 302(h)(1) of the MagnusonStevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1)) 

clearly and unambiguously requires a 

Council to prepare and submit FMPs for 

each fishery under its authority that 

requires conservation and management. 

United Cook Inlet Drift Ass’n v. NMFS, 

837 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Because NMFS agreed that the Cook 

Inlet EEZ salmon fishery needs 

conservation and management by some 

entity, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that it 

be included in the Salmon FMP. 

Developing Management Alternatives 

The Council spent significant time 

from 2017 to 2020 developing and 

evaluating management alternatives to 

comply with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 

The Council broadly identified two 

management approaches for amending 

the FMP, one that would incorporate the 

area into the Salmon FMP and delegate 

authority over specific management 

measures to the State with review and 

oversight by the Council (Alternative 2; 

Section 2.4 of the Analysis), and one 

that would incorporate the area into the 

Salmon FMP and retain all management 

within the Federal process (Alternative 

3; Section 2.5 of the Analysis). The 

Analysis identified the management 

measures and processes that would be 

required to implement these two 

approaches, as well as the complexities, 

uncertainties, benefits, costs, and 

burdens to fishery participants 

associated with these two approaches. 

In October 2020, the Council considered 

all of this information and chose to 

identify an approach that would 

incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into the 

Salmon FMP and close the area to 

commercial salmon fishing as a separate 

and distinct management alternative 

(Alternative 4; Section 2.6 of the 

Analysis). This approach was 

previously identified as a potential 

management outcome under Alternative 

3. Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 

4 would retain all management within 

the Federal process and would not 

delegate management authority to the 

State. It is also noted that the Council 

considered taking no action (Alternative 

1; Section 2.3 of the Analysis), but this 

is not a viable approach because it 

would be inconsistent with the Ninth 

Circuit ruling and the MagnusonStevens Act. 

To obtain important participant 

insight into the management of Cook 

Inlet salmon fisheries, the Council 

formed the Cook Inlet Salmon 

Committee (Committee), consisting of 

Cook Inlet salmon fishery stakeholders 

from the harvesting and processing 

sectors. The Committee met six times 

from 2018 to 2020 to develop 

recommendations for the Council 

regarding management of the Cook Inlet 

EEZ. Ultimately, the Committee 

recommended that management be 

delegated to the State, but with 

expanded Federal oversight and review, 

as well as a management scope that 

included both the State marine and 

fresh waters of Cook Inlet. The Council 

did not include the Committee’s 

recommended alternative for further 

consideration because the Council does 

not have any jurisdiction over State 

fresh waters and can only assert 

jurisdiction over fisheries occurring 

within State marine waters under very 

limited circumstances if the Secretary 

preempts state management under 

section 306(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)). The conditions 

required for preemption are not met for 

the salmon fisheries in the State marine 

waters of Cook Inlet. A more complete 

discussion of the Committee’s work and 

consideration by the Council can be 

found in Sections 1.4 and 2.7 of the 

Analysis, respectively. 

Over the course of several years, 

Federal and State fisheries scientists 

and fishery managers developed 

proposed status determination criteria 

complete with all the reference points 

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

for appropriate conservation and 

management of Cook Inlet salmon 

stocks. These criteria were reviewed by 

the Council and its Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC). This was a 

significant undertaking and integral to 

the development and analysis of 

alternatives. This process included 

input from State scientists currently 

managing the fishery, as well as 

comments from Committee members 

and other stakeholders. The proposed 

status determination criteria and 

reference points served as the 

foundation for proposed Federal 

management of the Cook Inlet EEZ 

under Alternatives 2 and 3 but were also 

applied retrospectively to provide a 

comprehensive assessment of the State’s 

escapement-based management of Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks. The Analysis found 

that State management of Cook Inlet 

salmon stocks has been consistently 

appropriate for conservation within the 

bounds of the status determination 

criteria that would be implemented 

under Federal management. The 

analysis further determined that the 

addition of Federal management is 

unlikely to appreciably change salmon 

conservation metrics and thresholds 

established in Cook Inlet (Section 3.1 of 

the Analysis). However, while 

conservation objectives for Cook Inlet 

salmon stocks were consistent across 

alternatives, the Analysis demonstrated 

that the ability to fully achieve these 

objectives while accounting for 

management uncertainty and 

management flexibility varied among 

alternatives (Sections 3.1 and 4.7.1 of 

the Analysis). 

Recognizing the significant regional, 

cultural, and economic importance of 

Cook Inlet salmon resources, the 

Council invested significant resources 

towards working to find solutions to 

challenges identified by stakeholders 

and fishery managers throughout the 

Salmon FMP amendment development 

process. While the Council identified 

some flexibility with the specific 

management measures that could be 

implemented under Federal 

management with specific management 

measures delegated to the State 

(Alternative 2) and Federal management 

(Alternatives 3 and 4), neither the 

Council, NMFS, the State, nor 

stakeholders were able to identify 

another fundamentally different 

management approach that could satisfy 

the Ninth Circuit ruling, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law. 

After this extensive review and 

development process, and as explained 

in further detail below, the Council took 

final action to recommend Alternative 4 

as Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. 

The Council determined, and NMFS 

agrees, that Federal management of the 

Cook Inlet EEZ through closure of the 

area to commercial salmon fishing (1) 

takes the most precautionary approach 

to minimizing the potential for 

overfishing, (2) avoids creating new 

management uncertainty, (3) minimizes 

regulatory burden to fishery 

participants, (4) maximizes management 

efficiency for Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries, and (5) avoids the 

introduction of an additional 

management jurisdiction and the 

associated uncertainty it would add to 

the already complex and interdependent 

network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. 

