[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67810-67896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26941]
[[Page 67809]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 660
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67810]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 100804324-0489-01]
RIN 0648-BA01
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed action would establish the 2011-2012 harvest
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (PCGFMP). This action revises the collection of management
measures in the groundfish fishery regulations that are intended to
keep the total catch of each groundfish species or species complex
within the harvest specifications. This action also includes
regulations to implement Amendments 16-5 and 23 to the PCGFMP.
Amendment 16-5 would revise existing rebuilding plans, create a new
rebuilding plan for Petrale sole, which was declared overfished on
February 9, 2010, and revise status determination criteria and a
harvest control rule for flatfish. This action is consistent with and
partially implements Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP. Amendment 23 would
make the PCGFMP consistent with the revised National Standard 1
Guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009).
DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on
December 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the RIN number 0648-
BA01, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko.
Mail: William Stelle, Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky
Renko.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS), a regulatory impact review
(RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are
available for public review during business hours at the office of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE. Ambassador
Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280. Copies of additional
reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the
Council.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko, phone: 206-526-6110, fax:
206-526-6736, or e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the
Federal Register Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the
NMFS Northwest Region Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfm and at the Council's
Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org.
Background
The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is managed under the PCGFMP.
The PCGFMP was prepared by the Council, approved on July 30, 1984, and
was implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations at
50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, implement the provisions of the
PCGFMP.
The amount of each Pacific Coast groundfish species or species
complex that is available for harvest in a specific year is referred to
as a harvest specification. The PCGFMP requires the harvest
specifications and management measures for groundfish to be set at
least biennially. This proposed rule, which proposes the Council's
preferred alternative, would set 2011-2012 harvest specifications and
management measures for the 90-plus groundfish species or species
complexes managed under the PCGFMP. The groundfish fishery regulations
include a collection of management measures intended to keep the total
catch of each groundfish species or species complex within the harvest
specifications. The management measures would be revised by this
action.
The following groundfish species have been declared as overfished
and are currently being managed under rebuilding plans: Bocaccio south
of 40[deg]10' north latitude; canary rockfish; cowcod south of
40[deg]10' north latitude; darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch
(POP), widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. This action also updates
the existing overfished species rebuilding plans.
Petrale sole was declared overfished on February 9, 2010. The
proposed action adds a new rebuilding plan for petrale sole under
Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP. In addition, also under Amendment 16-5,
the proposed action modifies status determination criteria in the
PCGFMP for flatfish and adds to the PCGFMP a new precautionary harvest
control rule for flatfish.
On January 16, 2009, NMFS adopted revisions to its guidelines
implementing Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 (74 FR 3178) to
prevent and end overfishing and rebuild fisheries. The proposed action
would implement a new fishery specification framework under Amendment
23 to the PCGFMP including: Overfishing limits (OFLs), an acceptable
biological catch (ABC) that incorporates a scientific uncertainty
buffer in specifications, annual catch limits (ACLs), and annual catch
targets (ACTs). These new specifications are designed to better account
for scientific and management uncertainty and to prevent overfishing.
Amendment 23 also removes dusky and dwarf-red rockfish from the list of
species in the groundfish fisheries.
On April 29, 2010, the District Court for the Northern District of
California ruled that the 2009-2010 harvest specifications for three
overfished species (cowcod, darkblotched, and yelloweye) violated the
MSA and ordered that NMFS apply its 2008 harvest levels for these
species in 2010. (Natural Resources Defense Council v.
[[Page 67811]]
Locke (N.D. Cal., 2010) here after refered to as NRDC v. Locke.) On
July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the harvest specifications for yelloweye
rockfish, cowcod and darkbloched rockfish to be consistent with the
court order (75 FR 38030). The court further ordered NMFS to publish
new specifications within one year of its ruling.
This proposed rule is based on the Council's final decisions on the
2011 and 2012 biennial specifications and management measures, and on
Amendment 23 and Amendment 16-5 at its June 2010 meeting. The
supporting rationale described in this proposed rule is based on the
DEIS prepared by the Council and other documents developed as part of
the Council's decision process. NMFS has not made its final
determination regarding its approval of the two amendments or whether
the proposed specifications are consistent with the PCGFMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, including the April 29,
2010 Court Order on Remedy in NRDC v. Locke.
Specification and Management Measure Development Process
The process for setting the 2011 and 2012 biennial harvest
specifications began in 2009 with the preparation of stock assessments.
A stock assessment is the scientific and statistical process where the
status of a fish population or subpopulation (stock) is assessed in
terms of population size, reproductive status, fishing mortality, and
sustainability. In the terms of the PCGFMP, stock assessments generally
provide: (1) An estimate of the current biomass (reproductive
potential); (2) an FMSY or proxy (a default harvest rate for
the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the maximum
sustainable yield), translated into exploitation rate; (3) an estimate
of the biomass that produces the maximum sustainable yield
(BMSY); and, (4) a precision estimate (e.g., confidence
interval) for current biomass estimate. Each stock assessment is
prepared by a stock assessment scientist then reviewed by the Council's
stock assessment review panel (STAR--The STAR panel is a key part of a
process designed to review the technical merits of stock assessments
and is responsible for determining if a stock assessment document is
sufficiently complete) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC).
In each biennial period, the Council and NMFS consider a number of
full stock assessments, where each stock assessment model is critically
examined and possibly updated. They also use stock assessment updates
to update an existing assessment by incorporating the most recent data.
A stock assessment update must carry forward the fundamental structure
from the model that was previously reviewed and endorsed by a STAR
panel. Stock assessment updates are prepared for stocks that have been
determined to have a stable model approach to data analysis and
modeling.
For overfished stocks a rebuilding analysis is also prepared. The
rebuilding analysis is used to project the status of the overfished
resource into the future under a variety of alternative harvest
strategies to determine the probability of recovering to
BMSY (or its proxy) within a specified time-frame. Minimum
requirements for rebuilding analyses for routine situations have been
established by the SSC and are applied with computer package developed
by Dr Andr[eacute] Punt (University of Washington). The SSC encourages
analysts to explore alternative calculations and projections that may
more accurately capture uncertainties in stock rebuilding and which may
better represent stock-specific concerns. In the event of a discrepancy
between the calculations resulting from Dr Andr[eacute] Punt's program,
the SSC groundfish subcommittee will review the issue and recommend
which results to use. The SSC also encourages explicit consideration of
uncertainty in projections of stock rebuilding, including comparisons
of alternative states of nature using decision tables to quantify the
impact of model uncertainty. The rebuilding analyses include: An
estimation of B0 (the unfished biomass and hence
BMSY or its proxy); the selection of a method to generate
future recruitment; the specification of the mean generation time; a
calculation of the minimum possible rebuilding time (TMIN);
and, the identification and analysis of alternative harvest strategies
and rebuilding times.
