Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 16

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 88 › 88 FR 72314

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 600 and 679 [Docket No. 231005-0237] RIN 0648-BM42 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 16 AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS proposes Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP) and associated implementing regulations. If approved, Amendment 16 and this proposed rule would establish Federal fishery management for all salmon fishing that occurs in the Cook Inlet EEZ, which includes commercial drift gillnet and recreational salmon fishery sectors. This action is necessary to comply with rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065, by any of the following methods:

• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065 in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

• Mail: Submit written comments to Gretchen Harrington, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668

ral e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065 in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

• Mail: Submit written comments to Gretchen Harrington, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://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 proposed Amendment 16; the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Social Impact Analysis (contained in a single document and collectively referred to as the “Analysis”); and the draft Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or doug.duncan@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for Action

NMFS manages U.S

e submitted to NMFS at the above address and to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or doug.duncan@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for Action

NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries off of Alaska under the Salmon FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the Salmon FMP are located at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. NMFS is authorized to prepare an FMP amendment necessary for the conservation and management of a fishery managed under the FMP if the Council fails to develop and submit such an amendment after a reasonable period of time (section 304(c)(1)(A); 16 U.S.C 1854(c)(1)(A)). Because the Council failed to take action to recommend a required FMP amendment in time for NMFS to implement it by a court-ordered deadline, NMFS developed a Secretarial FMP amendment and this proposed rule.

NMFS has determined that it is necessary and appropriate, under section 304(c)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to develop a Secretarial amendment—Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP—and proposed regulations in order to comply with rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 16 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′ N) into the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit. This proposed rule would implement Amendment 16. Amendment 16 adds another management area to the Salmon FMP in addition to the existing West Area and East Area

sure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 16 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′ N) into the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit. This proposed rule would implement Amendment 16. Amendment 16 adds another management area to the Salmon FMP in addition to the existing West Area and East Area. This action would not modify management of the West Area and East Area.

NMFS is soliciting public comments on Amendment 16 and this proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the comment period for this action (See DATES ), whether specifically directed to the proposed FMP amendment or the implementing regulations, will be considered by NMFS in deciding whether to adopt and implement Amendment 16.

Amendment 16 Overview

This action, if approved, would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, thereby bringing the salmon fishery that occurs within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS.

Two different sectors participate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery: the commercial drift gillnet sector and the recreational sector. The commercial drift gillnet fleet harvests over 99.99 percent of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Currently, both drift gillnet and recreational salmon fishing occur in the State and EEZ waters of Cook Inlet under State management without regard to the boundary between State and Federal waters. Under this action, the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery will be managed by NMFS and the Council separately from adjacent State water salmon fisheries

ver 99.99 percent of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Currently, both drift gillnet and recreational salmon fishing occur in the State and EEZ waters of Cook Inlet under State management without regard to the boundary between State and Federal waters. Under this action, the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery will be managed by NMFS and the Council separately from adjacent State water salmon fisheries.

Amendment 16 would revise the Salmon FMP, beginning with an updated history of the FMP and introduction in Chapter 1, as well as a revised description of the fishery management unit in Chapter 2 that would include the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as a separate and distinctly managed

A new Chapter 4 would include a comprehensive description of Federal management for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This chapter would describe management measures and the roles and responsibilities of NMFS and the Council in managing the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. Centrally, Chapter 4 would include descriptions of all conservation and management measures, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), status determination criteria, and an outline of the harvest specifications process. Chapter 4 would also describe authorized fishery management measures and authorities including required Federal permits; fishing gear restrictions; fishing time and area restrictions; NMFS inseason management provisions; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as well as information about ongoing Council review of the FMP.

Chapter 5 would contain all content related to domestic annual harvesting and processing capacity, which indicates that all salmon fisheries off Alaska can be fully utilized by U.S. harvesters and processors, which is unchanged by this action.

vesting and processing capacity, which indicates that all salmon fisheries off Alaska can be fully utilized by U.S. harvesters and processors, which is unchanged by this action.

Chapter 6 contains information on Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and would not be modified by this action. Amendment 16 would remove the outdated Fishery Impact Statement in the Salmon FMP. The Analysis prepared for Amendment 16 contains the Fishery Impact Statement for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery and this action.

History of the Salmon FMP

The Council's Salmon FMP manages the Pacific salmon fisheries in the EEZ from 3 nautical miles (nmi) to 200 nmi off Alaska. The Council developed the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it first became effective in 1979. The Salmon FMP was comprehensively revised by Amendment 3 in 1990 (55 FR 47773, November 15, 1990) and again by Amendment 12 in 2012 (77 FR 75570, December 21, 2012).

Since 1979, the Council has divided the Salmon FMP's coverage into the West Area and the East Area, with the boundary between the two areas at Cape Suckling, at 143°53.6′ W longitude. Prior to Amendment 12, the Salmon FMP authorized commercial fishing in the East Area, recreational salmon fishing in both areas, and prohibited commercial salmon fishing in the West Area. However, the commercial salmon fishing prohibition in the West Area was not applied to three adjacent areas of the EEZ where commercial salmon fishing with nets was originally authorized by the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, as implemented by the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act)

d prohibited commercial salmon fishing in the West Area. However, the commercial salmon fishing prohibition in the West Area was not applied to three adjacent areas of the EEZ where commercial salmon fishing with nets was originally authorized by the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, as implemented by the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act). The Salmon FMP referred to the three areas of the EEZ where commercial net fishing for salmon occurs as the “Cook Inlet EEZ,” the “Alaska Peninsula EEZ,” and the “Prince William Sound EEZ,” and collectively as the “traditional net fishing areas.” Under the authority of the 1954 Act, NMFS issued regulations that set the outside fishing boundaries for the traditional net fishing areas as those set forth under State of Alaska (State) regulations and stated that any fishing in these areas was to be conducted pursuant to State regulations.

In 1990, the Council amended the Salmon FMP, continuing to prohibit commercial salmon fishing with nets in the EEZ, with the exception of the traditional net fishing areas managed by the State. The next major modification to the Salmon FMP occurred when the Council recommended Amendment 12 in December 2011. In developing Amendment 12, the Council recognized that the law governing the three traditional net fishing areas (the 1954 Act) had changed and the Salmon FMP was vague with respect to Federal management of the traditional net fishing areas. After considering various alternatives, the Council recommended and NMFS approved Amendment 12, which removed the three traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit.

s alternatives, the Council recommended and NMFS approved Amendment 12, which removed the three traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit.

By removing the traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's West Area, the Council intended for the State to continue managing these areas, which the State has done since before the inception of the Salmon FMP in 1979. In developing Amendment 12, the Council considered recommending Federal management of salmon fishing in the three traditional net fishing areas, but determined that (1) the State was managing the salmon fisheries within these three areas consistent with the policies and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, (2) the Council and NMFS did not have the expertise or infrastructure (such as personnel, monitoring and reporting systems, and processes for salmon stock assessments) to manage Alaska salmon fisheries, and (3) Federal management of these areas would not serve a useful purpose or provide additional benefits and protections to the salmon fisheries within these areas. The Council recognized that salmon are best managed as a unit throughout their range and determined that dividing management into two separate salmon fishery jurisdictions—State and Federal—would not be optimal. The Council also recognized the State's expertise and well-developed management infrastructure from managing the salmon fisheries in Alaska since Statehood. The Council determined that Amendment 12 was consistent with the management approach established in the original Salmon FMP in 1979.

The final rule implementing Amendment 12 was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 FR 75570). On January 18, 2013, Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen and seafood processors filed a lawsuit challenging Amendment 12 and its implementing regulations. In United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 2014 WL 10988279 (D. Alaska 2014), the district court held that Amendment 12's removal of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon FMP was lawful

in the Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 FR 75570). On January 18, 2013, Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen and seafood processors filed a lawsuit challenging Amendment 12 and its implementing regulations. In United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 2014 WL 10988279 (D. Alaska 2014), the district court held that Amendment 12's removal of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon FMP was lawful. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that section 302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1)) clearly and unambiguously requires a Council to prepare and submit FMPs for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016). Because NMFS determined that the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery requires conservation and management by some entity, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it must be included in the Salmon FMP.

Developing Management Alternatives for Amendment 14

In response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the Council began work on Amendment 14. Because the history of Amendment 14 is integral to the need for and development of this action, a brief history is provided here. The Council worked from 2017 to 2020 developing and evaluating management alternatives for Amendment 14. The Council broadly identified two management approaches to amend the FMP to include the Cook Inlet EEZ: one that would delegate authority over specific management measures to the State with review and oversight by the Council, and one that would retain all management within the Federal process.

The Council also formed the Cook Inlet Salmon Committee (Committee), consisting of Cook Inlet salmon fishery stakeholders tasked with developing recommendations for management of the fishery. The Committee proposed delegating management to the State, but with expanded Federal oversight and a management scope that included State marine and fresh waters in addition to the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet

Generally, information in the analysis prepared for Amendment 14 indicated that Federal management would be unlikely to appreciably change salmon conservation metrics and thresholds established in Cook Inlet, but would increase costs, complexity, and management uncertainty without corresponding benefits. While the Council identified some flexibility with the specific management measures that could be implemented under either Federal management approach, neither the Council, NMFS, the State, nor stakeholders identified a fundamentally different management approach that could satisfy the Ninth Circuit ruling, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

After the State announced it would not accept delegated management authority for Cook Inlet, the Council ultimately recommended expanding the existing adjacent West Area to include the Cook Inlet EEZ, thereby incorporating the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP and closing the area to commercial salmon fishing. In short, the rationale was that closure was a precautionary management approach, consistent with management throughout the West Area, avoided significantly increased costs and uncertainty, and drift gillnet fishing could continue entirely within State waters. On November 3, 2021, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP (86 FR 60568, November 3, 2021).

Amendment 14 was challenged by Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen before the first fishing season. On June 21, 2022, the U.S

ut the West Area, avoided significantly increased costs and uncertainty, and drift gillnet fishing could continue entirely within State waters. On November 3, 2021, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP (86 FR 60568, November 3, 2021).

Amendment 14 was challenged by Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen before the first fishing season. On June 21, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska vacated the implementing regulations for Amendment 14. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 2022 WL 2222879 (D. Alaska 2022). The Court found that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious, in part because NMFS failed to include management measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ recreational fishery in the FMP and because the Court determined the rule still implicitly deferred too much management authority to the State of Alaska without formally delegating such authority. Id. at *8-*9, *13-*15. The Court later ordered NMFS to promulgate a new FMP amendment to federally manage the Cook Inlet EEZ in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act by May 1, 2024. The 2022 and 2023 Cook Inlet EEZ fishing seasons were managed by the State under pre-Amendment 14 conditions.

Now, NMFS proposes Amendment 16 and implementing regulations that would federally manage all Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishing, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the decisions of the Ninth Circuit and the District Court.

Developing Management Alternatives for Amendment 16

ernatives for Amendment 16

In response to the District Court's ruling, at its first meeting since the ruling (October 2022), the Council initiated an analysis for a new amendment to the Salmon FMP for initial review at its December 2022 meeting. The Amendment 14 analysis was used as a basis for developing Amendment 16 because it contained the reasonable range of potential management alternatives. NMFS informed the Council that it would need to make a recommendation at its April 2023 meeting to allow NMFS sufficient time to implement a new FMP amendment by the Court's deadline.

The Council reviewed the updated analysis at its December 2022 meeting, and after considering public comment tasked staff with analyzing four alternatives for final action: Alternative 1 (status quo), Alternative 2 (delegated Federal management), Alternative 3 (Federal management), and Alternative 4 (Federal closure). NMFS, the Council, and the public did not identify any fundamentally new alternatives. The Council requested staff analyze Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, include management measures for the recreational salmon fishery sector, and identify any possible variations in management approaches under either alternative. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 were not viable options because of the courts' rulings, but were retained for analytical comparison.

Prior to the scheduled Council final action in April 2023, staff worked to improve Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. For Alternative 2, this included work to identify any added flexibilities under delegated management that might make delegation more appealing to the State while still complying with all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Previously, the State has expressed concerns over (1) the resources needed to manage fishing in the EEZ through the Council process (in addition to its Board of Fisheries process), and (2) Council review of State management targets that would be used to manage both the EEZ and State water fisheries that are not subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act

mplying with all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Previously, the State has expressed concerns over (1) the resources needed to manage fishing in the EEZ through the Council process (in addition to its Board of Fisheries process), and (2) Council review of State management targets that would be used to manage both the EEZ and State water fisheries that are not subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A fundamental constraint for delegated management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is that neither the Council nor the Secretary can force the State to accept delegated management authority. Though some additional flexibilities were identified in the analysis, ultimately the State still declined to accept a delegation of management authority for the fishery.

