Recapping the latest fisheries management meeting

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) meeting last week went more or less as we had been told it probably would. After sitting through the Saturday afternoon session, a few things about the possible federal takeover of salmon management in Cook Inlet became clearer for me.

First, the United Cook Inlet Drift Association’s (UCIDA) lawsuit was actually against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is the federal fisheries management agency which implements the management decisions of the NPFMC. I had stated last week the lawsuit was against the NPFMC and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Area fisheries processors had joined UCIDA in filing this lawsuit.

Federal waters managed by the NPFMC are generally referred to as EEZ waters. This anachronism is short for Exclusive Economic Zone and encompasses waters from 3 to 200 miles off Alaska. The middle of Cook Inlet falls into this defined zone.

The Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) developed for Alaska by the NPFMC includes Amendment 12 for EEZ waters in Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and the South Alaska Peninsula (better known as Area M). This amendment delegated management authority for salmon in these three areas to the State of Alaska. When the lawsuit was finally decided, the courts agreed with UCIDA and the processors that Amendment 12 was not in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

The MSA contains 10 provisions, which must be incorporated in developing a fisheries management plan. These provisions were treated by the court as a “one-size-fits-all” set of rules, which, unfortunately, are not easily applicable to salmon fisheries.

Three preliminary alternatives were developed; Alternate No. 1: make no changes; Alternate No. 2: develop a cooperative fisheries management plan between the NMFS and ADF&G. The third alternative is for total federal takeover of fisheries management in Cook Inlet. The first alternative is unacceptable to the courts. The third alternative is probably not a realistic approach. Both federal and state agencies are interested in working together to develop an Alternate No. 2 approach.

Public testimony was given on this topic Saturday afternoon. Representatives from both Prince William Sound and the South Alaska Peninsula commercial salmon fisheries testified that they didn’t see why their respective areas were affected since the lawsuit had only addressed Cook Inlet issues. These folks asked not to be included in the development of the Cook Inlet portion of the revised FMP and further suggested that, when their time came, a “make no changes” alternative would be appropriate and probably acceptable to the courts since neither area had been a part of the original lawsuit.

Four of us from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission (MSBFWC) testified about our fisheries management concerns in the Northern District and why we would like a seat on the stakeholders’ group the NPFMC voted to begin establishing.

The testimony that, for me at least, was the most “interesting” was that given by David Martin, the president of UCIDA. He seemed to support the third alternative, which is complete federal management of the salmon fishery in Cook Inlet. He stated that UCIDA’s understanding of how the term “Fishery” was defined by the MSA encompassed the entire area where the species of fish to be managed is found. He specifically stated that a geographic designation like an EEZ is not appropriate for salmon like it might be for crab or other bottomfish species.

When asked directly, Martin said that federal management authority should encompass not only the EEZ but all state waters in Cook Inlet. Again, when asked directly, he said the federal authority, by definition, in his opinion, would also include all freshwater river tributaries and drainages – wherever salmon at any stage of their life history would be found.

Can you imagine the court battles that would erupt over states’ rights if that were to be the outcome in the new FMP?

The motion I referenced earlier was passed unanimously by the NPFMC. In that motion, the FMP to be developed would only include the geographic area referred to as the EEZ in Cook Inlet. The other two areas were not included in this motion at this time. The motion stated that, “The Council intends to form a Salmon Committee for stakeholders to address the required provisions for an FMP amendment to manage the commercial fisheries in the Federal waters of Cook Inlet.”

Stay tuned as this whole process is just getting started but could significantly impact your salmon fishing in Cook Inlet!