At the Council's June, September and November 2009 meetings, new
stock assessments, stock assessment updates and rebuilding analyses
were made available to the Council as was an SSC report on whether the
SSC considered the documents to be the ``best available science''
suitable for use in setting biennial harvest specifications. The
Council considered the information brought forward from its advisory
bodies and public comment before approving the new stock assessments,
stock assessment updates and rebuilding analyses for setting the 2011
and 2012 biennial harvest specifications.
The biennial harvest specifications and management measures are
developed over the course of three Council meetings. At its November
2009 meeting the Council recommended an initial range of harvest
specifications and management measures based on the new stock
assessments, new rebuilding analyses, recommendations of its advisory
bodies, and public comment. Using the Council's initial harvest
specifications and management measure recommendations, the Council's
advisory bodies developed initial alternatives for a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
A holistic or integrated approach was taken in the development of
alternatives in the Draft EIS for this action. The newly adopted
rebuilding analyses were used to develop a range of alternatives driven
by the annual catch limits (ACLs) for overfished species. The
interrelated nature of the Pacific Coast groundfish stocks makes the
consideration of holistic alternatives necessary. The degree of
interaction between overfished species and other stocks is such that
``rebuilding as quickly as possible while taking into account the needs
of fishing communities'' is not possible based solely on a species-by
species approach.
At its April 2010, meeting, the Council made recommendations on
overfishing limits (OFLs) for all groundfish stocks and stock
complexes. At this same meeting, the Council made recommendations on
preferred 2011 and 2012 acceptable biological catches (ABCs) that
incorporate scientific uncertainty buffers for all groundfish stocks
and stock complexes, and preferred 2011 and 2012 ACLs for all non-
overfished groundfish stocks and stock complexes. A preliminary
analysis of the holistic alternatives relative to the biological and
socio-economic environment and consistent with the requirements of NEPA
was further developed and made available to the public, the Council,
and the Council's advisory bodies prior to the June 2010 meeting.
Additional information that further refined the analysis was provided
at the Council's June meeting. At its June 2010 meeting, the Council
considered the holistic alternatives, the analysis, reports provides by
its advisory bodies and public comment before making final
recommendations on the groundfish harvest specifications, rebuilding
plan revisions for overfished groundfish species, and groundfish
fishery management measures.
The alternative actions considered by the Council were consistent
with the harvest specification framework proposed under Amendment 23 to
the PCGFMP, which contemplates setting an OFL, an ABC that incorporates
a scientific uncertainty buffer, and an ACL for each groundfish stock
and stock
[[Page 67812]]
complex. A final decision regarding approval of Amendment 23 is
expected by January 1, 2011. The alternative actions considered by the
Council were also consistent with Amendments 20 and 21 to the PCGFMP
which were approved August 9, 2010 and which are expected to be fully
implemented by January 1, 2011. The components of these PCGFMP
amendments and the relationship of each to the biennial harvest
specifications are further discussed below.
Decision Process
To best inform the decision process, an analysis was prepared that
contrasted the Council's preliminary preferred alternative against the
other alternatives relative to the Council's stated goals and
objectives for rebuilding. The Council's goals and objectives for
rebuilding plans are identified in section 4.5.3.1 of the PCGFMP: ``The
overall goals of rebuilding programs are to (1) achieve the population
size and structure that will support the maximum sustainable yield
within a specified time period that is as short as possible, taking
into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing
communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within the marine
ecosystem; (2) minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse social
and economic impacts associated with rebuilding, including adverse
impacts on fishing communities; (3) fairly and equitably distribute
both the conservation burdens (overfishing restrictions) and recovery
benefits among commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors;
(4) protect the quantity and quality of habitat necessary to support
the stock at healthy levels in the future; and (5) promote widespread
public awareness, understanding and support for the rebuilding
program.'' These overall goals are derived from and consistent with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The first goal mirrors
Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 and the requirements for
rebuilding overfished stocks found at Magnuson-Stevens Act section
304(e)(4)(A). The second goal, to minimize adverse impacts to fishing
communities is required by Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 8.
The third goal is required by Magnuson-Stevens Act section
304(e)(4)(B). The fourth and fifth goals represent additional policy
preferences of the Council that recognize the importance of habitat
protection to the rebuilding of some fish stocks and the desire for
public outreach and education on the complexities--biological,
economic, and social issue--involved with rebuilding overfished stocks.
Each rebuilding analysis is based on parameters from the stock
assessment and projects the future status of the stock based on the
rebuilding alternatives being considered by the Council using Monte
Carlo simulation techniques. There is considerable scientific
uncertainty involved with these projections, which the rebuilding
analysis expresses as the probability of the stock being rebuilt in any
given year. The rebuilding analysis estimates the shortest time to
rebuild, referred to as TMIN. TMIN is the time it
takes to rebuild the stock, with a 50 percent probability, if all
fishing caused mortality is ceased. The Council's policy for rebuilding
is established with a TTARGET. TTARGET is the
year in which the Council expects the stock to rebuild with at least a
50 percent probability under the chosen rebuilding strategy. A
particular TTARGET is determined by the productivity of the
stock, its current status (a.k.a, ``status and biology''), and the
allowable harvest associated with a particular rebuilding strategy. The
target abundance for rebuilding is the biomass level that produces
maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
Section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides: That any
fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations for
rebuilding an overfished fishery shall--``(A) specify a time period for
rebuilding the fishery that shall--(i) be as short as possible, taking
into account the status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish,
the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international
organizations in which the United States participates, and the
interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine
ecosystem; and (ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the
biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or
management measures under an international agreement in which the
United States participates dictates otherwise''.