Alternative 3 was further refined to address concerns expressed by fishery stakeholders and the Council. The proposed management policy and objectives were updated to more closely reflect and balance the Council's approach to salmon management with the proposed Federal responsibilities under Alternative 3. Options for NMFS to prepare the fishery stock assessments and a multi-year harvest specification process were also evaluated in an effort to increase efficiency. Generally, the description of management measures was refined and improved to describe the most practicable management regime. This included the addition of a potential season closure date, expected Federal regulatory prohibitions, and proposed legal drift gillnet gear configurations.

et gear configurations.

During the Council process, Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery stakeholders generally expressed their perspective that this action, and all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, must be applied to both the Federal and State waters of Cook Inlet. However, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, there is only one narrow authority for NMFS to extend Federal jurisdiction into State waters. In order for a Federal FMP to govern fisheries occurring within State marine waters, both of the following conditions must be met under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)): (1) the fishery must occur predominantly within the EEZ, and (2) State management must substantially and adversely affect the carrying out of the FMP. As approximately 75 percent of the total annual upper Cook Inlet salmon harvest occurs within State waters, there is no authority for NMFS to assert management authority over the State water salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet. In addition, even when the two conditions above are met, under no circumstance does NMFS or the Council have authority to manage fishing within State internal waters where salmon spawning i.e., landward of the coastline).

Further, NMFS interprets Magnuson-Stevens Act language conferring “exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources” as granting NMFS jurisdiction to manage salmon further than 200 nmi from shore— i.e., beyond sovereign jurisdictional limits—rather than within 3nmi. The Magnuson-Stevens Act acknowledges that marine waters from the Alaskan coastline out to 3 nmi are under State jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) and provides for Federal management of those waters only when specific requirements described above are met, as they are not here. Therefore, Federal authority to manage Cook Inlet salmon fishing is limited to EEZ waters

imits—rather than within 3nmi. The Magnuson-Stevens Act acknowledges that marine waters from the Alaskan coastline out to 3 nmi are under State jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) and provides for Federal management of those waters only when specific requirements described above are met, as they are not here. Therefore, Federal authority to manage Cook Inlet salmon fishing is limited to EEZ waters. Of course, to manage the EEZ NMFS must and would, pursuant to Amendment 16, consider the condition of salmon stocks as a whole and the impacts that State salmon fisheries have on management of the EEZ. But NMFS lacks statutory authority to establish harvest limits or implement a harvest strategy that applies in State waters.

As most public commenters during the Council process emphasized, the jurisdictional issues in Cook Inlet are challenging because salmon are harvested in both State and Federal waters but originate from the same stocks that spawn entirely in State freshwaters. This makes separately managed State and Federal fisheries complex. Stakeholders and the Council noted with near unanimity that the State has significantly better tools, data, flexibility, and experience for inseason management of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. NMFS agrees with this assessment. NMFS would have preferred delegated management under Alternative 2 so that State expertise and flexibility could be directly utilized for management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The State has more than 60 years of experience managing salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet while NMFS has no prior experience managing these fisheries. However, because, pursuant to court order, the Cook Inlet EEZ must be managed under the FMP and the State declined to accept delegated management, the only remaining option was to create a new fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ managed by the Council and NMFS

e State has more than 60 years of experience managing salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet while NMFS has no prior experience managing these fisheries. However, because, pursuant to court order, the Cook Inlet EEZ must be managed under the FMP and the State declined to accept delegated management, the only remaining option was to create a new fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ managed by the Council and NMFS.

Another concern of stakeholders was transitioning from a management system that could most quickly open and close an EEZ fishery based on real-time escapement data to one with established annual catch limits (ACLs). Federal salmon management challenges are compounded by various constraints on NMFS's management flexibility: Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements that FMPs include a mechanism to establish ACLs; and notice and publication requirements for in-season actions under the Administrative Procedure Act that NMFS must abide by for all fishery management, including management of the Cook Inlet EEZ. These requirements make it infeasible for NMFS to implement an escapement-based salmon management approach in the Cook Inlet EEZ that is identical to that currently used by the State and familiar to stakeholders.

Another consistent concern voiced by stakeholders and the Council was about the impacts and difficulty of coordinating management of salmon stocks across separate State and Federal jurisdictions. Management measures under Alternative 3 were designed, within the limits of Federal authority, to address the impacts of managing salmon fisheries across jurisdictions. Because Federal managers have less administrative flexibility and less salmon management expertise than State managers, NMFS expects initial management of the Cook Inlet EEZ to be conservative to account for the significant uncertainty and minimize the risk of overfishing. For example, all existing data on harvests in the EEZ are estimates because management and catch reporting have never differentiated between State and EEZ waters

administrative flexibility and less salmon management expertise than State managers, NMFS expects initial management of the Cook Inlet EEZ to be conservative to account for the significant uncertainty and minimize the risk of overfishing. For example, all existing data on harvests in the EEZ are estimates because management and catch reporting have never differentiated between State and EEZ waters. After the implementation of Federal management, NMFS can begin collecting the data needed to address some of these uncertainties. Eventually, with better data NMFS may be able to more accurately project harvestable surpluses of salmon and liberalize future Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvests on stocks that can support additional harvest. However, NMFS does not see a way to immediately increase salmon harvests with less information, less flexibility, less expertise, more management uncertainty, and more scientific uncertainty at a time when salmon runs are experiencing significant volatility across most of Alaska and the Pacific coast. Further, no data can entirely eliminate the uncertainty associated with setting preseason catch limits—as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act—based on run forecasts that are never perfectly accurate. Over time, management measures may be refined as Federal managers gain experience and better data is available to assess harvest and stock composition within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

Another central contention of drift gillnet fishery stakeholders is that NMFS must manage to achieve MSY under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that appropriate management targets for Cook Inlet salmon stocks are not being used. Under any management alternative, NMFS's mandate is to achieve OY and prevent overfishing, not to achieve MSY. National Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery

ieve MSY under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that appropriate management targets for Cook Inlet salmon stocks are not being used. Under any management alternative, NMFS's mandate is to achieve OY and prevent overfishing, not to achieve MSY. National Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(33) defines “optimum,” with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery (16 U.S.C. 1802(33)). Simply put, MSY must be considered in establishing OY, but the actual management targets established for the fishery can vary considerably depending on the balancing of factors identified above. The catch limits established for federally-managed crab, groundfish, and scallop fisheries off Alaska are regularly set significantly below their respective MSY values in consideration of these factors.

Drift gillnet fishery stakeholders have also opined that because overfishing has been so rarely observed, there are no conservation concerns in Cook Inlet and therefore harvests may be increased. NMFS agrees that the State has successfully avoided overfishing over the long term. However, this is a result of proactive management that continually assesses conditions of the various stocks in Cook Inlet and implements restrictions in real time to avoid overfishing, rather than an indication that all salmon stocks are healthy and can support significant additional harvest in all instances

ased. NMFS agrees that the State has successfully avoided overfishing over the long term. However, this is a result of proactive management that continually assesses conditions of the various stocks in Cook Inlet and implements restrictions in real time to avoid overfishing, rather than an indication that all salmon stocks are healthy and can support significant additional harvest in all instances. Additional discussion of the specific factors that may constrain harvest on healthy salmon stocks in Cook Inlet is provided below in Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures.

When evaluating management alternatives, the Council also noted that Alternative 3 would have increased

When the Secretary develops an FMP Amendment, according to section 304(c)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Secretary must “conduct public hearings, at appropriate times and locations in the geographical areas concerned, so as to allow interested parties an opportunity to be heard in the preparation and amendment of the plan and any regulations implementing the plan.” In addition to the opportunities for public input provided at two Council meetings in Anchorage, AK, NMFS published a notice of a public hearing (88 FR 25382) on April 26, 2023 and held a public hearing on May 18, 2023. This public hearing was held virtually to maximize accessibility, and written public comments were accepted through May 25, 2023. Approximately 40 people attended the public hearing and NMFS received 12 written comments. Nearly all commenters were drift gillnet fishery stakeholders.

le attended the public hearing and NMFS received 12 written comments. Nearly all commenters were drift gillnet fishery stakeholders.

In general, drift gillnet fishery stakeholders that participated in the hearing expressed concerns about management that would establish preseason harvest limits rather than open and close the fishery throughout the fishing season based on real-time escapement data. In addition, they objected to any commercial fishery season closure date earlier than August or September, and any management that did not increase the number of weekly fishing periods over status quo, citing concerns about the economic viability of the drift gillnet fishery under conservative management, including existing State management. Participants emphasized that certain sockeye, chum, and pink salmon stocks have not been fully utilized in some years under the State management regime. NMFS took these comments into consideration during the development of Amendment 16 and this proposed rule. A more detailed description of comments received can be found in Section 1.5 of the Analysis.

NMFS also received multiple requests from tribal entities in the region for engagement meetings and consultations on the issue. NMFS held 3 tribal consultations and 3 tribal engagement sessions from February 2023 to June 2023 to provide information, receive input, and fulfill NMFS's responsibilities to conduct government to government consultations with tribes. Tribal members throughout Cook Inlet participate in all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, including the drift gillnet, as well as other commercial, recreational, subsistence, tribal, ceremonial, educational, and personal use salmon fisheries. Participants were universally concerned about the health of Cook Inlet salmon stocks

sponsibilities to conduct government to government consultations with tribes. Tribal members throughout Cook Inlet participate in all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, including the drift gillnet, as well as other commercial, recreational, subsistence, tribal, ceremonial, educational, and personal use salmon fisheries. Participants were universally concerned about the health of Cook Inlet salmon stocks. There were discussions about the complexity of salmon management throughout Cook Inlet, including information noting that Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks are healthy and can support additional harvest while others are severely depressed or otherwise require careful consideration. Many tribal groups expressed a particular concern about the health of Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks.

Throughout all of the tribal meetings, there was support for Alternatives 3 and 4, but not for Alternative 2. There was general concern about State management. Several tribal groups reported the challenges they had getting tribal priorities addressed by the State, with one group specifically citing the difficulty of getting the Ninilchik subsistence salmon fishery recognized and implemented. There was broad support for the establishment of new Federal tribal and subsistence fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Some also expressed the sentiment that under the existing State management regime, and likely Alternative 2, the Federal trust responsibility would be impeded by the State's involvement. Many felt that this would improve under either Alternative 3 or 4 with direct Federal management. There were divergent perspectives on possible management measures for the commercial fisheries, with some groups advocating for additional restrictions that would provide more salmon to subsistence harvesters and others requesting that current EEZ drift gillnet commercial salmon harvests be maintained or expanded

at this would improve under either Alternative 3 or 4 with direct Federal management. There were divergent perspectives on possible management measures for the commercial fisheries, with some groups advocating for additional restrictions that would provide more salmon to subsistence harvesters and others requesting that current EEZ drift gillnet commercial salmon harvests be maintained or expanded. Finally, there was a general acknowledgement of the limitations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the context of salmon management, but tribes expressed the view that this did not absolve the Federal responsibility to work to improve the health of Cook Inlet salmon stocks.

Several tribes indicated that the window of time available was too short and did not allow sufficient time for meaningful tribal consultations, and that this action should be delayed to allow for it. NMFS noted it was unable to delay action due to the Court deadline. A more detailed summary of feedback received at meetings with tribal groups is provided in Section 1.6 of the Analysis.