The Council considered but did not 

select Alternative 2, which would have 

delegated management authority over 

the Cook Inlet EEZ to the State. During 

Council deliberation, the State 

announced that it would not accept a 

delegation of management authority for 

Cook Inlet. Although section 

29980 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act allows a Council to delegate 

management authority to a state, subject 

to a three-quarters majority vote, neither 

the Council nor NMFS can compel a 

state to cooperate in a fishery 

management plan that delegates 

authority (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)(3)(B)). 

Therefore, after the State announced it 

would not accept delegated 

management authority for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ, Alternative 2 was no longer a 

viable option. 

Because Alternative 1 (no action) and 

Alternative 2 (Federal management with 

specific management measures 

delegated to the State) were not viable, 

this focused Council consideration on 

Alternative 3 (Federal management) and 

Alternative 4 (Federal management with 

the Cook Inlet EEZ closed to commercial 

salmon fishing). The Council considered 

and rejected Alternative 3. The Council 

determined, and NMFS agrees, that a 

separately managed Federal commercial 

salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

would have significant management 

challenges alongside adjacent Statemanaged salmon fisheries, resulting in 

precautionary reductions in EEZ salmon 

harvests or closures of the area as 

detailed in Sections 2.5 and 4.7.1.3 of 

the Analysis. When a commercial 

salmon fishery could occur in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ, Alternative 3 would create 

new management uncertainty relative to 

the status quo because Federal harvest 

limits must be established preseason 

and Federal fishery managers do not 

have the same tools and flexibility 

available to State managers to quickly 

respond to updated in-season 

information about salmon runs that 

deviate from preseason estimates 

(Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.10 of the 

Analysis). Alternative 3 would increase 

the risk of overfishing or forgone yield. 

For example, if a salmon run is larger 

than expected and a Federal catch limit 

for a stock is reached, it is unlikely 

Federal managers would be able to 

adjust Federal catch limits to provide 

for additional harvest in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ within the window of harvest 

opportunity. These salmon would later 

be available for harvest in State waters, 

but because it would be difficult to 

predict the timing of Federal closures 

and such closures could occur with 

short notice, Alternative 3 is expected to 

make subsequent utilization in State 

waters more challenging. Conversely, if 

the run strength of one or more salmon 

stocks is weaker than expected, Federal 

managers would have less data to 

evaluate this as well as a longer delay 

to close the fishery, increasing the risk 

of not meeting escapement goals and 

overfishing weak stocks. It is important 

to note that the Cook Inlet salmon 

fishery targets mixed stocks of salmon. 

The composition, abundance, and 

productivity of salmon stocks and 

species in the fishery varies 

substantially on an annual basis, and 

the need to conserve weaker stocks and 

avoid overfishing by reducing fishing 

effort sometimes results in foregone 

harvest from more productive stocks. 

This is of particular concern for salmon 

gillnet gear which cannot always target 

strong stocks while sufficiently limiting 

harvest on co-occurring weak stocks. 

These practical considerations, 

combined with the preseason 

establishment of catch limits for each 

stock and stock complex, present 

significant challenges to consistently 

achieving appropriate harvest rates on 

all stocks under Alternative 3. 

In addition, NMFS must manage the 

Federal fisheries under its jurisdiction 

to prevent overfishing, including 

accounting for all removals, even when 

the removals responsible for causing 

overfishing are outside of NMFS’s 

jurisdiction. Therefore, if the proportion 

of salmon removals increase in State 

waters, harvests in the EEZ would be 

reduced to prevent overfishing. Because 

of these factors and NMFS’s overriding 

responsibility under the MagnusonStevens Act to prevent overfishing, 

NMFS expects Cook Inlet EEZ catch 

limits under Alternative 3 would be 

much more conservative than EEZ 

harvest levels under the status quo. As 

a result of limited data, increased 

management uncertainty, decreased 

management flexibility, and uncertainty 

about future State water harvest levels, 

NMFS expects that Alternative 3 could 

often require closing the EEZ to 

commercial fishing to account for 

uncertainty and prevent overfishing. 

Another important consideration 

under Alternative 3 is the requirement 

for effective monitoring, recordkeeping, 

reporting, and enforcement of directly 

adjacent but separately managed State 

and Federal salmon fisheries within 

Cook Inlet. To ensure that salmon catch 

from the Cook Inlet EEZ could be 

accurately accounted for in order to 

avoid exceeding Federal catch limits, 

additional Federal fishery monitoring 

would be required (Section 2.5.7 of the 

Analysis). This would include requiring 

a Federal Fisheries Permit, completion 

of a required Federal logbook, and 

required use of a Vessel Monitoring 

System (VMS). Federal Fisheries 

Permits and logbooks would be 

provided at no cost to participants, but 

would require time to obtain and 

complete. The average cost for purchase, 

installation, and activation of a VMS is 

estimated at $3,500, and annual variable 

costs may include transmission costs of 

around $800 and potential maintenance 

and repairs averaging $77 (Section 

4.7.2.2.6 of the Analysis). While there 

are grants available to help offset the 

initial purchase price of a VMS unit, 

ongoing operation and maintenance 

costs would be the responsibility of 

participants. These additional costs and 

burdens from required monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting would not 

be expected to produce commensurate 

benefits given the anticipated 

reductions in EEZ harvests and could 

disproportionately impact economically 

marginal participants. 