Because so many of the groundfish stocks are intermixed in
different proportions, making adjustments to protect one stock may
increase the impacts on other stocks. The Council's integrated
rebuilding strategy, when taking into account the biology of the stocks
and the needs of the fishing communities, centers on pushing fishing
effort off of the more sensitive rebuilding species and on to the less
sensitive rebuilding species (i.e., off of species with longer
rebuilding times and onto species able to rebuild more quickly). This
concept was adopted in Amendment 16-4 to the PCGFMP as the best way of
taking into account the biology of the stocks and the needs of fishing
communities in a holistic fashion that simultaneously considers all
rebuilding species and groundfish sectors.
Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP provides the following general
guidance on the needs of the fishing communities: ``Fishing communities
need a sustainable fishery that: Is safe, well-managed, and profitable;
provides jobs and incomes; contributes to the local social fabric,
culture, and image of the community; and helps market the community and
its services and products.''
The rockfish rebuilding plans are challenging as overfished
rockfish indirectly affect fishing opportunities by constraining the
harvest of target stocks; they affect multiple commercial and
recreational fishery sectors; it is difficult to lessen fishing impacts
on one rockfish species without affecting another; some rockfish
populations are so slow growing that even small increases in the long-
term harvest rate can delay rebuilding for a number of years. The
Council has approached this challenging situation using a comprehensive
approach to analyzing rebuilding alternatives and impacts to fishing
communities.
Because the rebuilding results in revenue losses in the short-term
and often in the medium-term, the communities that bear the greatest
short-term and medium-term revenue impact are those most dependent on
groundfish and the least resilient. To avoid disastrous short-term
consequences for fishing communities, harvest levels above the
TMIN level were considered. The harvest specifications and
management measures in the Council's preliminary preferred and final
preferred alternatives considered were generally similar to those in
place at the start of 2010, with some increased opportunity to the
California recreational and nearshore fixed gear fisheries south of
40[deg]10' north latitude. The remaining alternatives recommended for
analysis by the Council were more restrictive, to provide a meaningful
analysis of the shortest time possible to rebuild overfished stocks.
In its recommendations for overfished species rebuilding plans and
groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for 2011 and
2012, the Council was clear that it did not expect fishing community
needs (described in Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP) could be met by the
rebuilding plans and management measures being recommended. While the
Council could not meet the needs of fishing
[[Page 67813]]
communities, the Council took them into account as directed by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and recommended harvest specifications and
management measures that could allow fishing businesses and communities
to operate at a level that could provide for the continued existence of
fishing businesses and communities. Opportunities for economic growth
or profit would only be allowed if they were consistent with the
adopted rebuilding policies. The Council expressed particular interest
in seeing the success of new trawl fishery management measures (trawl
rationalization) and the expected long-term benefits. The supporting
draft EIS for this action assesses, through the analysis of integrated
rebuilding alternatives, the needs of groundfish fishing communities,
the dependence of fishing communities on overfished species, and the
vulnerability of fishing communities to further near-term reductions in
groundfish harvest.
The Council and fisheries science are just beginning to consider
approaches for transitioning to ecosystem based fisheries management.
Models for assessing impacts on the marine environment are being
developed. Given that this area of marine science is in development,
the respective impact of the rebuilding alternatives on ecosystem
structure and function cannot be described by science at this time.
At the start of each biennial management cycle, NMFS and the
Council establish fishery management measures that are expected to
allow as much harvest of the healthy species ACLs as possible without
exceeding allowable harvest levels for co-occurring overfished species.
At the start of the biennial period, the management measures are based
on the best scientific information available at the time. However, as
catch data and new scientific information become available during the
fishing year, NMFS and the Council's knowledge may change. Catch data
vary in quality and abundance both before and during the season, and
catch of the most constraining overfished species may also occur in
fisheries not managed under the PCGFMP.
Managing a coastwide fishery to ensure that ACLs of overfished
species are not exceeded is particularly difficult because of the low
ACLs. If new information received during the season reveals that total
catch is occurring at a faster pace than initially anticipated,
management action would be needed to keep the harvest of healthy stocks
and the incidental catch of overfished species at or below their
specified ACLs. If these inseason adjustments to management measures
are dramatic, such as an early closure of a fishery, then the effects
of management actions on the fishing communities can be severe. To
prevent major inseason changes in management measures, the 2011-2012
overfished species ACLs account for management uncertainty in order to
minimize the potential need for dramatic inseason measures. In other
words, currently available scientific information is used to design
management measures that are projected to result in overfished species
harvest levels that are somewhat lower than their ACLs. In addition,
for some overfished species (yelloweye rockfish and POP) annual catch
targets (ACTs) have been proposed. ACTs provide an additional buffer to
account for uncertainty and unexpected occurrences within the fishery.
This additional measure helps prevent ACLs from being exceeded. Even
with these safeguards, information that becomes available during the
fishing year from activities within the fishery and from activities
outside the fishery (i.e. research fishing mortality) may reveal that
previously set management measures need to be revised inseason. If that
is the case, management measures will be appropriately adjusted
inseason.
District Court Ruling in NRDC v. Locke
NRDC challenged the 2009-2010 groundfish harvest specifications (74
FR 9,874, March 6, 2009), asserting that the harvest specifications for
seven overfished species of Pacific groundfish: darkblotched rockfish,
cowcod, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio, Pacific Ocean
Perch, and widow rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.
1801-1891, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C.A. 4321 et seq. The 2009-2010 harvest specifications revised the
Amendment 16-4 rebuilding periods for four of the seven overfished
species in accordance with the PCGFMP's rebuilding framework. The Court
upheld the integrated approach, but determined that the 2009-2010
harvest specifications for darkblotched rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye
rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act by failing to rebuild the
species in as short a time as possible and ordered the agency to
develop, within one year of the Order, revised rebuilding plans for
those species that are consistent with the MSA.
With respect to yelloweye rockfish, the court vacated the OY of 17
metric tons (mt) for 2009-2010 and established an OY of 14 mt for 2010,
consistent with the ``ramp down'' strategy that the agency adopted in
the 2007-2008 specifications. The court likewise vacated the 2009-2010
cowcod OY of 4 mt and the darkblotched rockfish OYs of 285 mt and 291
mt for 2009 and 2010 stating that they do not rebuild in time periods
that are as short as possible. For these two species, the court
established OY levels consistent with the most recent levels in 2007-
2008.
On July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the harvest specifications for
yelloweye rockfish, cowcod and darkblotched rockfish to be consistent
with the court order (75 FR 38030) and projected impacts to
darkblotched rockfish in 2010 are being actively managed to prevent
exceeding 290 mt.
