Quiero saber acerca de...

29980

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
306a3B 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. 1856a3B.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:40 Jun 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 NMFSs 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 NMFSs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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
E:FRFM04JNP1.SGM

04JNP1