Ensuring that vessels participating 

only in the State waters fishery do not 

harvest in EEZ waters is another 

important consideration. As described 

in Section 2.5.7 of the Analysis, NMFS 

had concerns about monitoring vessels 

not registered to participate in the EEZ 

fishery to ensure that they do not 

intentionally or inadvertently harvest 

fish in the EEZ. This concern could be 

most simply addressed by opening the 

EEZ drift gillnet fishery at different 

times than when the State salmon drift 

gillnet fishery is open to allow for clear 

enforcement of the single open area. 

However, staggering the opening of EEZ 

and State salmon drift gillnet fisheries 

presents significant feasibility concerns 

given the dynamic nature of State 

management and the limited flexibility 

of Federal managers. For example, a 

short notice opening in State waters 

could disrupt a scheduled Federal 

opening. Additional monitoring of State 

waters participants could allow for 

concurrent State and Federal water 

openings, but this is not a viable 

solution because FMP requirements 

could not be imposed on vessels only 

registered and operating in the State 

waters drift gillnet salmon fishery. 

Under Alternative 3, the annual 

Council consideration and 

determination of whether to allow an 

EEZ fishery would also increase 

uncertainty for fishery participants and 

processors, as well as make it difficult 

for State mangers to optimize 

management of salmon fisheries within 

State waters given the strong 

interactions between all salmon 

fisheries in Cook Inlet and the potential 

for highly variable biological and 

management conditions across Cook 

Inlet in a given year. For example, 

multiple sets of State management 

measures and contingency plans would 

have to be developed in order to 

account for (1) whether the EEZ is open 

in a given year, (2) the potential for 

multiple salmon stock abundance 

scenarios, and (3) a potentially 

unpredictable closure of the EEZ to 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29981 

commercial salmon fishing in a given 

year if a Federal catch limit is reached 

sooner than predicted. Therefore, NMFS 

expects that Alternative 3 would pose 

significant challenges to achieving 

optimum yield (OY) on a continuing 

basis. 

Finally, the Council acknowledged 

that neither the Council nor NMFS 

currently has the expertise or 

infrastructure to optimally manage 

salmon fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska 

independent of the State. Federal 

managers would be dependent on a high 

degree of voluntary cooperation from 

State managers for successful 

management of Cook Inlet salmon 

stocks under Alternative 3. For a 

commercial salmon fishery to occur in 

a given year under Alternative 3, the 

conservation and management 

conditions described in Section 2.5.3 of 

the Analysis must be met. These include 

a Federal salmon data gathering process 

for Cook Inlet that is adequately 

supported with data from State salmon 

fisheries in Cook Inlet, a harvestable 

surplus of salmon available in the EEZ 

that could support directed fishery 

openings, and salmon harvest reporting 

tools that allow the Federal catch 

accounting system to adequately 

monitor harvest and bycatch such that 

overfishing can be prevented. While 

management capacity could be 

developed over time, independent 

Federal management could nonetheless 

result in annual closures of the Cook 

Inlet EEZ due to separate Federal and 

State management (Section 2.5.3 of the 

Analysis). Developing expertise would 

require significant agency resources, 

and new Federal infrastructure would 

increase the burden of regulatory 

compliance on participants. Even with 

an established Federal infrastructure 

and experienced managers, it is 

expected that EEZ harvests would be 

reduced over the long term for the 

reasons stated above without significant 

anticipated conservation and 

management benefits. 

Amendment 14 and This Proposed Rule 

With Amendment 14 and this 

proposed rule, the Council and NMFS 

are proposing to amend the Salmon 

FMP and Federal regulations to comply 

with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law. Amendment 14 and this 

proposed rule would incorporate the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon 

FMP’s West Area, thereby bringing the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the 

commercial salmon fisheries that occur 

within it under Federal management by 

the Council and NMFS. With 

Amendment 14, most existing FMP 

provisions that apply to the West Area, 

including the prohibition on 

commercial salmon fishing, would also 

apply to the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. 

The reference points of maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) and OY would 

be separately specified for the Cook 

Inlet salmon fishery. Additionally, an 

annual catch limit (ACL) would be 

separately specified for the commercial 

salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Subarea, reflecting the fact that Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks have historically 

been harvested in both State and 

Federal waters. This action would not 

modify reference points already 

established for the rest of the existing 

West Area. MSY would be established 

for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery as the 

maximum amount of harvest possible 

under the State’s escapement goals, 

which is the largest long-term average 

catch that can be taken by the fishery 

under prevailing ecological, 

environmental conditions and fishery 

technological characteristics (e.g., gear 

selectivity), and the distribution of catch 

among fishery sectors (50 CFR 

600.310(e)(1)(i)). This includes the use 

of indicator stocks to manage where 

escapement is not directly known. 

Escapement goals account for biological 

productivity and ecological factors 

(Sections 3.1 and 11 of the Analysis). 

The Cook Inlet salmon fishery includes 

the stocks of salmon harvested by all 

sectors within State and Federal waters 

of Cook Inlet. 

The OY range for the Cook Inlet 

salmon fishery would be the combined 

catch from all salmon fisheries 

occurring within Cook Inlet (State and 

Federal water catch), which results in a 

post-harvest abundance within the 

escapement goal range for stocks with 

escapement goals, and below the 

historically sustainable average catch for 

stocks without escapement goals, except 

when management measures required to 

conserve weak stocks necessarily limit 

catch of healthy stocks. This OY is 

derived from MSY, as reduced by 

relevant economic, social, and 

ecological factors. These factors include 

annual variations in the abundance, 

distribution, migration patterns, and 

timing of the salmon stocks; allocations 

by the Alaska Board of Fisheries; 

traditional times, methods, and areas of 

salmon fishing; ecosystem needs; and 

inseason indices of stock strength. 