The court also agreed with NRDC's argument that NMFS' decisions
regarding the rebuilding plans were arbitrary and capricious because
the agency relied on economic data from 1998, before any of the species
at issue in the case were declared overfished, and did not use 2002
data that was available to it. The court ruled that the 1998 data was
not the best available scientific information, and distorted current
revenue losses by comparing them to revenues resulting from fishing
losses before fishing was constrained to rebuild overfished species.
The use of the 1998 data, the court opined, ``weight[ed] the Agency's
analysis in favor of short-term economic interests and against
conservation, in violation of the MSA.'' NMFS used a different approach
in this biennial cycle.
PCGFMP Amendment 23
On January 16, 2009, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal
Register to implement new requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens
Reauthorization Act by amending the National Standard Guidelines (50
CFR 600.310) for National Standard 1. National Standard guidelines aid
in the development and review of fishery management plans (plans), plan
amendments, and regulations prepared by the regional Fishery Management
Councils and the Secretary of Commerce. National Standard 1 establishes
the relationship between conservation and management measures,
preventing overfishing, and achieving OY from each stock, stock complex
or fishery. The National Standard 1 guidelines also address the
classification of stocks within a fishery management plan, and the new
requirement in the MSRA that fishery management plans include annual
catch limits (ACLs) to prevent overfishing. Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP
is intended to modify the harvest specification framework in the PCGFMP
[[Page 67814]]
to be consistent with the revised National Standard 1 guidelines. An
approval decision on Amendment 23 is expected prior to January 1, 2011.
Therefore, the harvest specifications being considered for 2011 and
2012 are consistent with the provisions of Amendment 23.
To better account for scientific and management uncertainty and to
prevent overfishing, the revised National Standard 1 guidelines
introduced new fishery management concepts including: OFL, ACL, ACT,
and accountability measures (AMs), and defined the term ABC. The
concept of OY remains in the PCGFMP as revisions to National Standard 1
did not alter the definition of OY.
Under the Amendment 23 framework the OFL is an estimate of the
maximum amount of annual catch of a stock or stock complex from all
sources (includes landed and discarded catch) that does not result in
overfishing. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is
subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the
stock's capacity to produce MSY (an estimate of the largest long-term
average annual catch or yield that can be taken from each stock under
prevailing ecological and environmental conditions) on a continuing
basis. This level is also referred to as the maximum fishing mortality
threshold (MFMT) in the PCGFMP. The OFL is comparable to the ABC
specification used in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 1999
through 2010.
The term ABC is redefined under proposed Amendment 23 as an annual
catch specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by
an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. Proposed Amendment 23
revises the descriptions of species categories used in the development
of the ABC. The first category (category 1) includes those species
where relatively data-rich quantitative stock assessment can be
conducted on the basis of catch-at-age, catch-at-length or other data.
OFLs and overfished/rebuilding thresholds can generally be calculated
for these species. The second category (category 2) includes species
for which some biological indicators are available, including a
relatively data-poor quantitative assessment or non-quantitative
assessments. The third category (category 3) includes minor species
which are caught and where the only available information is on the
landed biomass.
For species that have had relatively data-rich quantitative stock
assessments prepared (category 1 stocks), the Council chose to
determine ABC based on the SSC-recommended framework for estimating the
relative risk of overfishing the stock (referred to as the P*
approach). The SSC quantified the scientific uncertainty in the
estimate of OFL ([sigma]) and presented a range of probabilities of
overfishing (P*). Each P* value links to a corresponding fraction that
is used to reduce the OFL and to derive an ABC. As the P* value is
reduced, the probability of the ABC being greater than the ``true'' OFL
becomes lower. The Council then determines its preferred level of risk
aversion by selecting an appropriate P* value. Amendment 23 provides
that the P*-Sigma approach for quantifying scientific uncertainty will
be the default approach for category 1 species unless an SSC-
recommended method is adopted by the Council during the biennial
specification process.
For stocks with data-poor stock assessments or no stock assessments
(category 2 and 3 stocks), proposed Amendment 23 recognizes that there
is greater scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. Therefore,
the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that
recommended for stocks with quantitative stock assessments. It may be
determined using straight percentage reductions (25% for category 2 or
50% for category 3) or using the P* approach with larger sigma values.
The Council adopted an upper limit on P* for all three categories of
0.45. For category 2 and 3 species, Amendment 23 provides that either
the P*-Sigma approach or the straight percentage reduction from OFL
will be used unless the Council adopts an SSC-recommended approach
during the biennial specification process.
The ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC
threshold which considers conservation objectives, socio-economic
concerns, management uncertainty and other factors. All sources of
fishing-related mortality including landings, discard mortality, and
catches in exempted fishing permit activities are counted against the
ACL. In addition, research fishing catches are counted against the ACL.
Sector-specific ACLs may be specified, particularly in cases where a
sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of
a stock or stock complex. The new ACL values are comparable to the OY
specification used in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 1999
through 2010.
The ACTs are management targets set below the ACL to address
management uncertainty. The term ``catch'' includes fish that are
retained for any purpose, as well as mortality of fish that are
discarded. Therefore, for fisheries where estimates are not available
in a timely enough manner to manage retained and discarded catch
(bycatch) inseason, targets may be specified. In addition, a sector-
specific ACT may serve as a harvest guideline for a sector or used
strategically in a rebuilding plan to attempt to reduce mortality of an
overfished stock more than the rebuilding plan limits prescribe. These
targets account for landings and bycatch estimates such that the total
of landings and bycatch will not exceed the stock or stock complex's
ACL. Since the annual catch target is a target and not a limit it can
be used in lieu of harvest guidelines or strategically to accomplish
other management objectives. Sector-specific annual catch targets can
also be specified to accomplish management objectives.
The AMs are management controls that prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs
from being exceeded, where possible, and correct or mitigate overages
if they occur. If a stock or stock complex's catch exceeds its ACL, AMs
will be invoked as specified in the PCGFMP. If ACLs are exceeded more
often than 1 in 4 years, then AMs, such as catch monitoring and
inseason adjustments to fisheries, need to improve or additional AMs
may need to be implemented. The development of harvest specifications
for 2011-2012 is discussed later in the preamble to this proposed rule,
while the harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d.