Action Summary and Rationale

This action would amend the Salmon FMP and revise Federal regulations. Amendment 16 would add the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to the Salmon FMP's fishery management unit. The FMP would also be amended to include all status determination criteria required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act for determining whether a stock is overfished (in terms of biomass) or subject to overfishing (in terms of the rate of removal). Amendment 16 would describe annual management processes, including the framework approach for establishing harvest specifications. The FMP would describe management measures related to fishing time, area, gear, and permits for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

cifications. The FMP would describe management measures related to fishing time, area, gear, and permits for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

This proposed rule would modify Federal regulations to implement Amendment 16 by revising the definition of Salmon Management Area at 50 CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and incorporate it into the Federal Salmon Management Area. This proposed rule would also create Figure 22 to 50 CFR part 679 to depict the location of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Regulations at 50 CFR 600.725 would be modified to authorize the use of drift gillnet gear for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery. Existing regulations related to salmon fisheries under the Salmon FMP throughout 50 CFR 679 would be moved to Subpart J—Salmon Fishery Management beginning at 50 CFR 679.110. Management measures necessary for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be added to Subpart J. The following sections provide a summary of management measures that would be implemented by this proposed rule.

Maximum Sustainable Yield and Optimum Yield

Amendment 16 would amend the Salmon FMP to include definitions of MSY and OY. All FMPs must be consistent with the 10 National Standards for fishery conservation and management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. National Standard 1 requires that fishery management measures prevent overfishing while achieving OY on a continuing basis. OY is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation

To have a sustainable salmon fishery, sufficient numbers of salmon from each stock must avoid harvest and reproduce (spawn) in freshwater. The number of spawning salmon is termed “escapement” because they have escaped capture by all fisheries and predators to spawn. Estimates of how many salmon are expected to return from a given number of spawning salmon can be developed through the long term process of comparing escapement numbers to subsequent return numbers

n from each stock must avoid harvest and reproduce (spawn) in freshwater. The number of spawning salmon is termed “escapement” because they have escaped capture by all fisheries and predators to spawn. Estimates of how many salmon are expected to return from a given number of spawning salmon can be developed through the long term process of comparing escapement numbers to subsequent return numbers. For most stocks, the long term management objective is to allow a range of spawners that is likely to result in the highest potential for future yield (harvest in excess of spawning escapement). There is always uncertainty in what number of spawners will result in the highest future yield because the percentage of salmon that survive is different each year due to environmental conditions, the quality of the spawning population, and other factors. As such, the same numbers of spawning salmon could produce different numbers of returning offspring in different years. Because of this, the target number of spawning salmon (escapement goal) is generally defined as a range that is likely to achieve high yields over a broad range of expected conditions.

For example, if an escapement goal range for a stock is established as 750,000 to 1,000,000 fish based on the best available scientific information, then management is adjusted to try and achieve escapement within that range each year. The escapement target is fixed regardless of any other factor, unless or until better information becomes available that would cause fishery managers to revise an escapement goal. However, because of both changes to actual escapement and the survival of salmon, the management measures required to achieve the escapement goal can be very different across years. If the survival rate of offspring is poor in any given year—perhaps due to prevailing ocean conditions that year—then it is possible that few or no returning salmon could be harvested by fisheries while still allowing sufficient numbers to spawn and achieve the escapement goal

he survival of salmon, the management measures required to achieve the escapement goal can be very different across years. If the survival rate of offspring is poor in any given year—perhaps due to prevailing ocean conditions that year—then it is possible that few or no returning salmon could be harvested by fisheries while still allowing sufficient numbers to spawn and achieve the escapement goal. In contrast, when the survival rate is high, then fishing opportunities can be liberalized while still meeting the escapement goal. Escapement goals are often fixed for multiple years, and are only changed when multiple additional years of spawning and returning salmon show that a different number of spawning salmon is likely to optimize yields due to changing environmental conditions, better data, or other considerations. As described in the Salmon FMP, escapement goals for each stock will be vetted through the Federal management process. Harvest specifications established under Federal management would set ACLs to achieve at least the lower bound of spawning escapement goals for each stock to provide as much harvest opportunity as possible while avoiding overfishing on all stocks.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSY is defined as the largest long-term average catch that can be taken by the fishery under prevailing ecological, environmental conditions and fishery technological characteristics ( e.g., gear selectivity), and the distribution of catch among fishery sectors (50 CFR 600.310(e)(1)(i)). Under Amendment 16, MSY would be specified for salmon stocks and stock complexes in Cook Inlet, consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. MSY would be defined as the maximum potential yield, which is calculated by subtracting the lower bound of the escapement goal (or another value as recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) based on the best scientific information available) from the total run size for stocks where data are available

xes in Cook Inlet, consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. MSY would be defined as the maximum potential yield, which is calculated by subtracting the lower bound of the escapement goal (or another value as recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) based on the best scientific information available) from the total run size for stocks where data are available. Any fish in excess of that necessary to achieve the escapement goal for each stock or stock complex are theoretically available for harvest under this definition of MSY. For stocks where escapement is not known, historical catch would be used as a proxy for MSY.

This definition of MSY is based on escapement goals established for salmon stocks in Cook Inlet, as informed by salmon stock assessments that use the best scientific information available, and undergo peer review by the Council's SSC. Escapement goals account for biological productivity and other ecological factors. Representative indicator stocks are used to determine a suitable MSY proxy for stock complexes where escapement is not directly known for each component stock. Currently, the best scientific information available to determine escapement goals for stocks in Cook Inlet are contained in the escapement goal analysis reports developed by the State of Alaska, which have been vetted by the SSC (Sections 3.1 and 12 of the Analysis). The escapement goals and catch history used to establish MSY for each stock and stock complex would continue be evaluated by the SSC during the annual stock assessment and harvest specification process and changed if necessary as new scientific information becomes available

l analysis reports developed by the State of Alaska, which have been vetted by the SSC (Sections 3.1 and 12 of the Analysis). The escapement goals and catch history used to establish MSY for each stock and stock complex would continue be evaluated by the SSC during the annual stock assessment and harvest specification process and changed if necessary as new scientific information becomes available.

As discussed in Section 14 of the Analysis, prior to endorsing this definition of MSY, the SSC reviewed an independent analysis of the primary sockeye salmon stocks harvested by the fishery (Late-Run Kenai and Kasilof) that found that estimates of spawning abundance expected to maximize yield were in agreement with the State escapement goal ranges established for these stocks. Further, the SSC considered alternate analyses submitted through public comment at the Council and did not find that they provided a better estimate of MSY.

OY is another critical reference point because it defines the long-term management target for the fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section (3)(33) defines “optimum,” with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level

Because OY must be defined on the basis of MSY, the potential upper bound would be all excess yield above the lower bound of the escapement goal for each stock in the EEZ

rine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level

Because OY must be defined on the basis of MSY, the potential upper bound would be all excess yield above the lower bound of the escapement goal for each stock in the EEZ. However, because it is not possible to harvest one stock at a time in this mixed stock fishery, because there are weak stocks intermingled with stocks that regularly exceed their escapement goal, and because harvest of all Cook Inlet stocks also occurs in State marine and fresh waters, OY must be reduced from MSY to account for these various ecological, economic, and social factors. For this reason, OY would be defined at the fishery level to account for mixed stock harvest and variabilities in run strength.

Defining OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery is particularly challenging. Scientific information critical to defining OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ includes estimates of stock-specific historical harvests by fishery sector and escapements, as well as salmon stock assessments. All of these elements have varied substantially over time as a result of changes in salmon productivity, the relative abundance of salmon stocks, management measures intended to protect weak stocks, and management measures that have changed the allocations among salmon harvesters in Cook Inlet as the regional population has grown and fisheries have further developed.

ations among salmon harvesters in Cook Inlet as the regional population has grown and fisheries have further developed.

Amendment 16 would define the OY range for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fisheries in the Salmon FMP as the range between the averages of the three lowest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest and the three highest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest from 1999 to 2021. The intent of using averages of the years with lowest and highest years of harvests is to temper the influence of extreme events in defining OY ( e.g., fishery disasters at the low end, or extremely large harvests at the high end), thereby resulting in a range of harvests that are likely to be sustainable and provide the greatest net benefit to the Nation into the future. The period of time under consideration (1999-2021) represents the full range of years for which reliable estimates of Cook Inlet EEZ harvest are currently available, and represents a broad range of recent conditions in the fishery that may also be reasonably foreseeable in the future. This includes periods when State regulations allowed additional drift gillnet harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ, as well as periods when time and area restrictions have limited harvest in the area. Harvests by the recreational sector in the area have averaged under 100 salmon per year, but are also included in the OY range. This results in a proposed OY range of approximately 291,631 to 1,551,464 salmon of all species.

n the OY range. This results in a proposed OY range of approximately 291,631 to 1,551,464 salmon of all species.

This OY also reflects a range of harvests that have provided for viable fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ in both high and low salmon abundance years across a wide range of ecological conditions while also avoiding overfishing and achieving escapement goals for most stocks in most years. Looking at average total EEZ salmon harvest in years of high and low abundance accounts for the fact that the different stocks and species of salmon will have varying total and relative abundances each year—a high abundance year for one species may be a low abundance year for another. It also acknowledges that the Cook Inlet EEZ commercial salmon fishery sector, which harvests over 99.99 percent of salmon in the EEZ (the remaining harvest being recreational), cannot individually target strong stocks of salmon without also harvesting other stocks that may not be able to support as much harvest and still meet their escapement goal. OY would therefore be defined as the average range of target EEZ harvest across all species that maximizes fishing opportunities while preventing overfishing on any one stock. This OY range provides the greatest overall net benefits to the Nation because it would ensure sustainable stock levels throughout the ecosystem, preserve a viable commercial fishery sector that ensures continued food production, maintain a viable recreational fishing sector that attracts participants from throughout the Nation, and protect subsistence harvest opportunities.

Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits

Amendment 16 would specify objective and measurable criteria for determining when a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing or overfished. These are referred to as status determination criteria, and are established during the harvest specification process and evaluated each year after fishing is complete

ence harvest opportunities.

Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits

Amendment 16 would establish a tier system to assess salmon stocks based on the amount of available information for each stock. NMFS would annually assign each salmon stock into a tier based on the best available scientific information during the harvest specifications process as follows:

• Tier 1: salmon stocks with escapement goals and stock-specific estimates of harvests • Tier 2: salmon stocks managed as a complex, with specific salmon stocks as indicator stocks • Tier 3: salmon stocks or stock complexes with no reliable estimates of escapement The tier system uses a multi-year approach for calculating the status determination criteria. This accounts for high uncertainty in the estimate of fishery mortality in the most recent year, high stock abundance fluctuations, assessments that are not timely enough to forecast such changes, and the fact that a cohort of salmon spawned in a single year may return at different ages to be harvested or spawn.

For stocks and stock complexes where escapement is known ( e.g., Tier 1), or is thought to be a reliable index for the number of spawners in a stock complex (Tier 2), overfishing is defined as occurring when the fishing mortality rate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (F EEZ ) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality threshold (MFMT). The MFMT for a stock or stock complex is calculated as the sum of maximum potential yield for that stock in the EEZ for the most recent generation ( e.g., the most recent 5 years for sockeye salmon), divided by the sum of total run size of that stock for the most recent generation

the fishing mortality rate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (F EEZ ) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality threshold (MFMT). The MFMT for a stock or stock complex is calculated as the sum of maximum potential yield for that stock in the EEZ for the most recent generation ( e.g., the most recent 5 years for sockeye salmon), divided by the sum of total run size of that stock for the most recent generation. This calculation would be used to evaluate whether overfishing occurred each year. For this definition, maximum potential yield in the EEZ means harvest in excess of the spawning escapement goal ( e.g., lower bound of the spawning escapement goal) when accounting for harvests in other fisheries. Escapement goals used in calculating the status determination criteria for each stock would be recommended by NMFS and adopted by the SSC based on the best scientific information available.

For Tier 3 stocks, which have no reliable estimates of escapement, overfishing would occur when harvest exceeds the overfishing limit (OFL). The OFL for Tier 3 stocks would be set as the maximum EEZ catch of the stock multiplied by the generation time (years). The result of this calculation would be compared against the

Under National Standard 1, a stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its biomass declines below a minimum stock size threshold (MSST). MSST means the level of biomass below which the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis has been jeopardized. Escapement is used to evaluate a salmon stock's capacity to produce MSY. For Cook Inlet salmon, the MSST will be calculated for stocks in Tier 1 and 2 as follows: a stock or stock complex is overfished when summed escapements over a generation fall below one half of summed spawning escapement goals over that generation. Escapement goals used in establishing Federal status determination criteria would be recommended by NMFS and adopted by the SSC

apacity to produce MSY. For Cook Inlet salmon, the MSST will be calculated for stocks in Tier 1 and 2 as follows: a stock or stock complex is overfished when summed escapements over a generation fall below one half of summed spawning escapement goals over that generation. Escapement goals used in establishing Federal status determination criteria would be recommended by NMFS and adopted by the SSC.

For Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks, the Salmon FMP would specify OFL as the amount of salmon harvest in the EEZ for the coming year that would correspond with the MFMT, based on information available preseason. Acceptable biological catch (ABC) would then be established based on OFL. As an ABC control rule, ABC must be less than or equal to OFL, and the SSC may recommend reducing ABC from OFL to account for scientific uncertainty, including uncertainty associated with the assessment of spawning escapement goals, forecasts, harvests, and other sources of uncertainty. The annual catch limit (ACL) for each stock would then be set equal to ABC.

For Tier 3 stocks there is not information to determine MSST. ABC for these stocks would be based on the OFL with an additional buffer for scientific uncertainty. As an ABC control rule, ABC could be set lower by applying a more conservative buffer to the OFL to account for greater scientific uncertainty regarding the stock. ACL would then be set at ABC.

While ABC and ACL would be calculated based on the best scientific information available preseason when harvest specifications must be established, realized harvest and escapement data would be used postseason to determine whether ACLs were exceeded, whether overfishing occurred, and if any stocks were overfished. Accountability measures would be applied to prevent the recurrence of any ACL overages.

De Minimis Fishing Provision

There are significant concerns about some Cook Inlet salmon stocks that are at low levels of abundance and productivity

harvest and escapement data would be used postseason to determine whether ACLs were exceeded, whether overfishing occurred, and if any stocks were overfished. Accountability measures would be applied to prevent the recurrence of any ACL overages.

De Minimis Fishing Provision

There are significant concerns about some Cook Inlet salmon stocks that are at low levels of abundance and productivity. For example, despite extensive fishery restrictions, there have been several recent years in which Chinook salmon escapements for some stocks did not meet their escapement goals and drift gillnet fishing was still allowed. As discussed later in Mixed Stock Management Considerations, the drift gillnet fleet harvests only small quantities of Chinook salmon, and they are not a primary target species for the fishery.

De minimis fishing provisions would allow small amounts of incidental catch of stocks that are at low levels of abundance and for which there is minimal or no available projected yield, so long as de minimis harvest would not result in overfishing or the stock becoming overfished. De minimis fishing provisions give flexibility to the process of setting status determination criteria when the escapement goals for limiting stocks are projected to not be met, but harvest by the fishery is not expected to have significant impacts to the stock or result in a conservation concern. This can provide opportunity to harvest salmon stocks that are more abundant and reduce the risk of fishery restrictions that impose severe economic consequences on fishing communities without substantive management or conservation benefits. While de minimis provisions would be intended to provide management flexibility, there is an overriding mandate to prevent overfishing on and preserve the long-term productive capacity of all stocks to ensure meaningful contributions to all fisheries in the future

y restrictions that impose severe economic consequences on fishing communities without substantive management or conservation benefits. While de minimis provisions would be intended to provide management flexibility, there is an overriding mandate to prevent overfishing on and preserve the long-term productive capacity of all stocks to ensure meaningful contributions to all fisheries in the future.

Under Amendment 16, if a preseason forecast suggests that the lower bound of the escapement goal will not be achieved for a given stock, de minimis harvest on the stock may be allowed if the SSC determines that the de minimis harvest will not result in overfishing. Thus, the maximum allowable de minimis harvest amount would be established to keep the post-season fishing mortality rate below MFMT.

The SSC may recommend limiting allowable de minimis catch as needed to address uncertainties or year-specific circumstances. When recommending a de minimis catch limit in a given year, the SSC may also consider recent and projected abundance levels; the predicted magnitude of harvest in the EEZ; the status of other stocks in the mixed-stock fishery; indicators of marine and freshwater environmental conditions; impacts from other fisheries; whether the stock is currently subject to overfishing or approaching an overfished condition; whether the stock is currently overfished; and any other scientific considerations as appropriate.

Management measures and any required accountability measures necessary to implement a de minimis harvest provision and prevent overfishing or any stock becoming overfished would be considered during the harvest specifications process.

Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes

Amendment 16 would establish the annual harvest specification process for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, along with specific definitions of required status determination criteria using the tier system described in the previous section

ion and prevent overfishing or any stock becoming overfished would be considered during the harvest specifications process.

Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes

The Federal fishery management cycle begins with the preparation of a Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) report. The SAFE report would provide the SSC and Council with a summary of the most recent biological condition of the salmon stocks, including all status determination criteria, and the social and economic condition of the fishing and processing industries. NMFS would develop the SAFE for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and public review would occur through the SSC and Council process. The Council could choose to establish a plan team through subsequent action.

The SAFE report would summarize the best available scientific information concerning the past, present, and possible future condition of Cook Inlet salmon stocks and fisheries, along with ecosystem considerations. This would include recommendations of OFL, ABC, ACL, and MSST that are calculated following the tier system in the FMP and described in Section 2.5.2 of the Analysis. The SAFE report would include a final post-season evaluation of the previous fishing year based on realized catches and escapement with all information needed to make “overfishing” and “overfished” determinations, as well as recommendations to develop harvest specifications for the upcoming fishing year. All recommendations would be based on the best scientific information available and would take into account any applicable uncertainty

st-season evaluation of the previous fishing year based on realized catches and escapement with all information needed to make “overfishing” and “overfished” determinations, as well as recommendations to develop harvest specifications for the upcoming fishing year. All recommendations would be based on the best scientific information available and would take into account any applicable uncertainty. In providing this information, the Salmon SAFE would use a time series of historical catch for each salmon stock, including estimates of retained and discarded catch taken in the salmon fishery; bycatch taken in other fisheries; catch in e.g., test fisheries).

The Salmon SAFE report would also provide information to the Council for documenting significant trends or changes in the stocks, marine ecosystem, and fisheries over time, as well as the impacts of management. The Cook Inlet EEZ Area Salmon SAFE would be structured like other Council SAFEs such that stock assessments, economic analyses, and ecosystem considerations comprise the three major themes of the SAFE document. The SAFE could contain economic, social, community, essential fish habitat, and ecological information pertinent to the success of salmon management or the achievement of Salmon FMP objectives.

The SSC would review the SAFE and recommend the OFL, ABC, ACL, MFMT, and MSST, which are cumulatively used to determine the maximum allowable harvest for each stock based on biology and scientific uncertainty in the assessments. This SSC review would constitute the official, peer review of scientific information used to manage the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery for the purposes of the Information Quality Act. Upon review and acceptance by the SSC, the Salmon SAFE and any associated SSC comments would constitute the best scientific information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Council would then recommend total allowable catches (TACs) for each salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery to the Secretary

Area salmon fishery for the purposes of the Information Quality Act. Upon review and acceptance by the SSC, the Salmon SAFE and any associated SSC comments would constitute the best scientific information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Council would then recommend total allowable catches (TACs) for each salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery to the Secretary. The TAC is referred to as an “Annual Catch Target” in the National Standard 1 guidelines, but hereafter referred to as a TAC given common usage of the term by the Council. Closing a fishery when TACs are met is a recommended form of an accountability measure (AM) used to ensure an ACL is not exceeded. A TAC is an amount of annual catch of a stock, stock complex, or species that is the management target of the fishery, accounts for management uncertainty in controlling the catch at or below the ACL, and must be set equal to or less than ABC. The TACs would be set at the species level because estimates of stock contribution to EEZ fishery harvests cannot currently be made until after the fishing season. As such, in setting the TAC for each species, the Council would consider the estimated proportional contribution of each stock to total harvest of a species such that ACLs are not expected to be exceeded for any component stock if the TAC is fully achieved. If inseason genetic information becomes available, it may be possible to establish and manage for TACs for individual stocks within the same species ( e.g., Kenai River sockeye and Kasilof River sockeye). Because NMFS and the Council have never previously managed a drift gillnet salmon fishery in Alaska, and as described in Section 2.5.2.6 of the Analysis, there are significant new management uncertainties that are introduced by this action, TACs will be a crucial management tool.

To establish these Magnuson-Stevens Act required ACLs and their implementing TACs, NMFS would publish proposed and final salmon harvest specifications in the Federal Register

a drift gillnet salmon fishery in Alaska, and as described in Section 2.5.2.6 of the Analysis, there are significant new management uncertainties that are introduced by this action, TACs will be a crucial management tool.

To establish these Magnuson-Stevens Act required ACLs and their implementing TACs, NMFS would publish proposed and final salmon harvest specifications in the Federal Register . Under the Federal rulemaking process, the public is informed through the Federal Register of Federal actions and can comment on them and provide additional information to the agency. A final rule is then issued with modifications, as needed, and includes the agency responses to issues raised by public comments. This is a lengthy process: it takes a significant amount of time to conduct the stock assessments, review them through the SSC and Council, make any overfishing or overfished determinations, recommend TACs, and then conduct notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Because harvest specifications must be in place before the fishery begins, this process must rely on salmon forecasts. NMFS would use Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) pre-season salmon forecasts (subject to NMFS and SSC review) or develop suitable alternate forecasts. Fundamentally, status determination criteria and harvest specifications would be calculated in terms of potential yield for the Cook Inlet EEZ and would be based, in part, on the forecasted run size minus the minimum number of salmon required for spawning and the expected mortality in other fisheries. If no forecasts are available, NMFS would use fishery catch in prior years to inform harvest specification, as it does for other data-limited fisheries.

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures

Salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet are complex and must take into account many different factors when establishing management measures for each component sector

ality in other fisheries. If no forecasts are available, NMFS would use fishery catch in prior years to inform harvest specification, as it does for other data-limited fisheries.

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures

Salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet are complex and must take into account many different factors when establishing management measures for each component sector. The drift gillnet fleet generally harvests the largest proportion of salmon in Cook Inlet of any fishery sector and has significant harvest power. The State has historically managed the drift gillnet fishery through the combination of time and areas open to fishing. This section provides a discussion of key considerations related to status quo management of the Cook Inlet drift gillnet fleet and proposed Cook Inlet EEZ management measures under this action.

Seasonal Fishery Progression

Commercial salmon fishing in Cook Inlet is bounded by when salmon return to the Cook Inlet en route to natal freshwater locations to spawn. Commercial salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet begin in June under State regulations. Around this time, Chinook salmon are already present in Cook Inlet and sockeye salmon begin migrating into Cook Inlet from the Gulf of Alaska. As salmon begin to move into Cook Inlet, with the exception of Chinook, they typically group in large tide rips in the middle of Cook Inlet ( i.e., the EEZ) to start moving north up the inlet toward their spawning streams, rivers, and lakes. The first commercial fishery that salmon typically encounter when moving up Cook Inlet is the upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery. Commercial salmon fisheries south of this area occur entirely in State waters.

oving up Cook Inlet is the upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery. Commercial salmon fisheries south of this area occur entirely in State waters.

In the Cook Inlet EEZ, salmon stocks originating from throughout Cook Inlet are mixed together. As they move northward up farther into Cook Inlet, individual salmon stocks will eventually move shoreward into State waters to reach their spawning streams. Stocks returning to freshwater systems farther north in Cook Inlet tend to stay close to the middle of the inlet when they move through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The Upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery occurs entirely within the State's “Central District,” which are waters north of the Anchor Point line at 59°46.15′ N to approximately Boulder Point at 60°46.39′ N. Commercial, subsistence, recreational, and personal use salmon fisheries also occur northward of Boulder Point, which includes the waters of Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm, and this area is generally referred to as the State's “Northern District.” All salmon returning to the Northern District must first past through fisheries in the Central District before reaching fisheries and spawning grounds in the Northern District.

Mixed Stock Management Considerations

In recent years, the State's management of Cook Inlet salmon has been complicated by the relative abundance of salmon stocks, and the characteristics of the different user groups and gear types. Central District

The amount and proportion of harvest by each fishery is significantly impacted by which salmon stocks it targets, or cannot avoid, and whether unintended catch can be released alive. Gillnet gear generally catch all species of salmon in the area and cannot target individual stocks. It is assumed that salmon that become entangled in commercial gillnet gear generally do not survive being released. Therefore, management must consider all stocks that would be harvested by each drift gillnet fishery opening, the conservation status of each stock, and their relative abundance

alive. Gillnet gear generally catch all species of salmon in the area and cannot target individual stocks. It is assumed that salmon that become entangled in commercial gillnet gear generally do not survive being released. Therefore, management must consider all stocks that would be harvested by each drift gillnet fishery opening, the conservation status of each stock, and their relative abundance. While Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks have been abundant in recent years, salmon abundance can be highly variable over time and management plans must be able to account for a wide variety of absolute and relative salmon stock abundance scenarios.