The Council and NMFS determined 

that the proposed OY would be fully 

achieved in Cook Inlet State water 

salmon fisheries because compensatory 

fishery effort among various sectors in 

State waters is expected to make up for 

closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to 

commercial salmon fishing. Therefore, 

Amendment 14 would establish an ACL 

of zero for the commercial salmon 

fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. 

The proposed management measure of 

closing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to 

commercial salmon fishing would 

achieve the proposed ACL. Given that 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea management 

measure is fishery closure, additional 

reference points and accountability 

measures are not necessary and 

therefore would not be specified. 

This proposed rule would revise the 

definition of Salmon Management Area 

at 50 CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook 

Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 

and incorporate it into the West Area. 

This proposed rule would also revise 

Figure 23 to 50 CFR part 679 consistent 

with the revised definition of the 

Salmon Management Area at § 679.2. As 

part of the West Area, the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea would be subject to the 

prohibition on commercial fishing for 

salmon at § 679.7(h)(2). 

Objectives and Rationale for Action 

The primary objective of this action is 

to apply Federal management to the 

commercial salmon fishery in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. In 

recommending Amendment 14, the 

Council ultimately concluded that 

managing the Cook Inlet EEZ by 

prohibiting commercial salmon fishing 

optimized conservation and 

management of Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries when considering the costs and 

benefits of the available management 

alternatives. Through this proposed 

action, the Council would continue to 

apply its longstanding salmon 

management policy for the West Area, 

which is to facilitate State salmon 

management in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and applicable 

Federal law. As with the rest of the West 

Area, this policy would be achieved by 

prohibiting commercial fishing for 

salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 

so that the State can manage Alaska 

salmon stocks as a unit within State 

waters. NMFS determined that salmon 

fishery resources in Cook Inlet can be 

fully utilized by salmon fisheries 

occurring within State waters and that 

the State manages its salmon fisheries 

based on the best available information 

using the State’s escapement goal 

management system. This proposed rule 

would not modify existing State 

management measures, nor would it 

preclude the State from adopting 

additional management measures that 

could provide additional harvest 

opportunities for harvesters, including 

commercial drift gillnet fishermen, 

within State waters. 

29982 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

This action (1) takes the most 

precautionary approach to minimizing 

the potential for overfishing, (2) 

provides the greatest opportunity for 

maximum harvest from the Cook Inlet 

salmon fishery, (3) avoids creating new 

management uncertainty, (4) minimizes 

regulatory burden to fishery 

participants, (5) maximizes management 

efficiency for Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries, and (6) avoids the 

introduction of an additional 

management jurisdiction into the 

already complex and interdependent 

network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. 

Consistency of Proposed Action With 

the National Standards 

In developing Amendment 14, the 

Council considered consistency of the 

proposed action with the MagnusonStevens Act’s 10 National Standards (16 

U.S.C. 1851) and designed its proposed 

action to balance their competing 

demands. While all 10 of the National 

Standards were considered, five 

national standards figured prominently 

in the Council’s recommendation for 

Amendment 14: National Standard 1, 

National Standard 2, National Standard 

7, National Standard 3, and National 

Standard 8. 

National Standard 1 

National Standard 1 states that 

conservation and management measures 

shall prevent overfishing while 

achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY 

from each fishery for the United States 

fishing industry. OY is the amount of 

fish that will provide the greatest overall 

benefit to the Nation, particularly with 

respect to food production and 

recreational opportunities and taking 

into account the protection of marine 

ecosystems, that is prescribed on the 

basis of the MSY from the fishery, as 

reduced by any relevant economic, 

social, or ecological factor. This action 

establishes MSY on the basis of State 

escapement goals and proxies that were 

evaluated through the analytical process 

for this action and determined to be 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the Salmon FMP and the 

conservation objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

For the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, OY 

is based on the MSY escapement goals, 

qualitatively reduced to account for 

management measures required to 

conserve weak stocks. This OY ensures 

the Cook Inlet salmon fishery produces 

the greatest net benefit to the Nation by 

maintaining an economically viable 

fishery while still providing recreational 

and subsistence opportunities, 

accounting for consumption of salmon 

by a variety of marine predators, and 

protecting weaker stocks. As illustrated 

by Sections 3 and 4 of the Analysis, the 

State has consistently achieved this OY 

through its management strategy, and by 

allowing the State to continue managing 

Cook Inlet salmon as a unit, NMFS 

anticipates that OY would continue to 

be achieved in State water salmon 

fisheries. Thus, NMFS finds that the 

proposed OY for the Cook Inlet salmon 

fishery would be achieved on a 

continuing basis under Amendment 14. 

In addition, by prohibiting 

commercial salmon harvest in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ, the Council and NMFS would 

avoid creating new management 

uncertainty and reduce the risk of 

overfishing inherent to an independent 

Federal management regime that would 

not be well-suited to respond to inseason data as necessary to adjust 

harvest levels. Amendment 14 and this 

proposed rule would enable the State to 

continue to manage salmon fisheries in 

State waters to achieve escapement 

goals and maximize economic and 

social benefits from the fishery. While 

the closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Subarea to commercial fishing impacts 

a significant proportion of the drift 

gillnet fleet’s harvest, the closure would 

minimize the possibility of overfishing 

and would be expected to allow 

utilization of salmon to be maximized 

over the long-term among all fishery 

participants as State management 

measures are refined to account for a 

predictable closure of the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea (Section 4.7.1.4 of the 

Analysis). 