Amendment 23 adds an additional species category identified as
ecosystem component (EC) species. These species are not ``in the
fishery'' and therefore not actively managed. EC species are not
targeted in any fishery and are not generally retained for sale or
personal use. EC species are not determined to be subject to
overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, or overfished, nor
are they likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the
absence of conservation and management measures. Amendment 23 does not
propose that any species currently in the PCGFMP be designated as an EC
species. Amendment 23 removes dusky rockfish and red-dwarf rockfish
from the PCGFMP as there are no recorded landings of these species in
the groundfish fishery.
PCGFMP Amendments 20 and 21
Amendment 20 established a program to ``rationalize'' the
groundfish limited entry trawl fishery. Rationalization of a fishery is
designed to create a sustainable level of fishing from both the
resources conservation and economic perspective through the use of
harvest shares and cooperatives. The
[[Page 67815]]
program being implemented under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP uses quota
shares, or catch allocation, to allow individuals to harvest specific
amounts of groundfish. The trawl rationalization program is intended to
increase net economic benefits, create individual economic stability,
provide full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider
environmental impacts, and achieve individual accountability of catch
(retained and discarded). NMFS approved Amendment 20 on August 9, 2010,
and expects to fully implement it prior to January 1, 2011, so the
harvest specifications and management measures being considered for
2011 and 2012 are consistent with the provisions of Amendment 20.
For the purposes of Amendment 20, the limited entry trawl fishery
has been divided into three distinct sectors (shoreside, mothership,
and catcher/processor). An individual fishing quota (IFQ) program is
created for the shoreside sector and harvester cooperatives are created
for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors. Formal allocations
(to and among the trawl sectors) necessary to support the trawl
rationalization program have been adopted under Amendment 21 to the
PCGFMP.
Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP modifies the PCGFMP framework by
specifying formal, long term allocations for the following species:
Lingcod, Pacific cod, sablefish south of 36[deg] north latitude,
Pacific ocean perch (POP), widow rockfish, chilipepper rockfish,
splitnose rockfish, yellowtail rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north
latitude, shortspine thornyhead (north and south of 34[deg]27' north
latitude), longspine thornyhead north of 34[deg]27' north latitude,
darkblotched rockfish, minor slope rockfish (north and south of
40[deg]10' north latitude), Dover sole, English sole, petrale sole,
arrowtooth flounder, starry flounder, and other flatfish. Because
Amendment 21 has been approved, the harvest specifications being
considered for 2011 and 2012 are consistent with the provisions of
Amendment 21. Long term, formal allocations are expected to provide
more stability to the trawl fishery sectors by reducing the risk of the
trawl sector being closed as a result of a non-trawl or recreational
fishery exceeding an allocation or harvest guideline.
Species that are not formally allocated under Amendment 21 will
continue to be addressed through short-term allocations that are to be
decided through the biennial harvest specifications and management
measure process. IFQ species with trawl and non-trawl allocations
established through the biennial harvest specifications include the
following species: canary rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod, yelloweye
rockfish, and minor shelf rockfish north and south. In addition to
allocations specified under the Amendment 21 provisions for 2011 and
2012, trawl and non-trawl allocations are being specified through the
biennial harvest specifications for the following: minor nearshore
rockfish north and south, and longnose skate. Species being managed
under trip limits and without trawl and non-trawl allocations are:
Shortbelly rockfish, longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north
latitude, black rockfish (Washington-Oregon), California scorpionfish,
cabezon (California only), kelp greenling, and the ``other fish''
complex.
Amendment 21 also provides for the use of fishery set-asides.
Fishery set-asides are not formal allocations but rather amounts that
are not available to the other fisheries during the fishing year. Set-
asides for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors of the at-sea
Pacific whiting fishery are deducted from the limited entry trawl
fishery allocation. Set-asides for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian
tribal harvest, and exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are deducted from
the ACL. Set-aside amounts could change through the biennial harvest
specifications and management measures process. The set-aside amounts
will be specified in the footnotes to Tables 1a through 2b of this
subpart.
In addition to a new groundfish allocation framework, Amendment 21
would establish Pacific Halibut trawl mortality limits to restrict the
incidental catch of Pacific halibut in limited entry trawl fisheries.
The trawl mortality limit may be adjusted downward or upward through
the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process.
Trawl individual bycatch quota (IBQ) for halibut will be issued for the
Shorebased IFQ Program north of 40[deg]10' north latitude. A portion of
the overall trawl mortality limit (10 mt) is a set-aside for the at-sea
whiting fisheries (catcher/processor and mothership) and the Shorebased
IFQ Program south of 40[deg]10' north latitude, where halibut IBQ is
not required. The set-aside amount of Pacific halibut to accommodate
the incidental catch in the trawl fishery south of 40[deg]10' north
latitude and in the at-sea whiting fishery may be adjusted in the
biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The
use of a trawl mortality limit for Pacific halibut in Area 2A trawl
fisheries is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to
minimize bycatch, while providing increased benefits to Area 2A fishers
targeting Pacific halibut.
Under Amendment 20, up to 10 percent of unused IFQ quota pounds in
a vessel's account may be carried over for use in the next fishing
year. Similarly, in order to cover an overage (landings that exceed the
amount of quota pounds held in a vessel account) that is within 10
percent of the quota pounds that have been in the vessel account during
the year, the vessel owner may use that amount from the quota pounds he
will receive in the following fishing year to account for the overage
in the current year. The rationale for the carryover as presented in
the Amendment 20 EIS is to provide increased flexibility to fishery
participants. During the biennial harvest specification and management
process the Council discussed how the carry-over provision works in
relationship to the 2011-2012 harvest specifications, this provision is
further discussed below.