The drift gillnet fishery harvests only approximately 1 percent of upper Cook Inlet Chinook salmon, on average. This is because Chinook salmon generally migrate in State waters near the shore outside of EEZ and State waters open to drift gillnet fishing, or at depths below drift gillnet gear. However, the drift gillnet fishery, particularly in the Cook Inlet EEZ, can catch significant quantities of Cook Inlet sockeye and coho salmon stocks bound for the Northern District. These are smaller and less productive stocks that cannot support as much harvest as co-occurring Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks. The Cook Inlet EEZ is a productive fishing area for all Cook Inlet sockeye salmon and coho stocks, as they are aggregated in tide rips within the Cook Inlet EEZ.

Fishing at a rate to fully harvest the most abundant stocks would likely result in overfishing on these weaker or less abundant salmon stocks. Therefore, to support conservation of these Northern District stocks, and to ensure at least some harvestable surplus for Northern District salmon fisheries, the State has reduced the number of drift gillnet fishing periods in Cook Inlet EEZ waters after July 15 to minimize mixed stock harvests

most abundant stocks would likely result in overfishing on these weaker or less abundant salmon stocks. Therefore, to support conservation of these Northern District stocks, and to ensure at least some harvestable surplus for Northern District salmon fisheries, the State has reduced the number of drift gillnet fishing periods in Cook Inlet EEZ waters after July 15 to minimize mixed stock harvests. After this date, State management measures in the last decade generally reduced fishing time in the EEZ and provided additional fishing time in State waters on the east side of Cook Inlet, adjacent to the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers to focus harvests on Kenai and Kasilof salmon stocks during the peak of the run. This management approach was in response to significant declines in coho salmon stocks and long term yield concerns for Northern District sockeye salmon, as well as an increasing populations in the Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula areas utilizing Cook Inlet salmon resources. This has also limited the drift gillnet fleet's harvests of pink and chum salmon stocks.

Additionally, reducing Cook Inlet EEZ harvests after July 15 allows for the collection of more data on escapement and realized salmon abundance in order to either avoid overharvesting a given stock or increase harvest to more fully utilize abundant runs. After July 15, the amount of fishing time available to the drift gillnet fleet under State management has varied widely depending on run strength. For Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks, managers get robust information on run strength from an inseason abundance model around July 25. Prior to July 25, there is significant uncertainty from the inseason model about run strength for these stocks, which increases management uncertainty. A major concern is harvesting too many fish and not meeting spawning escapement goals, potentially resulting in overfishing

ilof sockeye salmon stocks, managers get robust information on run strength from an inseason abundance model around July 25. Prior to July 25, there is significant uncertainty from the inseason model about run strength for these stocks, which increases management uncertainty. A major concern is harvesting too many fish and not meeting spawning escapement goals, potentially resulting in overfishing. This issue is exacerbated for Northern District stocks, for which there is significant time lag (relative to Kenai and Kasilof stocks) between harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ and information on escapement becoming available.

The State has adjusted management within State waters, where stocks are more distinctly separated, to focus on harvests on Kenai or Kasilof stocks while minimizing drift gillnet harvests of Northern District salmon stocks. Fishery managers must also account for harvest in freshwater fisheries upstream of escapement monitoring when making management decisions to reach final escapement goal targets ( e.g., 1.4 million salmon may be counted at the monitoring station, but if 200,000 are subsequently caught in freshwater fisheries, than only 1.2 million salmon would actually spawn).

Proposed Federal Commercial Fishing Season and Fishing Periods

Under this proposed rule, the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would open to commercial drift gillnet fishing on a Monday, either the third Monday in June or the Monday on or after June 19, whichever is later. Prior to this time, salmon stocks harvested by the drift gillnet fleet are not present in commercially viable quantities. Historically, estimated harvests in the EEZ have been relatively small during the initial openings as sockeye salmon are just beginning to move into the area and the bulk of the fish do not arrive until July. Opening after mid-June helps avoid potential additional impacts to early-run Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks. These stocks migrate through upper Cook Inlet in May and early June

quantities. Historically, estimated harvests in the EEZ have been relatively small during the initial openings as sockeye salmon are just beginning to move into the area and the bulk of the fish do not arrive until July. Opening after mid-June helps avoid potential additional impacts to early-run Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks. These stocks migrate through upper Cook Inlet in May and early June. Opening the drift gillnet fishery after mid-June would also continue to provide consistent data to inform State and Federal managers about preliminary estimates of run strength compared to historical averages. The scientific test fishery carried out by the State, which also helps provide information about salmon run strength in Cook Inlet, would not be affected by this action and could continue to occur.

After the season start date, this proposed rule would open the Cook Inlet EEZ Area for drift gillnet fishing for two,12-hour periods each week, from 7 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, and from 7 a.m. Thursday until 7 p.m. Thursday until either (1) the TAC is reached, or (2) August 15, whichever comes first. This schedule would align possible drift gillnet fishing periods in the Cook Inlet EEZ with current State drift gillnet periods, thereby maintaining a similar number of regular drift gillnet fishing periods per week. If the State and Federal fisheries were open on separate days, there could be additional drift gillnet openings that could result in significantly increased harvest (the drift gillnet fleet has the potential to harvest over 300,000 salmon per opening), and there are not existing data to inform managers about the potential impacts of additional openings on spawning escapement and other salmon users.

Some drift gillnet fishery stakeholders requested that NMFS open the drift gillnet fishery for three, 12-hour periods per week from June through October

harvest (the drift gillnet fleet has the potential to harvest over 300,000 salmon per opening), and there are not existing data to inform managers about the potential impacts of additional openings on spawning escapement and other salmon users.

Some drift gillnet fishery stakeholders requested that NMFS open the drift gillnet fishery for three, 12-hour periods per week from June through October. If NMFS were to allow that amount of fishing opportunity, overfishing on some Cook Inlet salmon stocks—particularly Northern District stocks of low abundance—would be more likely. Under such a management approach, it is possible that even a complete closure

NMFS received input from other Northern District salmon users and tribes in Northern Cook Inlet requesting that Federal management measures limit EEZ harvests during the middle of the season to allow for a harvestable surplus of salmon for Northern District salmon fisheries.

As a result of this conflicting feedback, NMFS carefully considered when the commercial drift gillnet fishery in the EEZ should be closed. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ACLs must be established for each fishery, along with accountability measures to prevent ACLs from being exceeded. Because there is both scientific and management uncertainty surrounding the ACLs set for each stock or stock complex, TACs are set as the management target for the fishery to prevent exceeding ACLs. The fishery would be closed when the TAC for a single species is reached. Because of the mixed-stock nature of the fishery, the drift gillnet fleet could not avoid continuing to harvest stocks for which the TAC had been reached and target only those stocks for which there was still TAC remaining.

ocks for which the TAC had been reached and target only those stocks for which there was still TAC remaining.

In addition to closing the fishery when a TAC is reached, NMFS considered whether a fixed commercial fishery season closure date may be required. Season closure dates are commonly used to end fisheries when a TAC is not reached, and to achieve other conservation and management objectives. To describe how these management measures would interact, the fishery would close before the closure date if the TAC is reached prior to that date. NMFS may also close the fishery before a TAC or the closure date is reached in the event it has information showing further fishery openings could result in overfishing of any stock. One potential example of this is if actual salmon returns were significantly below the salmon forecasts. In this instance, fishing to fully achieve a TAC based on a forecast that is much higher than realized abundance could result in not meeting at least the lower bound of the escapement goal, overfishing occurring, or both.

In developing this proposed rule NMFS evaluated a range of potential options, including no closure date and a closure date as early as July 9. After receiving input from drift gillnet stakeholders that a fixed July closure could severely restrict fishing opportunities and would not account for delayed run timing that has been observed in recent years, NMFS is proposing an August 15 closure date. In years when there is sufficient TAC and salmon abundance to support a longer fishing season, this could result in additional EEZ fishing days in mid-July and greater harvest of one or more stocks in the EEZ relative to status quo management. However, due to mixed stock management considerations, total annual removals in the Cook Inlet EEZ and throughout Cook Inlet would generally be expected to remain consistent with historical averages that, when accounting for run size, have prevented overfishing

result in additional EEZ fishing days in mid-July and greater harvest of one or more stocks in the EEZ relative to status quo management. However, due to mixed stock management considerations, total annual removals in the Cook Inlet EEZ and throughout Cook Inlet would generally be expected to remain consistent with historical averages that, when accounting for run size, have prevented overfishing. NMFS would still manage to protect weak stocks in Northern Cook Inlet in years of low abundance. As under existing management, the number of EEZ fishing days is expected to vary based on the abundance of salmon ( i.e., amount of fishing time required to achieve the target harvest when accounting for all stocks that are being harvested before the fishery is closed). NMFS also received input from other Cook Inlet stakeholders concerned about the potential negative impacts of an extended EEZ drift gillnet fishery on salmon stocks and later occurring fisheries in Cook Inlet, particularly without restrictions in mid-July that have been occurring under State management. These stakeholders raised concerns about reduced harvestable surplus for other fisheries outside of the EEZ and concerns about achieving spawning escapement goals. NMFS anticipates addressing these concerns through the annual harvest specification process, which would account for total removals of each stock and scientific uncertainty.

NMFS is particularly interested in feedback from the public about the implications of an August 15 closure date—or an earlier or later closure date—on fishery resources and participants, or impacts on any other part of the ecosystem. NMFS will take all public comments into consideration and may modify the closure date in the final rule.

NMFS has significant concerns about management measures that would significantly increase salmon harvests above the status quo, particularly of Northern District salmon stocks, because that may decrease prey availability for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales

inseason action to close the fishery if projections indicate that an additional fishery opening would be expected to exceed the TAC specified for one or more salmon stocks or species. Inseason actions also may be necessary to ensure that overfishing of salmon stocks or species does not occur. NMFS would publish every inseason action in the Federal Register to notify the public of the effectiveness.

NMFS would monitor all available sources of information during the fishery to evaluate whether the TAC was specified correctly. If information indicates that the number of salmon returning to Cook Inlet is significantly different than what was forecasted, NMFS may make adjustments to management of the fishery. If information indicates that run strength is significantly below what was forecasted, then fishing to fully achieve that TAC would likely result in overfishing. Therefore, NMFS may close the fishery before the season closure date to prevent overfishing if information indicates that abundance is significantly lower than expected. This may be determined based on fishery catches, test-fishery catches, escapement, or any other scientific information.

NMFS may consider an inseason adjustment to modify the TAC if scientific information indicates that salmon abundance is significantly higher than forecasted. To implement an inseason adjustment, NMFS must publish a temporary rule in the Federal Register and consider all public comments on the action. Any such action must not result in overfishing on any other co-occurring fish stocks and

This proposed rule also considers the potential for adjustments to fishing time and area, as well as reopening the fishery within the fishing season defined in regulation to achieve conservation and management goals. These tools may be used to either increase or decrease harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery as appropriate based on the specified TAC amounts, the amount already harvested, and other available information

ntial for adjustments to fishing time and area, as well as reopening the fishery within the fishing season defined in regulation to achieve conservation and management goals. These tools may be used to either increase or decrease harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery as appropriate based on the specified TAC amounts, the amount already harvested, and other available information. NMFS expects to refine application of these management tools as it develops management expertise and collects data over time.

Proposed Federal Management Area

The proposed management area is all Federal waters of upper Cook Inlet (EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′ N). This is analogous to previous State management of the area under “Area 1” openings, excluding the State water portion of the area off the Southeast corner of Kalgin Island. The State's “Districtwide” openings included all of the Federal waters in “Area 1” and also allowed fishing in all State waters of the Central District. The State's openings of these areas include approximately all Federal waters of upper Cook Inlet.