The Council and NMFS properly 

weighed the adverse economic impacts 

that are anticipated to occur for some 

EEZ commercial salmon fishery 

participants from a closure of the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Subarea against the risk of 

overfishing and long-term achievement 

of OY through State fisheries. The 

Council and NMFS continue to 

recognize that the State is best situated 

to respond to changing conditions 

inseason to fully utilize salmon stocks 

consistent with the constraints of weak 

stock management in a mixed stock 

fishery. In light of this fact, through this 

action, the Council and NMFS are 

fulfilling their duty to manage the Cook 

Inlet EEZ and have determined that 

closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to 

commercial salmon fishing is the 

management approach most likely to 

maximize utilization of the resource 

while preventing overfishing. 

Management measures under the 

Salmon FMP and other Federal FMPs, 

together with the State’s scientificallybased management program in State 

waters of Cook Inlet adjacent to the 

West Area, would continue to ensure 

that overfishing of salmon does not 

occur. 

National Standard 2 

National Standard 2 states that 

conservation and management measures 

shall be based upon the best scientific 

information available. The Council 

carefully evaluated the available 

biological, ecological, environmental, 

economic, and sociological scientific 

information to determine how to most 

effectively conserve and manage Cook 

Inlet salmon resources. This process 

included SSC review to provide 

scientific advice for the fishery 

management decision, evaluation of 

uncertainty in the development of 

salmon escapement goals (Section 11 of 

the Analysis), and a comprehensive 

description of social and economic 

conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon 

fishery (Section 4 of the Analysis), as 

well as consideration of alternative 

scientific points of view regarding the 

potential for overcompensation in Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks (Section 13 of the 

Analysis). From this analysis, the 

Council determined that the State’s 

escapement goal management system is 

based on and uses the best available 

scientific information to manage Cook 

Inlet salmon fisheries. Section 3.1 of the 

Analysis found State salmon 

management to be almost entirely 

consistent with proposed Federal 

measures for status determination 

criteria and reference points required by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, 

this Analysis indicated that the State 

has and is appropriately conserving and 

managing Cook Inlet salmon stocks, that 

the State largely could have achieved 

Federal reference points over that time 

period, and that independent Federal 

management would not have been 

expected to produce significant 

conservation changes or benefits relative 

to State management of the salmon 

fishery based on Federal reference 

points. The Council also evaluated the 

social and economic impacts of their 

action using the best available scientific 

information. 

National Standard 7 

The very high degree of consistency 

between existing State management and 

proposed Federal management was also 

important in the Council’s consideration 

of National Standard 7, which states 

that conservation and management 

measures shall, where practicable, 

minimize costs and avoid unnecessary 

duplication. The proposed management 

approach of closing the Cook Inlet EEZ 

to commercial salmon fishing avoids 

unnecessary duplication of management 

to the greatest possible extent. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29983 

Council did recognize that this action 

could have significant costs because it 

closes an area responsible for just under 

50 percent of drift gillnet fleet harvests, 

on average. However, under the only 

other viable alternative, the Council also 

expected significant reductions in EEZ 

harvests and possible fishery closures, 

but with added participation costs, 

management costs, and uncertainty, as 

described above. Ultimately, the 

Council determined, and NMFS agrees, 

that this action would provide for 

sufficient salmon harvest opportunity in 

State waters to largely offset the costs. 

In addition, closure of the Cook Inlet 

EEZ minimizes regulatory burden and 

participants would not have to track or 

participate in management of the Cook 

Inlet salmon fishery across multiple 

jurisdictions to plan their businesses. 

Finally, closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ 

would create the most efficient Cook 

Inlet salmon management arrangement 

of the two available management 

approaches. Under National Standard 7, 

management measures should not 

impose unnecessary burdens on the 

economy, on individuals, on private or 

public organizations, or on Federal, 

state, or local governments. As 

explained in more detail below under 

Potential Impacts of the Action, when 

the Council considered the costs and 

benefits of management by closure 

under Amendment 14 (Alternative 4), 

the Council determined, and NMFS 

agrees, that Amendment 14 is consistent 

with National Standard 7. 

National Standard 3 

The Council highlighted that 

management of salmon in Cook Inlet is 

highly complex, requiring multiple 

interdependent management plans to 

achieve sustainable harvest of Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks that benefit all user 

groups. National Standard 3 states that 

to the extent practicable, an individual 

stock of fish shall be managed as a unit 

throughout its range, and interrelated 

stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit 

or in close coordination. Given the 

significant degree of interaction among 

salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, 

management of salmon stocks as a unit 

throughout all Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries is particularly important. 

Management action in one Cook Inlet 

salmon fishery often has direct 

relationships with harvest rates and 

harvest composition by stock in other 

regional salmon fisheries. With 

commercial salmon fishing being 

prohibited in the Cook Inlet EEZ, all 

salmon fishing in Cook Inlet would 

occur within State waters under State 

management which continues to 

promote unity of management of Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks across their range. 