OFL Policy
The OFL is the MSY harvest level associated with the current stock
abundance. When setting the 2011 and 2012 OFLs for category 1 species,
the FMSY harvest rate or a proxy was applied to the
estimated exploitable biomass. A policy of using a default harvest rate
as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve
the maximum sustainable yield is also referred to as the
FMSY control rule or maximum fishing mortality threshold
(MFMT) harvest rate. For category 2 species, OFLs are typically set at
a constant level and monitoring is necessary to determine if this level
of catch is causing a slow decline in stock abundance. It is difficult
to estimate overfished and overfishing thresholds for the category 2
species a priori, but indicators of long-term, potential overfishing
can be identified. Average catches are generally used to determine the
OFL for category 3 species.%
For 2011 and 2012, the Council maintained a policy of using a
default harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is
expected to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). A
proxy is used because there is insufficient information for most
Pacific Coast groundfish stocks to establish a species-specific
FMSY. In 2011 and 2012, the following default harvest rate
proxies, based on the Council's SSC recommendations, were used:
F30% for flatfish, F40% for Pacific Whiting,
F50% for rockfish (including thornyheads), and F45%
for other groundfish such as
[[Page 67816]]
sablefish and lingcod. The OFL for groundfish species with stock
assessments are derived by multiplying the harvest rate proxy by the
current estimated biomass. A rate of F40% is a more
aggressive rate than F45% or F50%.
The PCGFMP allows default harvest rate proxies to be modified as
scientific knowledge improves for a particular species. A fishing
mortality or harvest rate will mean different things for different
stocks, depending on the productivity of a particular species. For fast
growing species (those with individuals that mature quickly and produce
many young that survive to an age where they are caught in the fishery)
a higher fishing mortality rate may be used. Fishing mortality rate
policies must account for several complicating factors, including the
capacity of mature individuals to produce young over time and the
optimal stock size necessary for the highest level of productivity
within that stock.
For flatfish, a new proxy of F30% is being used for the
2011-2012 specifications. Following the 2009 scientific peer review of
the petrale sole assessment by the Council's stock STAR panel, the STAR
panel prepared a report which recommended that the SSC review the
estimates of FMSY and BMSY produced by the
petrale sole assessment and investigate alternatives to the proxies of
F40% and B40%. The SSCs groundfish sub-committee
further considered the proxies produced by the petrale sole assessment
and recommended that proxies of B25% for BMSY and
F30% for FMSY be established for all west coast
flatfish.
The overfished threshold or minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is
the estimated biomass level of the stock relative to its unfished
biomass (i.e., depletion level) below which the stock is considered
overfished. The current default proxy MSST for all the actively managed
groundfish stocks and stock complexes, other than the assessed flatfish
species, is 25 percent of the unfished biomass (B25%), which
is 62.5 percent of the BMSY target of B40%. The
default proxy MSST for the assessed flatfish species is being revised
from B25% to B12.5% which is 50 percent of the
BMSY target of B25%.
The full SSC endorsed the groundfish subcommittee's recommendation
to establish new proxies of B25% for BMSY and
F30% for FMSY for flatfish. The values were based
on a number of considerations, including evaluation of information on
flatfish productivity (steepness) for assessed west coast flatfish,
published meta-analyses of other flatfish stocks, and recommendations
on appropriate proxies for FMSY and BMSY in the
scientific literature. The SSC however did not endorse the use of a
species-specific estimate of BMSY and FMSY for
petrale sole because of high variability in the estimates between
repeat assessments for other stocks and the sensitivity of the
estimates to assumptions concerning stock structure.
For the 2011-2012 biennial specification process, two new
methodologies were evaluated for determining OFL from data-poor stocks
(unassessed category 2 species and category 3 species). In January
2010, the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee and Groundfish Management Team
(GMT) examined yield estimates from the Depletion-Corrected Average
Catch (DCAC) and the Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis (DB-SRA)
for 31 groundfish stock assessments. The DCAC and DB-SRA were developed
by stock assessment scientists from the Northwest Fishery Science
Center (NWFSC) and the Southwest Fishery Science Center. The DCAC
provides an estimate of sustainable yield (the OFL) for data-poor
stocks of uncertain status. DCAC adjusts historical average catch to
account for one-time ``windfall'' catches that are the result of stock
depletion, producing an estimate of yield that was likely to be
sustainable over the same time period. Advantages of the DCAC approach
to determining sustainable yield for data-poor stocks include: (1)
Minimal data requirements, (2) biologically-based adjustment to catch-
based yield proxies with transparent assumptions about relative changes
in abundance, and (3) simplicity in computing. The DB-SRA extends the
DCAC by (1) restoring the temporal link between production and biomass
and (2) evaluating and integrating alternative hypotheses regarding
changes in abundance during the historical catch period. This method
combines DCAC's distributional assumptions regarding life history
characteristics and stock status with the dynamic models and simulation
approach of stochastic stock reduction analysis. The SSC Groundfish
Subcommittee endorsed application of DCAC and DB-SRA to derive the OFL
for unassessed groundfish stocks. Although the Council would like
further analysis, the Council did recognize that the DB-SRA and the
DCAC methods used by the GMT were the best available scientific
information for determining OFLs for category 2 and 3 stocks.
Proposed OFLs for 2011 and 2012
For the 2011 and 2012 biennial specification process, 8 stock
assessments and 4 stock assessment updates were prepared. Full stock
assessments, those that consider the appropriateness of the assessment
model and that revise the model as necessary, were prepared for the
following stocks: Bocaccio, widow rockfish, lingcod, cabezon, yelloweye
rockfish, petrale sole, splitnose rockfish and greenstriped rockfish.
Stock assessment updates, those that run new data through an existing
model without changing the model, were prepared for: Canary rockfish,
cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, and POP. Each new stock assessment
includes a base model and two alternative models. The alternative
models are developed from the base model by bracketing the dominant
dimension of uncertainty (e.g., stock-recruitment steepness or
R0, natural mortality rate, survey catchability, recent
year-class strength, weights on conflicting CPUE series, etc.) and are
intended to be a means of expressing uncertainty within the model for
decision makers by showing the contrast in management implications.
Once a base model has been bracketed on either side by alternative
model scenarios, capturing the overall degree of uncertainty in the
assessment, a 2-way decision table analysis (states-of-nature versus
management action) is used to present the repercussions of uncertainty.
As noted above, the SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the
appropriateness of using the different stock assessments for management
purposes, after which the Council considers adoption of the stock
assessments, use of the stock assessment for the development of
rebuilding analysis, and the OFLs resulting from the base model runs of
the stock assessments. Tables 1a and 2a present the specifications for
each stock while the footnotes to these tables describe how the
proposed specifications were derived.
For species that did not have new stock assessments or updates
prepared, the Council considered an OFL derived from the most recent
stock assessment or update, the results of rudimentary stock
assessments, or the historical landings data approved by the Council
for use in setting harvest specifications. Detailed information on how
the OFLs for species without any new stock assessments were derived are
provided in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a. The stock
assessment cycle and the process for adoption of final OFLs for Pacific
whiting are detailed below.