Retention of Bycatch

Drift gillnet vessels fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be able to retain and sell non-salmon bycatch including groundfish ( e.g., Pacific cod, pollock, flounders, etc. ). These are referred to as incidental catch species and this proposed rule allows fishermen to retain these species up to a specified maximum retainable amount (MRA). Drift gillnet vessels retaining non-salmon incidental catch species would be required to have a groundfish Federal fisheries permit (FFP) as well as comply with all State requirements when landing these fish in Alaska. The MRA of an incidental catch species is determined as a proportion of the weight of salmon on board the vessel.

Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 is used to calculate MRA amounts in the Gulf of Alaska, and would also be used to calculate MRA amounts for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area

a groundfish Federal fisheries permit (FFP) as well as comply with all State requirements when landing these fish in Alaska. The MRA of an incidental catch species is determined as a proportion of the weight of salmon on board the vessel.

Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 is used to calculate MRA amounts in the Gulf of Alaska, and would also be used to calculate MRA amounts for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. For commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, the basis species would be salmon, which would be classified as “Aggregated amount of non-groundfish species” for the purposes of the calculation. To obtain the MRAs for each incidental catch species, multiply the retainable percentage for the incidental catch species by the round weight of salmon (Basis Species—Aggregated amount of non-groundfish species) on board. For example, if there were 100 pounds (45.36 kg) of salmon aboard the vessel, then 20 pounds (9.07 kg) of pollock could be retained, 5 pounds (2.27 kg) of aggregated rockfish, 20 pounds (9.07 kg) of sculpins. Pacific halibut are not defined as a groundfish and could not be retained by drift gillnet vessels.

Vessels landing bycatch species in Alaska would have to comply with all State requirements, including any applicable State permits.

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishery Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

This action would manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery separately from the adjacent State waters salmon fisheries. To manage the fishery successfully and avoid overfishing, Federal managers need accurate and rapidly reported catch data from the EEZ. The eLandings system is an electronic system for reporting commercial fishery landings in Alaska used to manage both State and Federal fisheries. Landings submitted through eLandings are transmitted to NMFS multiple times per day which would allow managers to have the most up to date information possible

void overfishing, Federal managers need accurate and rapidly reported catch data from the EEZ. The eLandings system is an electronic system for reporting commercial fishery landings in Alaska used to manage both State and Federal fisheries. Landings submitted through eLandings are transmitted to NMFS multiple times per day which would allow managers to have the most up to date information possible. This proposed rule would require processors to report all landings of Cook Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ through eLandings by noon of the day following completion of the delivery. In order to implement this reporting requirement and other monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting measures, fishing vessels (harvesters), processors, and other entities receiving deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon ( i.e., fish transporters, catcher sellers, and direct markets) would have to obtain Federal permits and comply with Federal recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements.

Requirements for Catcher Vessels

Harvesting vessel owners would be required to obtain a Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit (SFFP). NMFS would issue SFFPs at no charge to the owner or authorized representative of a vessel. An SFFP would authorize a vessel of the United States to conduct commercial salmon fishing operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, subject to all other Federal requirements. An SFFP applicant must be a citizen of the United States. NMFS would issue SFFPs after receipt, review, and approval of a complete SFFP application. SFFPs would have a 3-year application cycle. Once a vessel owner or authorized representative obtains an SFFP, it would be valid for 3 years. Participants must maintain a physical or electronic copy of their valid SFFP aboard the named vessel. As with other Federal fisheries, if a vessel owner or authorized representative surrenders an SFFP, they could not obtain a new SFFP for that vessel until the start of the next 3-year permit cycle

cle. Once a vessel owner or authorized representative obtains an SFFP, it would be valid for 3 years. Participants must maintain a physical or electronic copy of their valid SFFP aboard the named vessel. As with other Federal fisheries, if a vessel owner or authorized representative surrenders an SFFP, they could not obtain a new SFFP for that vessel until the start of the next 3-year permit cycle. This prevents vessels from regularly surrendering and reobtaining SFFPs to avoid Federal monitoring requirements.

The SFFP is associated with a specific vessel and not transferable to another vessel. If the vessel is sold, the new owner would need to apply for an SFFP amendment from NMFS to reflect the new owner or authorized representative of the vessel. A vessel could not operate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery until the SFFP amendment was complete and the amended SFFP issued. The SFFP number would be required to be displayed on the vessel's hull and buoys attached to the vessel's drift gillnet.

For a vessel being leased, the vessel operator would be considered the authorized representative of the SFFP holder and no amendments to the permit would be required. The vessel operator would be subject to all SFFP requirements and limitations and liable for any violations.

To monitor participation in the fishery and help Federal managers estimate expected removals from each opening, as well as to ensure that participants remain within EEZ waters open to fishing, the proposed rule would require commercial salmon fishing vessels to operate a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). VMS transmits the real-time GPS location of fishing vessels to NMFS. This would also help ensure that vessels are not fishing in both State and EEZ waters during the same fishing trip, which would be prohibited under this proposed rule to improve the accuracy of catch accounting for Federal managers. VMS would also aid in verifying when a vessel may be lawfully transiting through Cook Inlet EEZ Area waters after participating in a State fishery

ing vessels to NMFS. This would also help ensure that vessels are not fishing in both State and EEZ waters during the same fishing trip, which would be prohibited under this proposed rule to improve the accuracy of catch accounting for Federal managers. VMS would also aid in verifying when a vessel may be lawfully transiting through Cook Inlet EEZ Area waters after participating in a State fishery. A vessel with an SFFP would be required to keep their VMS active within State waters to ensure that entire fishing trips are monitored and to help verify that no fishing occurred within

During fishing operations, a drift gillnet is not always attached to the vessel. Therefore, the position of the vessel as determined by VMS may be different than the exact location of the net it deployed. However, because drift gillnet vessels in Cook Inlet remain relatively close to their nets due to the significant tidal currents in the area, VMS data, when combined with logbook information and vessel or aircraft enforcement patrols, provides robust information to determine compliance with Federal fishing area, time, and catch accounting regulations. This approach is also more practicable and cost-efficient to fishery participants than the alternatives of comprehensive electronic monitoring systems or human fishery observers.

To collect catch and bycatch information, this proposed rule would require a Federal fishing logbook. Commercial salmon fishing vessels would record the start and end time and GPS position of each set, as well as a count of the catch and bycatch. In addition, any interactions or entanglements with marine mammals would be required to be recorded in the logbook. Logbook sheets would be submitted electronically to NMFS by the vessel operator when the fish are delivered to a processor. There is currently no quantitative information available on discards of salmon and groundfish in the Cook Inlet drift gillnet salmon fisheries or other closely analogous fisheries to estimate bycatch amounts and mortality

mmals would be required to be recorded in the logbook. Logbook sheets would be submitted electronically to NMFS by the vessel operator when the fish are delivered to a processor. There is currently no quantitative information available on discards of salmon and groundfish in the Cook Inlet drift gillnet salmon fisheries or other closely analogous fisheries to estimate bycatch amounts and mortality. The data provided by the logbooks would provide this information and satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) requirement (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)). Information from logbooks would also be used to corroborate VMS data in the event of a suspected Federal fishery violation.

State requirements, including an appropriate State Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit(s), would still apply for drift gillnet vessels to land salmon or other species caught in the EEZ within the State or enter State waters.

This proposed rule would prohibit commercial salmon harvesting vessels from landing or otherwise transferring salmon caught within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the EEZ. Harvesting vessels delivering to tenders would have to do so within State waters. This proposed rule would also prohibit processing salmon (as defined by Federal regulations) in the EEZ aboard either the harvesting vessel or another vessel. Harvesting vessels would be permitted to gut, gill, and bleed salmon prior to landing, but could not freeze or further process salmon prior to landing their catch.

Requirements for Processors and Other Entities Receiving Deliveries of Commercially Caught Cook Inlet EEZ Salmon

but could not freeze or further process salmon prior to landing their catch.

Requirements for Processors and Other Entities Receiving Deliveries of Commercially Caught Cook Inlet EEZ Salmon

The proposed rule would require processors that receive and process landings of salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area by a vessel authorized by an SFFP to obtain a Salmon Federal Processor Permit (SFPP). This includes any person, facility, vessel, or stationary floating processor that receives, purchases, or arranges to purchase and processes unprocessed salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, except registered salmon receivers. Persons or businesses that receive landings (deliveries) of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon from harvesting vessels but do not immediately process it, or transport it to another location for processing, would be required to obtain a Registered Salmon Receiver Permit (RSRP).

SFPP and RSRP holders would be required to be report all salmon landings through eLandings by noon of the day following completion of the delivery. This would ensure that Federal fishery managers would receive timely catch information from all Federal landings to inform Federal management actions. Landings would be reported using existing Cook Inlet drift gillnet statistical areas, with the addition of an EEZ identifier and a requirement to identify the Federal permit associated with each landing. This approach would maintain the continuity of long-term datasets for fishery managers and scientists while clearly delineating EEZ harvests.

NMFS would issue SFPPs and RSRPs on a 1-year cycle. The shorter timeframe reflects the need to maintain a current and comprehensive inventory of all Federal salmon landings in Cook Inlet given frequent business or ownership changes for Cook Inlet salmon processing and buying operations. If the ownership of an entity holding a SFPP or RSRP changes, the new owner would need to submit an application for an amended permit

s and RSRPs on a 1-year cycle. The shorter timeframe reflects the need to maintain a current and comprehensive inventory of all Federal salmon landings in Cook Inlet given frequent business or ownership changes for Cook Inlet salmon processing and buying operations. If the ownership of an entity holding a SFPP or RSRP changes, the new owner would need to submit an application for an amended permit. The amended permit would be issued with a new permit number to reflect the change.

Because SFPPs would be facility-specific, one SFPP would be required for every processing facility, even if a facility was controlled by a company already holding an SFPP at another processing facility. An RSRP would be required for each entity receiving but not processing landings of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon at the location of the delivery. This includes fish transporters or buying stations that receive deliveries directly from harvesting vessels. The RSRP would ensure that there is not a significant time lag between a landing occurring across all entities that receive deliveries of Cook Inlet salmon and that information being reported to Federal managers.

These proposed regulations are intended to accommodate vessels that catch and then sell unprocessed or processed fish directly to consumers. For direct-marketing operations where the owner or operator of a harvesting vessel catches and processes their catch, both an SFFP and an SFPP would be required. For catcher-seller operations where the owner or operator of a harvesting vessel catches and sells unprocessed salmon ( e.g., whole fish or headed and gutted) themselves, both an SFFP and an RSRP would be required.

The proposed rule would prohibit processing Cook Inlet EEZ salmon in EEZ waters in order to ensure historical participants and operation types are not displaced. Viscera and gills may be removed at sea. Freezing is considered processing per Federal regulations and therefore would be prohibited in Cook Inlet EEZ waters

or headed and gutted) themselves, both an SFFP and an RSRP would be required.

Other Commercial Fishery Management Measures and Prohibitions

This proposed rule would define the legal gear for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery consistent with existing State gear to the extent practicable. Legal drift gillnet gear would be no longer than 200 fathoms (365.76 m) in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a mesh size no greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm). Maintaining gear definitions consistent with State regulations would prevent participants from having to acquire new gear to participate in the Federal fishery, and is expected to help maintain existing gear selectivity for comparability with historical data that would help Federal managers estimate expected catches. Buoys at each end of the drift gillnet would have to be marked with the participants' SFFP number.

Gillnets would be measured, either wet or dry, by determining the maximum or minimum distance between the first and last hanging of the net when the net is fully extended with traction applied at one end only. It would be illegal to stake or otherwise fix a drift gillnet to the seafloor. The float line and floats of drift gillnets would be required to float on the surface of the water while the net is fishing, unless

This proposed rule includes the following prohibitions for drift gillnet fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

• Vessels would be prohibited from fishing in both State and Federal waters on the same day, or otherwise have on board or deliver fish harvested in both EEZ and State waters, to ensure accurate catch accounting for Federal managers

urface of the water while the net is fishing, unless

This proposed rule includes the following prohibitions for drift gillnet fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

• Vessels could not have salmon harvested in any other fishery on board.

• Vessels would be prohibited from having gear in excess of the allowable configuration or deploying multiple nets.