Separate Federal management under 

Alternative 3 would significantly 

disrupt management unity and would 

impose unnecessary duplication 

without additional benefits. Optimizing 

yield within acceptable management 

uncertainty thresholds is best 

accomplished by a single management 

entity in Cook Inlet. Developing 

Amendment 14 required extensive 

discussions and coordination between 

the managers of State and Federal 

jurisdictions to determine the best 

means of achieving the FMP’s objectives 

and implementing a comprehensive 

approach to fishery management. The 

Council determined, and NMFS agrees, 

that management by closure of the 

federal fishery, which allows one 

jurisdiction (the State) to manage the 

harvest of salmon stocks as a unit, is 

consistent with National Standard 3. 

National Standard 8 

The Council acknowledged that this 

action would likely have adverse 

impacts on drift gillnet salmon 

harvesters operating in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ and their associated communities, 

but would also likely have 

corresponding benefits to other salmon 

users within many of the same 

communities. National Standard 8 

requires that conservation and 

management measures shall, consistent 

with the conservation requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, take into 

account the importance of fishery 

resources to fishing communities by 

utilizing economic and social data that 

are based upon the best scientific 

information available, in order to (a) 

provide for the sustained participation 

of such communities, and (b) to the 

extent practicable, minimize adverse 

economic impacts on such 

communities. The Analysis considered 

the social and economic importance of 

the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries to 

fishing communities, and recognized 

these communities participate in a 

variety of salmon fisheries apart from 

the drift gillnet fishery. While the 

Analysis identified varying dependence 

on the Cook Inlet EEZ portion of the 

Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishery, 

no community was identified as solely 

dependent on the EEZ portion of the 

drift gillnet fishery (Section 4.5.5 of the 

Analysis). In addition, the Council 

recognized that closing the Cook Inlet 

EEZ to commercial salmon fishing 

would result in additional harvest 

opportunity in State waters, and that the 

associated benefits would be distributed 

across Cook Inlet fishing communities 

given the diversity of users involved. In 

all, the Analysis supports a finding that 

this action would provide for the 

sustained participation of fishing 

communities in Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries, even if there is some 

redistribution of benefits. Under this 

proposed action, it is likely that at least 

some of these benefits would accrue to 

communities that also experience 

adverse impacts based on their 

engagement and dependence on 

multiple Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. 

Therefore, this action is consistent with 

National Standard 8. 

In addition, closure of the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea would minimize adverse 

economic impacts to the extent 

practicable by avoiding the costs of 

additional monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting that would be required to 

access the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 

under Alternative 3, despite reduced 

harvest opportunities and the annual 

possibility of closure to account for 

added uncertainty. Further, National 

Standard 8 requires NMFS to consider 

adverse economic impacts within the 

constraints of conservation and 

management goals. This action is 

explicitly intended to prevent 

overfishing and achieve the 

conservation and management goals of 

the Salmon FMP while recognizing that 

an economically viable fishery would 

still occur within State waters. 

Potential Impacts of the Action 

This action would close a portion of 

the historically used fishing area for the 

Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) drift gillnet 

salmon fishery. The UCI drift gillnet 

salmon fishery currently operates in 

both State and EEZ Cook Inlet waters 

without specific reference to the 

boundary and is the only commercial 

salmon fishery that would be directly 

regulated by this action. 

As described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the 

Analysis, the impacts of closing the 

Cook Inlet EEZ on UCI salmon drift 

gillnet vessels would be proportional to 

the extent that they rely on the EEZ. The 

entire active UCI salmon drift gillnet 

fleet likely fishes in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Subarea at some time during each 

fishing season, but over the entire 

season, each vessel differs with respect 

to its level of economic dependency on 

fishing in this area. Section 4.5.2.3 of 

the Analysis describes that from 2009 

through 2018 an estimated average of 

48.7 percent of gross revenue ($10.3 

million) for the UCI drift gillnet fleet 

was generated from salmon caught in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. In the last 

5 years, an estimated average of 

approximately 42.7 percent of gross 

revenue ($5.8 million) was generated in 

the EEZ for the fishery. While UCI drift 

gillnet vessels could relocate their 

29984 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

current EEZ salmon fishing effort to 

State waters under existing State 

regulations, their overall harvests may 

be reduced due to less productive 

fishing areas, increased travel costs, 

increased fishery congestion, and 

potentially less overall productive 

fishing time available in State waters. 

Conversely, catch rates in State waters 

may improve without commercial 

fishery catch in the EEZ. In addition, 

State management measures could be 

adjusted to allow more harvest in state 

waters to account for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

closure. 

It is not possible to estimate the 

magnitude of potential harvest 

reductions to the UCI drift gillnet fleet 

because of the complexities of Cook 

Inlet mixed-stock salmon fisheries and 

intertwined State management plans. If 

the UCI drift gillnet fleet cannot offset 

reductions in harvest within State 

waters due to the closure of the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Subarea, it is likely that the 

UCI drift gillnet fleet’s revenues and 

participation in the fishery would 

decrease. Reductions in harvest by the 

affected drift gillnet vessels are expected 

to provide additional harvest 

opportunity for other commercial and 

non-commercial salmon users in Cook 

Inlet. This is expected to offset forgone 

salmon harvest in the event the drift 

gillnet fleet is unable to make up its 

historical EEZ harvest amounts in State 

waters (Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis). 

This action would not prohibit or 

otherwise modify management of 

salmon fishing in State waters. The UCI 

drift gillnet fleet is expected to continue 

to operate in State waters under 

Amendment 14. It is important to note 

that State salmon management plans for 

Cook Inlet have been predicated on the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea being open to 

commercial salmon fishing by the drift 

gillnet fleet. The State would be able to 

modify management of all Cook Inlet 

salmon fisheries within State waters to 

account for the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 

closure. 