Species that are not overfished and for which new stock assessments
or stock assessment updates were prepared and recommended for use in
setting harvest specifications by the Council include: Lingcod,
greenstriped rockfish,
[[Page 67817]]
splitnose rockfish, Cabezon. Specific information on the OFLs for
species associated with these new stock assessments and assessment
updates are provided in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a.
For the overfished species, new assessments were prepared for
bocaccio, petrale sole, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish and stock
assessment updates were prepared for canary rockfish, cowcod,
darkblotched, POP. The following stock assessment summaries pertain to
the new stock assessments or stock assessment updates for stocks that
have been declared overfished.
Bocaccio (Sebastes Paucispinis)
A new stock assessment was prepared for the bocaccio stock between
the U.S.-Mexico border and Cape Blanco, OR, using the Stock Synthesis
3.03a model. Changes in the model from the prior assessment include: A
northern expansion of the modeled area from Cape Mendocino, CA, to Cape
Blanco, OR; and the extension of the catch history from 1950 to 1892.
Assessment scientists have treated bocaccio as independent stocks north
and south of Cape Mendocino. The southern stock, which has been
declared overfished, occurs south of Cape Mendocino. Although the range
extends considerably further north, there is some evidence that there
are two demographic clusters of bocaccio. The northern stock is found
north of 48[deg] north latitude in northern Washington and Canada, with
a relative rarity of bocaccio (particularly smaller fish) in the region
between Cape Mendocino and the Columbia River mouth.
Since the early 2000s, the bocaccio spawning output has been
increasing steadily. Spawning output in 2009 was estimated at 2,209,900
mt (~95 percent confidence: 1,546,440--2,873,360 mt). Bocaccio
depletion was estimated to be 28.12 percent (0.18--0.37 percent) of its
unfished biomass in 2009. There are clear signs that the stock is
rebuilding at a relatively rapid rate. Recovery may be taking place
more rapidly in the south, and recovery in the central/northern
California region may be dependent on an influx of fish from the
southern area.
Model uncertainty regarding natural mortality rates and estimates
of selectivity for the NMFS triennial trawl survey continue to be
problematic. Since 2001, large scale area closures have affected the
spatial distribution of fishing mortality and truncated several
abundance indices (recreational CPUE indices), confounding the
interpretation of survey indices as well as fishery dependent and
independent length frequency data. Data from relatively recent, short-
term surveys do not yet appear to be informative with respect to trends
in abundance, although they are informative with respect to cohort
strength.
At the September 2009 Council meeting, the SSC endorsed the use of
the 2009 bocaccio assessment for status determination and management in
the Council process. The SSC supported the extension of the assessment
area as biologically appropriate given the current understanding of
stock structure, but also recognized that the boundary extension raises
issues with respect to area management. Approximately 6 percent of the
coastwide bocaccio catch has occurred historically between Cape
Mendocino and Cape Blanco while only 1 percent has been taken from the
California/Oregon border to Cape Blanco. The SSC indicated that there
was no conservation issue north of the 40[deg]10' north latitude
management boundary at Cape Mendocino, based on these low bocaccio
catches in the area. Therefore, the SSC did not recommend changing the
area where bocaccio are designated as overfished. The SSC indicated
that management should be based on a pro-rata allocation using the
historical catch distribution north and south of 40[deg]10' north
latitude. The bocaccio OFL of 737 mt for 2011 and 732 mt for 2012 was
based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass
from the 2009 stock assessment. For setting harvest specifications, six
percent of the assessed biomass was estimated to occur north of
40[deg]10' north latitude. The projected OFLs from the assessment were
adjusted accordingly.
Canary Rockfish (Sebastes Pinniger)
A stock assessment update was prepared for the coastwide canary
rockfish stock using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. Consistent with
the Terms of Reference for Groundfish Stock Assessments, fishery and
survey data were updated through 2008. Data updates for earlier years
were also made with most of the updates being minor, with the exception
of historical catch estimates (< 1981) that were substantially revised
by NMFS and CDFG scientists. The historical catch revisions resulted in
a 24 percent reduction in the total estimated canary rockfish catch
from 1916 to 2006, with most of this reduction occurring prior to 1968.
The new data resulted in a rebuilding trajectory that was overall lower
than previous projections. Although the stock has continued to progress
towards the rebuilding threshold (B40), the overall
lowering of the trajectory means that it would take more time to reach
the B40. The new assessment estimated the 2007
depletion level for canary rockfish to have been 21.7 percent (below
the estimate of 32.4 percent for 2007 from the 2007 assessment with 95
percent confidence bounds of 24-41 percent) and the 2009 depletion
level to have been 23.7 percent with 95 percent confidence bounds of
17-30 percent). The SSC indicated that the broad confidence interval on
the depletion level was due to a high degree of uncertainty in the
parameter estimates, especially steepness. The change in the depletion
level is largely due to the revised historical catch time-series for
California. At the Council's September meeting, the SSC indicated that
revised catches reflected the best available data, and were consistent
with the Terms of Reference for Stock Assessment Documents.
The assessment update estimated the unfished spawning stock biomass
to be 25,993 mt (down from the 2007 estimate of 32,561 mt). After a
period of above average recruitments, recent year-class strengths
(1997-2008) have generally been low, with only 4 of the 12 years (1999,
2001, 2006, and 2007) estimated to have produced larger recruitments.
Because of the limited number of years they have been observed, the
strengths of the 2006-2007 year classes are subject to greater
uncertainty. As the larger recruitments from the late 1980s and early
1990s move through the population, the rate of recovery to
BMSY in future projections is estimated to slow. Because the
species has a patchy distribution it is difficult to sample well with
the bottom trawl gear used in the trawl survey.
The base case assessment model explicitly captures parameter
uncertainty in the asymptotic confidence intervals for key parameters
and management quantities. Uncertainty around the base model results is
considered through integration of rebuilding trajectories over two
alternate states of nature corresponding to lower and higher stock-
recruitment steepness, the parameter largely governing productivity and
recent rebuilding trajectory. At the Council's September meeting the
SCC indicated that the canary rockfish stock assessment update
represented the ``best available science,'' and was suitable to use for
Council management decisions. The canary rockfish OFL of 614 mt for
2011 and 622 mt for 2012 was based on the FMSY harvest rate
proxy of F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable
biomass from the 2009 stock assessment update.