• Vessels would be prohibited from participating in other fisheries while drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and would not be allowed to have other fishing gear on board capable of catching salmon while commercial fishing ( e.g., drift gillnetting) for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

• Because vessels legally participating in adjacent salmon fisheries transit across the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, vessels could have other fishing gear on board while moving through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, but would be prohibited from commercial fishing for salmon within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

• Manned or unmanned aircraft could not be used to locate salmon or otherwise direct fishing.

• Vessels would be prohibited from discarding any salmon caught while drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishing

The saltwater recreational fishery sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ is extremely small relative to the drift gillnet sector, harvesting an estimated annual average of 66 salmon of all species, or less than 0.01 percent of all salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ. This includes harvests by both guided (charter) anglers and unguided anglers. Over the course of a year, the limits historically established by the State are not constraining, and nearly all recreational salmon fishing occurs within State waters

illnet sector, harvesting an estimated annual average of 66 salmon of all species, or less than 0.01 percent of all salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ. This includes harvests by both guided (charter) anglers and unguided anglers. Over the course of a year, the limits historically established by the State are not constraining, and nearly all recreational salmon fishing occurs within State waters. Therefore, relatively limited management of Cook Inlet EEZ recreational salmon fishing is required at this time.

Recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area primarily targets Chinook and coho salmon. Pink and chum salmon are sometimes also caught and retained for personal consumption and bait. Sockeye salmon are rarely caught in the saltwater recreational fishery as recreational fishing gear does not target them effectively.

A small portion of recreational salmon fishing occurs during the winter, targeting immature Chinook salmon originating from stocks outside of Cook Inlet from October to the end of March. Other salmon species are not generally available and are not harvested by the recreational salmon fishery during this period.

The primary salmon species of potential conservation concern are Chinook salmon. Cook Inlet origin Chinook salmon generally migrate through Cook Inlet close to shore and are almost exclusively caught within State waters. Declines in Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks have resulted in significant restrictions and closures of this early season recreational fishery. In some years, restrictions on recreational anglers retaining coho salmon may also be required.

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishery Management Measures

eational fishery. In some years, restrictions on recreational anglers retaining coho salmon may also be required.

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishery Management Measures

This proposed rule includes management measures for recreational salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS would establish bag and possession limits in Federal regulations consistent with current State regulations. For Chinook salmon, from April 1 to August 31, the bag limit would be one Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of one in possession of any size. From September 1 to March 31, the bag limit would be two Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of two in possession of any size. For coho (silver) salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon there would be a combined six fish bag limit per day, including a total limit of six in possession of any size. However, only 3 per day, including a total limit of three in possession, may be coho salmon.

In addition to these proposed Federal limits, recreational anglers would also be constrained by State bag and possession limits if landing fish in Alaska. Because of this, an angler could not exceed State limits when landing fish in Alaska, or otherwise have both an EEZ limit and a State limit on board at the same time in either area.

Recreational fishing would be open for the entire calendar year. Because recreational anglers can release fish with limited mortality, NMFS could prohibit retention of individual salmon species while still allowing harvest of other salmon stocks if necessary. Inseason management actions for the recreational sector would be published in the Federal Register for effectiveness and subject to the same process and timing limitations outlined for the commercial sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ. Given the limited Cook Inlet EEZ recreational salmon harvest and slow pace of the fishery, these notice and publication requirements are expected to be less problematic for managing the recreational sector

recreational sector would be published in the Federal Register for effectiveness and subject to the same process and timing limitations outlined for the commercial sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ. Given the limited Cook Inlet EEZ recreational salmon harvest and slow pace of the fishery, these notice and publication requirements are expected to be less problematic for managing the recreational sector.

Recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area could only be done using hook and line gear with a single line per angler with a maximum of two hooks. Salmon harvested could not be filleted or otherwise mutilated in a way that could prevent determining how may fish had been retained prior to landing. Gills and guts could be removed from retained fish prior to landing. Any salmon that is not returned to the water with a minimum of injury would count toward an angler's bag limit.

There is little or no inseason catch information available for the recreational salmon sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. However, Federal managers would review any available developing inseason information, including escapement data, and may prohibit retention of one or more salmon species if additional harvest could not be supported. This proposed rule would not establish a TAC specific to the recreational sector, but estimated removals in combination with commercial harvests would still be evaluated against the ABC and ACL to ensure they are not exceeded, and to implement accountability measures, if required, for future seasons. This is analogous to the process used to account for recreational harvests in Federal groundfish and halibut fisheries.

Information provided by the State's existing Saltwater Charter Logbook, the Statewide Harvest Survey, and creel surveys provide information to account for recreational harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, as well as satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act SBRM requirement. This is consistent with the measures established for recreational salmon fishing in the East Area

groundfish and halibut fisheries.

If the recreational sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area significantly increases its harvests of salmon, additional management measures may be required and implemented through subsequent actions.

Consistency of Proposed Action With the National Standards

In developing Amendment 16 and this proposed rule, NMFS considered whether the proposed action is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 10 National Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851) and designed this proposed action

National Standard 1

National Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. OY is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems, that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor. As described above, this action specifies MSY on the basis of escapement goals and proxies that were evaluated through the analytical process for this action and determined to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP and the conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The escapement goal values that inform OY will be regularly assessed and updated as new information becomes available

ve, this action specifies MSY on the basis of escapement goals and proxies that were evaluated through the analytical process for this action and determined to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP and the conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The escapement goal values that inform OY will be regularly assessed and updated as new information becomes available.

For the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery, as further discussed above, OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY in that it represents a range of total fishery removals in the EEZ that target harvesting as much of the EEZ potential yield in excess of escapement goals as possible for each stock without causing any stock to miss the lower bound of its escapement goal or result in overfishing. Because the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery is a mixed-stock fishery and involves harvest of co-occurring stocks of varying abundance, OY is based on a range of harvest levels that have provided for a viable fisheries and avoided overfishing over the long-term. This OY ensures the Cook Inlet salmon fishery produces the greatest net benefit to the Nation by maintaining an economically viable commercial fishery while still providing recreational and subsistence opportunities for people dependent on these same salmon stocks, accounting for consumption of salmon by a variety of marine predators, and protecting weaker stocks. NMFS finds that the proposed OY for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery would be achieved on a continuing basis under Amendment 16.

National Standard 2

National Standard 2 states that conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. Among other things, NMFS considered the relevance, inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency, timeliness, and peer review of available information when evaluating the available biological, ecological, environmental, economic, and sociological scientific information to determine how to most effectively conserve and manage Cook Inlet salmon

all be based upon the best scientific information available. Among other things, NMFS considered the relevance, inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency, timeliness, and peer review of available information when evaluating the available biological, ecological, environmental, economic, and sociological scientific information to determine how to most effectively conserve and manage Cook Inlet salmon. This process included SSC review of proposed fishery management policies and reference points, evaluation of uncertainty in the development of salmon escapement goals used to initially inform Federal reference points (Section 12 of the Analysis), a comprehensive description of social and economic conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery (Section 4 of the Analysis), and consideration of alternative scientific points of view regarding the potential for overcompensation in Cook Inlet salmon stocks (Section 14 of the Analysis). From this analysis, NMFS determined that escapement goals established by the State currently rely on the best scientific information available to manage Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. It is on the basis of this information that Federal status determination criteria are initially established. Each year, NMFS will rely on the best scientific information available to assess the status of the stocks and calculate the status determination criteria—the best scientific information available is not static and may change with developments in data collection and processing. NMFS will collect data from the fisheries, routinely evaluate the best scientific information available, and may modify the escapement goals used in Federal management as scientific information related to Cook Inlet salmon stocks is improved. In addition, the SSC will provide objective, ongoing scientific advice to the Council regarding appropriate harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area based on information the SSC determines to meet the guidelines for the best scientific information available

ay modify the escapement goals used in Federal management as scientific information related to Cook Inlet salmon stocks is improved. In addition, the SSC will provide objective, ongoing scientific advice to the Council regarding appropriate harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area based on information the SSC determines to meet the guidelines for the best scientific information available.

National Standard 3

Management of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is highly complex, requiring consideration of other management jurisdictions in order to achieve sustainable harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks that benefits all user groups. National Standard 3 states that to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. Given the significant degree of interaction among salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, management of salmon stocks as a unit or in close coordination throughout all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries is particularly important. Management action in one Cook Inlet salmon fishery often has direct relationships with harvest rates and harvest composition (by stock) in other regional salmon fisheries. Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under Amendment 16 achieves National Standard 3 objectives through coordination with the State before, during, and after each fishing season, as described in Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes. NMFS and the Council will evaluate both where harvest of salmon stocks may be constrained by the presence of weak stocks and where there may be opportunities to harvest additional salmon that would not otherwise be utilized. NMFS will provide data on early EEZ catches to the State to inform run-strength forecasts for management of all other upper Cook Inlet salmon fisheries

s and Annual Processes. NMFS and the Council will evaluate both where harvest of salmon stocks may be constrained by the presence of weak stocks and where there may be opportunities to harvest additional salmon that would not otherwise be utilized. NMFS will provide data on early EEZ catches to the State to inform run-strength forecasts for management of all other upper Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. As stated above, because NMFS has no jurisdiction over State marine or fresh water salmon fisheries, it is impossible for NMFS to unilaterally manage Cook Inlet salmon as a unit throughout their range, and the State of Alaska declined to accept delegated management authority for the EEZ. Thus, two separate management jurisdictions are unavoidable in Cook Inlet. Still, under Amendment 16 NMFS anticipates close coordination with the State and Cook Inlet salmon stocks would be managed as a unit throughout their range to the extent practicable.

National Standard 7

National Standard 7 states that conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. Though some Federal management measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area may duplicate similar requirements in adjacent State waters, any such duplication is necessary to implement a new Federal management regime and incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Area into the Salmon FMP consistent with the applicable court decisions. Amendment 16 would include no unnecessary duplication of any State or Federal management measures. Further, the management measures proposed under Amendment 16 impose only those costs necessary to ensure accurate catch accounting and reporting. As explained in Cook Inlet EEZ the management infrastructure and resulting costs are required by NMFS for successful management of the fishery. Therefore Amendment 16 is consistent with National Standard 7

ion of any State or Federal management measures. Further, the management measures proposed under Amendment 16 impose only those costs necessary to ensure accurate catch accounting and reporting. As explained in Cook Inlet EEZ the management infrastructure and resulting costs are required by NMFS for successful management of the fishery. Therefore Amendment 16 is consistent with National Standard 7.

National Standard 8

National Standard 8 requires that conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that are based upon the best scientific information available, in order to (a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. This action is expected to result in Cook Inlet EEZ salmon harvests near existing levels. In some years, EEZ harvests may fall below the status quo (as a percentage of total Cook Inlet salmon harvest) to account for increased uncertainty. If EEZ harvests are reduced, additional salmon would be available for harvest in State waters by the drift gillnet fishery sector and all other salmon users. Therefore, any such reductions are not anticipated to result in community level impacts. Some adjustments to EEZ harvest totals are unavoidable as NMFS takes over a management of a new fishery, as NMFS will have less data, experience, and expertise than State managers upon implementation. However, by coordinating with State managers and carefully vetting stock assessments through the SSC, NMFS will be able to continue managing a viable commercial salmon fishery that minimizes adverse impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable

s NMFS takes over a management of a new fishery, as NMFS will have less data, experience, and expertise than State managers upon implementation. However, by coordinating with State managers and carefully vetting stock assessments through the SSC, NMFS will be able to continue managing a viable commercial salmon fishery that minimizes adverse impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable. Providing for the sustained participation of fishing communities by protecting the long-term health of the fishery depends on conserving stocks with low abundance and ensuring no stock becomes overfished, which could result in further restrictions on harvest in some years. The Analysis considered the social and economic importance of the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries to fishing communities, and recognized these communities participate in a variety of salmon fisheries apart from the drift gillnet fishery. In general, total removals of salmon in Cook Inlet are expected to remain consistent with the status quo—harvests will vary from year to year depending on run size and the abundance of any constraining stocks, but all participating fishing communities will continue to have the same access to fishery resources (as constrained by stock status). Community level distributive impacts under this action are not anticipated to substantially affect net benefits to the nation (Section 4.10 of the Analysis). Therefore, the Analysis supports a finding that this action would provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities in Cook Inlet salmon fisheries and minimize any adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable, consistent with National Standard 8.