This action is not expected to have 

significant impacts to salmon stocks or 

other affected parts of the environment. 

The State would continue to manage 

Cook Inlet salmon stocks within State 

waters consistent with current practices, 

and as described above, the State has 

consistently achieved conservation 

objectives. As described in Section 3.1.4 

of the Analysis, harvest of Cook Inlet 

salmon stocks is expected to remain 

near or marginally below existing levels 

resulting in salmon escapements near or 

marginally above existing levels. 

While no significant impacts to Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks are expected, a 

closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 

would have conservation and 

management benefits resulting from 

decreased management uncertainty. 

Importantly, commercial catch of Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea would be prohibited as a 

result of this action. This could improve 

management precision and better avoid 

overfishing as these stocks would be 

harvested nearer to natal streams where 

improved escapement data and better 

information about realized run strength 

is more likely to be available. This is 

particularly important given the life 

history of salmon that only allows for 

harvest in a single season for terminal 

fisheries. In the event of lower than 

expected salmon returns, the State has 

additional escapement data and can 

more rapidly take action to avoid a 

conservation concern using their 

Emergency Order authority when 

compared to the Federal rulemaking 

process because of the challenges 

described in Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.10. 

Similarly, if realized run strength is 

better than expected, the State can better 

maximize utilization of surplus 

production by issuing an Emergency 

Order to allow for additional harvest 

opportunities, avoiding uncertainties 

from unpredictable EEZ closure timing 

identified in Section 4.7.1.3 of the 

Analysis. 

Additionally, increased passage of 

salmon stocks into Northern Cook Inlet 

may have other benefits. Prohibiting 

commercial catch in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Subarea could improve the density of 

salmon prey available to endangered 

Cook Inlet belugas present in northern 

Cook Inlet during the summer months 

as noted in Section 3.3.1.1 of the 

Analysis. If there is insufficient harvest 

capacity operating only in State waters, 

the escapement of some Cook Inlet 

salmon stocks could increase. While 

increased escapement may not be 

desirable for all stocks in all years, a 

closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to 

commercial harvest minimizes the 

possibility of overfishing and would be 

expected to allow utilization to be 

maximized over the long term as State 

management measures are refined to 

account for a predictable closure of the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea (Section 4.7.1.4 

of the Analysis). 

This action would not directly 

regulate salmon processors, but may 

affect them. To the extent that this 

action would decrease catches by the 

drift gillnet fleet in Cook Inlet that are 

not offset by increased catch in State 

waters by the drift gillnet fleet or by 

other commercial salmon fishing 

sectors, deliveries of Cook Inlet salmon 

and associated revenues to processors 

would be reduced. The impacts to 

individual processors would be 

influenced by the dependency on Cook 

Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ as 

described in Section 4.5.4 of the 

Analysis. The later entry of salmon 

stocks into the State waters of Cook Inlet 

may also lead to a later and shorter 

period of Cook Inlet salmon processing 

activity. Depending on the business 

models of individual processors, this 

could reduce processing efficiency. 

The previously mentioned impacts to 

Cook Inlet salmon harvesters and 

processors would also have impacts to 

associated communities in Cook Inlet 

and elsewhere as described in Section 

4.7.1.4 of the Analysis. Decreases in the 

harvest levels of the UCI drift gillnet 

fleet under this action would have the 

potential to differentially affect 

communities, including communities 

associated with the UCI drift gillnet fleet 

and other salmon user groups. For 

communities engaged in or dependent 

on harvests by the UCI drift gillnet fleet, 

the potential adverse impacts to 

businesses connected to the harvest, 

processing, or support service sectors 

could result in greater or lesser localized 

impacts, depending on the specific 

nature and magnitude of community 

engagement in or dependency on the 

fishery in combination with the varying 

demographic and socioeconomic 

attributes of the relevant communities. 

However, reductions in salmon harvest 

by the UCI drift gillnet fleet are 

expected to be offset over the long term 

by increases to other salmon fishery 

sectors in these communities. 

Communities associated with these 

other salmon fishery sectors (e.g., the 

commercial set net, sport, and personal 

use salmon fisheries), may experience 

localized benefits based on the specific 

nature and magnitude of community 

engagement in or dependency on those 

other sectors but, as previously noted, it 

is not possible to estimate the 

magnitude of potential harvest benefits 

to these communities. Community level 

distributive impacts under this action 

are not anticipated to substantially 

affect net benefits to the nation (Section 

4.10 of the Analysis). 

As this action would prohibit 

commercial salmon fishing in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Subarea consistent with 

existing management in adjacent West 

Area waters, no additional Federal 

fishery management measures are 

required. The West Area prohibition on 

commercial salmon fishing would 

continue to be enforced by State and 

Federal authorities under the revised 

boundaries resulting from this proposed 

action. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29985 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the Salmon FMP, other provisions 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

A Regulatory Impact Review was 

prepared to assess costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives. A copy 

of this analysis is available from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). The Council 

recommended and NMFS proposes 

Amendment 14 and these regulations 

based on those measures that maximize 

net benefits to the Nation. Specific 

aspects of the economic analysis are 

discussed below in the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this 

proposed rule, as required by Section 

603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the 

economic impact this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would have on small entities. 

