Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

60570

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
creating the significant new management uncertainty associated with Alternative 3, the only other viable management alternative. Additionally, during Council deliberations and in public comment submitted on Amendment 14, the State concurred that, of the viable alternatives, Amendment 14 is most likely to achieve the salmon conservation and management objectives established by the Council and the specific requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis for the Upper Cook Inlet UCI salmon fishery. The State also agreed that Cook Inlet salmon stocks could be harvested successfully and sustainably within State waters and did not identify significant management concerns associated with this action.
As detailed in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS has determined that Amendment 14 best optimizes conservation and management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks when considering the viable management alternatives.
Comment 7: Salmon management under the Salmon FMP should include cooperation between the Council and ADFG and be fair to benefit all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors.
Amendment 14 is not fair and creates an imbalance within the fishery.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance and benefits of cooperation from all fishery sectors when developing an FMP. This final action was developed through the Council process, which provided substantial opportunities for public input. Sections 1.3 and 2 of the Analysis and the preamble of the proposed rule describe the range of issues that the Council considered in selecting this final action, including Federal jurisdiction that is limited to Federal waters.
Amendment 14 limits user group conflicts by prohibiting commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ
subarea. This allows competing interests and conflicts among all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors to be balanced and resolved by the government entity the State with management authority to regulate harvest by all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the Analysis describe the multiple salmon fishery sectors managed by the State within Cook Inlet. Federal fishery management under the FMP would apply only in the EEZ, where the drift gillnet fishery is the only commercial fishery sector and the predominant user group.
Independent Federal management of a separate commercial fishery sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, an option
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:53 Nov 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

considered and rejected by the Council under Alternative 3, would have changed the forum for some fishery sector conflicts in Cook Inlet from the Alaska Board of Fisheries to the Council. However, this management structure would not, in and of itself, lessen the conflicts inherent in the difficult task of allocating salmon, a finite resource, to all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectorssubsistence, recreational, and different commercial gear typesthat harvest Cook Inlet salmon from EEZ waters through to the headwaters of Cook Inlet streams and rivers. Under any of the action alternatives, NMFS would not manage the harvest of salmon within State waters, but would have to account for removals within State waters by all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors and the attendant uncertainty when determining the appropriate level of harvest in Federal waters.
Comment 8: Amendment 14 is contrary to and undermines Alaskas long-standing tradition and standard of excellent fisheries management.
Response: NMFS agrees that the State of Alaska has a long-standing tradition and standard of excellent salmon fisheries management but disagrees that Amendment 14 is contrary to or undermines the States management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. The Council worked for more than 3 years on the development of Amendment 14
with input from stakeholders, NMFS, and ADFG. As detailed in the preamble to the proposed rule, this action maximizes utilization of Cook Inlet salmon resources while minimizing the potential for overfishing. Further, this action is consistent with longstanding Federal management of the West Area that has facilitated successful State management of Alaskas salmon resources throughout the region.
Comment 9: Multiple commenters supported delegating management authority to the State in the Federal waters of Cook Inlet and opposed the adoption of Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP.
Response: The State announced it would not accept a delegation of management authority at the Councils December 2020 meeting. NMFS cannot require or compel a state to accept a delegation of management authority for a fishery in Federal waters.
Comment 10: Several commenters, including the State ADFG, indicated they would prefer the existing management structure analyzed by the Council as Alternative 1, status quo.
Response: As a result of the Ninth Circuit decision, the Council and NMFS
cannot defer management of the Cook
PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Inlet EEZ to the State by excluding the area from FMP management given that the commercial salmon fishery within the Cook Inlet EEZ requires conservation and management. Because the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included in the FMP, the State cannot continue to manage the Cook Inlet EEZ without explicitly being delegated management authority in the FMP. Therefore, Alternative 1 was not a viable option.
Instead, the FMP must be amended to incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the FMP, as described in Section 2
of the Analysis.
Comment 11: Cooperative Federal and State management takes place in other fisheries in Alaska, including other salmon fisheries in the East Area. Why can the Federal government work together with the State in all other regions except Cook Inlet?
Response: NMFS worked with ADFG
throughout the development of Amendment 14. Cooperative Federal and State management is only possible to the extent the State is willing to accept a delegation of management authority, which the State has accepted for salmon fisheries in the East Area. As stated in the response to Comment 9, NMFS cannot require a state to accept a delegation of management authority.
Prior to the December 2020 Council meeting, the State had not adopted a position on its willingness to accept a delegation of management authority for the Cook Inlet EEZ. The remarks that were made on the record by ADFGs voting representative at the December 2020 Council meeting provide the States rationale for refusing a delegation of management authority.
Comment 12: Amendment 14 would increase the risk to public safety by moving hundreds of fishermen each trailing 9001,200 foot-long gillnets into the already congested area within State waters.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. As described in Section 4.7.4.2 of the Analysis, fishery congestion may increase and, together with the potential for decreased revenues, could have an indirect impact to vessel safety. That said, this action does move the fleet closer to other vessels for mutual assistance as well as shore-based emergency resources.
Combined with ADFGs and the Alaska Board of Fisheries consideration of safety in their management decisions, Amendment 14 is not expected to have a significant impact on safety. Section 4.5.2 of the Analysis also notes that during peak times, the fishery can already be limited to State waters and no significant safety issues have developed. For these reasons, the
E:FRFM03NOR1.SGM

03NOR1