Potential Impacts of the Action

fisheries and minimize any adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable, consistent with National Standard 8.

Potential Impacts of the Action

The entire active salmon drift gillnet fleet likely fishes in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area at some time during each fishing season, but over the entire season, each vessel differs with respect to its level of economic dependency on fishing in this area. Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis describes that from 2009 through 2021 an estimated average of 46.9 percent of gross revenue ($13.9 million) for the drift gillnet fleet was generated from salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. In the last 5 years, an estimated average of approximately 41.3 percent of gross revenue ($7.3 million) was generated in the EEZ for the drift gillnet fishery. This action would likely allow drift gillnet fishery participants to continue a significant portion of their EEZ fishing activities. Some reduction in EEZ harvest may occur to account for the uncertainty inherent in creating a new management jurisdiction and establishing pre-season catch limits consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, but drift gillnet vessels may also have the opportunity to increase harvests within State waters. This action would also impose some additional costs on fishery participants (such as installing and operating VMS) and involves additional recordkeeping, reporting, and permit requirements compared to the status quo (though at no additional cost beyond the labor needed to comply).

This rule will largely preserve existing EEZ fishing opportunities in terms of time and location, and may result in additional openers compared to the status quo in years with strong runs and a high TAC. Vessels will be able to continue fishing in the same EEZ areas they have historically fished so long as they comply with new Federal permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the EEZ

his rule will largely preserve existing EEZ fishing opportunities in terms of time and location, and may result in additional openers compared to the status quo in years with strong runs and a high TAC. Vessels will be able to continue fishing in the same EEZ areas they have historically fished so long as they comply with new Federal permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the EEZ. While the uncertainty associated with a new management jurisdiction will require conservative management as NMFS builds expertise and collects data, the goal of this rule is to preserve or facilitate as much fishing opportunity in the EEZ as possible without causing overfishing and creating adverse impacts on stocks of low abundance or any other part of the ecosystem. This action would not directly modify management of salmon fishing in State waters. The drift gillnet fleet is expected to continue to operate in State waters under Amendment 16. Though EEZ harvest levels are expected to remain close to historic averages, the State, in its discretion, could modify management measures in State waters to account for any changes to EEZ harvest levels. In all, total harvests throughout Cook Inlet are expected to remain close to the status quo. As described in Section 3.1.3 of the Analysis, total harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks is expected to remain near existing levels resulting in salmon escapements near existing levels. NMFS finds these harvest levels have consistently prevented overfishing and ensured the majority of stocks in Cook Inlet meet their escapement goals, thus ensuring sustainable salmon stocks for future generations. This action is not expected to have significant impacts on salmon stocks or other affected parts of the environment.

ement goals, thus ensuring sustainable salmon stocks for future generations. This action is not expected to have significant impacts on salmon stocks or other affected parts of the environment.

This action would also directly regulate salmon processors and buyers. It would impose additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden on processors receiving deliveries from the Cook Inlet EEZ. To the extent that this action results in slight decreases in catch by the drift gillnet fleet in the Cook Inlet EEZ that are not offset by increased catch in State waters by the drift gillnet fleet or by other commercial salmon fishing sectors, deliveries of Cook Inlet salmon and associated revenues to processors could be reduced. The impacts to individual processors would be influenced by the dependency on Cook Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ as described in Section 4.5.1.4 of the Analysis. Because minimal reductions in harvest are anticipated, no significant impacts on processors are expected under this proposed rule compared to the status quo.

While no significant impacts on Cook Inlet salmon stocks are expected, any reductions of salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area could improve the density of salmon prey available to endangered Cook Inlet belugas present in northern Cook Inlet during the summer months as noted in Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. As noted above, NMFS is undertaking consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA regarding this proposed action. While increased escapement may not be

Classification

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this action is consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives

ermined that this action is consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS proposes Amendment 16 and these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation when considering the viable management alternatives. Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this action, as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact this action, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA describes the action; the reasons why this action is proposed; the objectives and legal basis for this action; the number and description of directly regulated small entities to which this action would apply; the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements of this action; and the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action. The IRFA also describes significant alternatives to this action that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of this action on small entities. The description of the action, its purpose, and the legal basis are explained in the preamble and are not repeated here

with this action. The IRFA also describes significant alternatives to this action that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of this action on small entities. The description of the action, its purpose, and the legal basis are explained in the preamble and are not repeated here.

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established small business size standards for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industries are commercial fishing, charter fishing, seafood processing, and seafood buying (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 713990), this threshold is combined annual receipts not in excess of $9 million. For shoreside processors (NAICS code 311710), the small business size is defined in terms of number of employees, with the threshold set at not greater than 750 employees. For entities that purchase seafood but do not process it (NAICS code 424460), the small business threshold is not greater than 100 employees.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Action

This action would directly regulate holders of State of Alaska S03H CFEC Limited Entry salmon permits (S03H permits) fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, charter guides and charter businesses fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and entities receiving deliveries of salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 567 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of 361 active permit holders, all of which are considered small entities based on the $11 million threshold

shing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, charter guides and charter businesses fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and entities receiving deliveries of salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 567 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of 361 active permit holders, all of which are considered small entities based on the $11 million threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 11 shoreside processors and 6 direct marketers, all of which are considered small entities based on the 750 employee threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 4 catcher-sellers, all of which are considered small entities based on the 100 employee threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 58 charter guides that fished for salmon at least once in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, all of which are considered small entities based on the $9 million threshold. Additional detail is included in Sections 4.5 and 4.9 in the Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ).

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

NMFS considered, but did not select three other alternatives. The alternatives, and their impacts to small entities, are described below.

Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing management measures and conditions in the fishery within recently observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities. This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included within the Salmon FMP and managed according to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions within the fishery

change to impacts on small entities. This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included within the Salmon FMP and managed according to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens of obtaining a Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit, maintaining a Federal fishing logbook, and monitoring their fishing position with respect to EEZ and State waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. However, section 306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that NMFS cannot delegate management to the State without a three-quarter majority vote by the Council, which did not occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be implemented and is not a viable alternative.

Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not impose any additional direct regulatory costs on participants and would allow directly regulated entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ harvest inside State waters. However, the District Court ruled that Alternative 4 was contrary to law. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not a viable alternative.

This action (Alternative 3) would result in a Cook Inlet EEZ drift gillnet salmon fishery managed directly by NMFS and the Council. Alternative 3 would increase direct costs and burdens to S03H permit holders due to requirements including obtaining a SFFP, installing and operating a VMS, and maintaining a Federal logbook as described in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. This action would also require that TACs be set before each fishing season. The TAC would likely be set conservatively to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of inseason harvest data, but is likely to remain near existing levels

ts including obtaining a SFFP, installing and operating a VMS, and maintaining a Federal logbook as described in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. This action would also require that TACs be set before each fishing season. The TAC would likely be set conservatively to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of inseason harvest data, but is likely to remain near existing levels. As is possible under the status quo, salmon harvest in the EEZ could be reduced or prohibited in years when a harvestable surplus is not certain, with an appropriate buffer to account for scientific and management uncertainty.

Processors receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required to obtain a SFPP. Entities receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ but not processing the fish would be required to have a RSRP. All of these permits would be available at no cost from NMFS. However, entities with these permits

While these measures do increase costs to commercial fishery participants, all of these elements are required by NMFS to manage the fishery and prevent overfishing. Specific consideration was given in their development to minimize burden to the extent practicable while also providing required information to Federal fishery managers in a timely manner. All entities that would be directly regulated by this action could also choose to continue participating in only the State waters fisheries to avoid being subject to these Federal requirements.

Charter fishing vessels would not have any additional Federal recordkeeping, reporting, or monitoring requirements, but would be subject to Federal bag, possession, and gear regulations. These proposed measures would be the same as existing State requirements and not add additional burdens

inue participating in only the State waters fisheries to avoid being subject to these Federal requirements.

Based upon the best available scientific data, it appears that there are no significant alternatives to the action that have the potential to comply with applicable court rulings, accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other statutes, and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on small entities while preventing overfishing. After public process, NMFS concluded that of the viable alternatives, Alternative 3, the proposed Amendment 16, would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this action, and in applicable statutes, and would minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly regulated small entities.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict between this action and existing Federal rules.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

This action would implement new recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance requirements. These requirements are necessary for the management and monitoring of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fisheries.

All Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery participants would be required to provide additional information to NMFS for management purposes. As in other North Pacific fisheries, processors would provide catch recording data to managers to monitor harvest. Processors would be required to record deliveries and processing activities to aid in fishery administration

EEZ Area salmon fisheries.

To participate in the fishery, persons are required to complete application forms, reporting requirements, and monitoring requirements. These requirements impose costs on small entities in gathering the required information and completing the information collections.

NMFS has estimated the costs of complying with the requirements based on information such as the burden hours per response, number of responses per year, and wage rate estimates from industry or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Persons are required to complete many of the requirements prior to fishing, such as obtaining permits. Persons are required to complete some requirements every year, such as the SFPP and RSRP applications. Other requirements are more periodic, such as the SFFP which is applied for every 3 years. The impacts of these changes are described in more detail in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2 of the Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ).

Vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ area would be required to obtain a SFFP, complete a Federal fishing logbook, and install and maintain an operational VMS. The vessel would also be required to mark buoys at each end of their drift gillnet with their SFFP number. While commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, participants must remain within Federal waters and cannot also fish in State waters on the same calendar day or conduct any other types of fishing while in Federal waters

ng logbook, and install and maintain an operational VMS. The vessel would also be required to mark buoys at each end of their drift gillnet with their SFFP number. While commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, participants must remain within Federal waters and cannot also fish in State waters on the same calendar day or conduct any other types of fishing while in Federal waters.

Processors and other entities receiving landings of commercially caught Cook Inlet salmon from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required to obtain a SFPP, a RSRP, and report landings through eLandings by noon of the day following completion of the delivery. NMFS would issue SFPPs and RSRPs at no cost.

For recreational salmon fishing, no additional Federal recordkeeping and reporting requirements are established. The existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements implemented by the State are expected to be sufficient to inform management and satisfy Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements given the small scale and limited removals of the recreational sector. These include creel sampling, the ADF&G's Statewide Harvest Survey, harvest records for annual limits, and the Saltwater Guide Logbooks.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action contains collection of information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This action would add a new collection of information for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery under a new OMB control number and revise and extend for 3 years existing collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445 (NMFS Alaska Region VMS Program). The public reporting burden estimates provided below for these collections of information include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information

end for 3 years existing collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445 (NMFS Alaska Region VMS Program). The public reporting burden estimates provided below for these collections of information include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

OMB Control Number 0648-NEW

A new collection of information would be created for reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements implemented by this action that are necessary to federally manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery. This new collection would contain the applications and processes used by harvesters, processors, and other entities receiving deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon to apply for and manage their permits; provide catch, landings, and processing data; and mark drift gillnet buoys. The data would be used to ensure that the fishery participants adhere to harvesting, processing, and other requirements for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery.

The public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to average 15 minutes for the SFFP application, 25 minutes for the SFPP application, 20 minutes for the RSRP application, 15 minutes to register for eLandings, 10 minutes for landing reports, 15 minutes for the daily fishing logbook, and 30 minutes to mark drift gillnet buoys.

OMB Control Number 0648-0445

tes to register for eLandings, 10 minutes for landing reports, 15 minutes for the daily fishing logbook, and 30 minutes to mark drift gillnet buoys.

OMB Control Number 0648-0445

NMFS proposes to revise and extend by 3 years the existing requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445. This collection contains the VMS requirements for the federally managed groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska. This collection would be revised because this action would require vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to install and

Public Comment

Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 600 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 10, 2023. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service

al business information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 10, 2023. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR parts 600 and 679 as follows:

TITLE 50—WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. Amend § 600.725, in the table in paragraph (v), under the heading “VII. North Pacific Fishery Management Council” by revising entry “8” to read as follows:

§ 600.725 General prohibitions.

(v) * * *

VII—North Pacific Fishery Management Council * * * * * * * 8. Alaska Salmon Fishery (FMP): A. East Area A. Hook and line. B. Cook Inlet EEZ Area B. Drift gillnet, handline, rod and reel, hook and line. * * * * * * *

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

3. The authority ci

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.