The IRFA describes the action; the 

reasons why this proposed rule is 

proposed; the objectives and legal basis 

for this proposed rule; the number and 

description of directly regulated small 

entities to which this proposed rule 

would apply; the recordkeeping, 

reporting, and other compliance 

requirements of this proposed rule; and 

the relevant Federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

proposed rule. The IRFA also describes 

significant alternatives to this proposed 

rule that would accomplish the stated 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

and any other applicable statutes, and 

that would minimize any significant 

economic impact of this proposed rule 

on small entities. The description of the 

action, its purpose, and the legal basis 

are explained in the preamble and are 

not repeated here. 

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has 

established a small business size 

standard for businesses, including their 

affiliates, whose primary industry is 

commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). 

A business primarily engaged in 

commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) 

is classified as a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated, is 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates), and has 

combined annual receipts not in excess 

of $11 million for all its affiliated 

operations worldwide. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by This Proposed 

Rule 

This action would directly regulate 

holders of State of Alaska S03H 

Commercial Fisheries Entry 

Commission Limited Entry salmon 

permits (S03H permits). In 2021, 567 

S03H permits were held by 502 

individuals, all of which are considered 

small entities based on the $11 million 

threshold. Additional detail is included 

in Sections 4.5.3 and 4.9 in the Analysis 

prepared for this proposed rule (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

That Minimize Adverse Impacts on 

Small Entities 

The Council considered, but did not 

select three other alternatives. The 

alternatives, and their impacts to small 

entities, are described below. 

Alternative 1 would take no action 

and would maintain existing 

management measures and conditions 

in the fishery within recently observed 

ranges, resulting in no change to 

impacts on small entities. This is not a 

viable alternative because it would be 

inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s 

ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be 

included within the Salmon FMP 

Alternative 2 would delegate 

management to the State. If fully 

implemented, Alternative 2 would 

maintain many existing conditions 

within the fishery. Fishery participants 

would have the added burdens of 

obtaining a Federal Fisheries Permit, 

maintaining a Federal fishing logbook, 

and monitoring their fishing position 

with respect to EEZ and State waters as 

described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 

of the Analysis. However, the State is 

unwilling to accept a delegation of 

management authority. Therefore, 

Alternative 2 is not a viable alternative. 

Alternative 3 would result in a Cook 

Inlet EEZ drift gillnet salmon fishery 

managed directly by NMFS and the 

Council. Alternative 3 would increase 

direct costs and burden to S03H permit 

holders and fishery stakeholders due to 

requirements including a Federal 

Fisheries Permit, VMS, logbooks, and 

accurate GPS positioning equipment as 

described in Sections 2.5.7 and 4.7.2.2 

of the Analysis. Alternative 3 would 

also require that a total allowable catch 

(TAC) be set before each fishing season. 

The TAC would be set conservatively 

relative to the status quo in order to 

reduce the risk of overfishing without 

the benefit of inseason harvest data. 

Commercial salmon harvest in the EEZ 

would be prohibited if the Council and 

NMFS do not project a harvestable 

surplus, with an appropriate buffer for 

the increased management uncertainty. 

Further, as described in Section 2.5.3 of 

the Analysis, gaps in data could also 

require closing the EEZ to commercial 

fishing in any given year. Finally, 

Alternative 3 would increase 

uncertainty each year for fishery 

participants in developing a fishing plan 

because NMFS would determine 

whether the Cook Inlet EEZ could be 

open to commercial fishing on an 

annual basis and shortly before the start 

of the fishing season. 

As discussed, Alternative 3 would 

impose substantial direct regulatory 

costs on participants while at the same 

time is not expected to result in 

consistent commercial salmon fishing 

opportunities in the Cook Inlet EEZ. 

Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet 

EEZ but not impose any additional 

direct regulatory costs on participants 

and would allow directly regulated 

entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ 

harvest inside State waters. As a result, 

Alternative 4 minimizes impacts to 

small entities. 

Based upon the best available 

scientific data, and in consideration of 

the Council’s objectives of this action, it 

appears that there are no significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

have the potential to accomplish the 

stated objectives of the MagnusonStevens Act and any other applicable 

statutes and that have the potential to 

minimize any significant adverse 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities. After public process, 

the Council concluded that Alternative 

4, the proposed Amendment 14, would 

best accomplish the stated objectives 

articulated in the preamble for this 

proposed rule, and in applicable 

statutes, and would minimize to the 

extent practicable adverse economic 

impacts on the universe of directly 

regulated small entities. 

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting 

Federal Rules 

NMFS has not identified any 

duplication, overlap, or conflict 

between this proposed rule and existing 

Federal rules. 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other 

Compliance Requirements 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

29986 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: May 28, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50 

CFR part 679 as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 679 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et 

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447; Pub. L. 

111–281. 

■ 2. In § 679.2, amend the definition 

‘‘Salmon Management Area,’’ by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (2) and removing and 

reserving paragraph (2)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(2) The West Area means the area of 

the EEZ off Alaska in the Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf 

of Alaska west of the longitude of Cape 

Suckling (143°53.6′ W), including the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, but excludes 

the Prince William Sound Area and the 

Alaska Peninsula Area. The Cook Inlet 

EEZ Subarea means the EEZ waters of 

Cook Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′ N. 

The Prince William Sound Area and the 

Alaska Peninsula Area are shown in 

Figure 23 and described as: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise Figure 23 to Part 679 to read 

as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

[FR Doc. 2021–11716 Filed 6–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


EP04JN21.007</GPH>

Figure 23 to Part 679 - Salmon Management Area (see § 679.2) 

Salmon Management Area •