[[Page 67818]]
Cowcod (Sebastes Levis)
A stock assessment update was prepared for cowcod in the Southern
California Bight (U.S. waters south of Point Conception--34[deg]27'
north latitude) using an age-structured production model (Stock
Synthesis 2 model). The assumption of an isolated stock is untested,
and no information is available regarding stock structure or dispersal
across the assumed stock boundaries. No new data sources were available
for this update assessment.
Cowcod is a long lived species with a mean generation time
estimated at 38 years. Relative depletion was estimated at 4.5 percent
in 2009 for the base model. The cowcod stock shows a slowly increasing
trend in stock biomass, but given that no new data are available, this
result is little more than a stock projection. Cowcod remain on a
multi-decadal rebuilding timeline. Management actions since 2001, that
include large scale area closures specifically to reduce fishery
interactions with cowcod, have truncated data used in the assessment.
Due to uncertainty in total mortality since no-retention regulations
took effect, recreational and commercial mortalities have been assumed
to be 0.25 metric tons per year, per fishery. A major source of
uncertainty in the assessment was the assumed value of the steepness
parameter in the spawner-recruit relationship. In addition, the
percentage of cowcod in total rockfish landings in years prior to the
1980s is not well understood. At the Council's June 2009 meeting the
SSC indicated that the updated assessment for cowcod represented the
``best available science,'' and was suitable as the basis for Council
management decisions. The 2011 and 2012 cowcod OFL contribution for the
Conception area (south of 36[deg]00' north latitude) was determined
from the 2009 stock assessment update with an FMSY proxy harvest rate
of F50% applied to the estimated exploitable biomass for the assessed
portion of the stock in the Conception area. The OFLs for the Monterey
area were determined using a DB-SRA approach. The OFLs for the
Conception and the Monterey areas were summed to determine an OFL
specification of 13 mt for 2011 and 2012 for the entire stock south of
40[deg]10' north latitude.
Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes Crameri)
In 2009, a stock assessment update was prepared for darkblotched
rockfish the U.S. Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka and Monterey areas using
the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. During the previous assessment cycle,
The SSC indicated that changes to the darkblotched rockfish stock
assessment model in 2007 (same model used for 2009 update) represented
a substantial advancement over previous stock assessments.
The fishing mortality rate on darkblotched rockfish has been
greatly reduced, and darkblotched rockfish appear to be rebuilding
gradually, relatively consistent with previous rebuilding projections.
The point estimate for the depletion of the spawning output at the
start of 2009 is 27.5 percent. In 2009, the biomass (1+ age fish) is
estimated at 12,836 mt, as compared to 5,862 mt in 2000. The
recruitment pattern for darkblotched rockfish is highly variable
between years. Recruitment levels between the 1980's and 1990's were
generally poor when compared with average historical recruitment
levels, with the exceptions being the 1999 and 2000 year-classes which
appear to be two of the four largest years since 1975. The estimated
increase in stock size is driven primarily by the assumption that
darkblotched productivity is analogous to that of other similar
species, and not on survey and fishery data indicating an upward trend.
A number of sources of uncertainty were explicitly included in the
assessment. Allowance was made for uncertainty in natural mortality and
the parameters of the stock recruitment relationship. Sources of
uncertainty not included in the current model, included: The degree of
connection between the stocks of darkblotched rockfish off British
Columbia and those in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); the effect of
climatic variables on recruitment, growth and survival of darkblotched
rockfish; and gender based differences in survival. At the Council's
June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated that the updated assessment for
darkblotched rockfish represented the ``best available science,'' and
was suitable as the basis for Council management decisions. The
darkblotched rockfish OFL of 508 mt for 2011 and 497 mt for 2012 was
based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass
from the 2009 stock assessment update.
Petrale Sole (Eopsetta Jordani)
A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for petrale sole
using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. There is currently no genetic
evidence suggesting distinct biological stocks of petrale sole off the
U.S. coast. Given the lack of clear information regarding the status of
distinct biological populations, the assessment treats the U.S. petrale
sole resource from the Mexican border to the Canadian border as a
single coastwide stock.
Petrale sole were lightly exploited during the early 1900s. By the
1950s, the petrale sole fishery was well developed and showing clear
signs of depletion and declines in catches and biomass. The base model
indicates that the spawning biomass has been below
B25 continuously since 1953. The petrale sole
spawning stock biomass is estimated to have increased slightly from the
late 1990s, peaking in 2005, in response to above average recruitment.
However, this increasing trend has reversed since the 2005 assessment
and the stock has been declining, most likely due to strong year
classes having passed through the fishery. The estimated relative
depletion level for 2009 is 11.6 percent. Unfished spawning stock
biomass was estimated to be 25,334 mt.
The base case assessment model includes within model uncertainty
(assessment parameter uncertainty) from a variety of sources, but it
likely underestimates the uncertainty in recent trend and current stock
status. For this reason, in addition to asymptotic confidence
intervals, results from models that reflect alternate states of nature
regarding the estimate of 2009 spawning biomass are presented as a
decision table within the stock assessment document.
At the Council's June 2009 meeting, the SSC reviewed the new
petrale sole assessment and, based on a number of concerns, was unable
to endorse the assessment at that time. While the petrale sole
assessment appeared to be technically sound and thoroughly reviewed by
the STAR panel, the SSC was concerned that certain assessment results
were so extreme that the overall plausibility of the assessment was
called into question. Attention focused primarily on the estimated
catchability of the NWFSC survey, the estimate of stock-recruit
steepness (0.95), and confounding of estimated model parameters. The
Council's STAR Panel recommended that the estimates of FMSY
and BMSY produced by the petrale sole assessment be
investigated as alternatives to the currently used proxies for
F40 and B40. The SSC developed a
list of analytical requests for the Council's petrale sole Stock
Assessment Team to address. The SSC's groundfish subcommittee and the
Council's Stock Assessment Team reviewed the model and proxies of
F40 and B40. After further
consideration by the SSC's groundfish subcommittee, the full SSC
endorsed the petrale sole stock
[[Page 67819]]
assessment model approved by the Council's STAR panel, and recommended
that proxies of B25 for BMSY and
F30 for FMSY be established for all
flatfish not only petrale sole.
The SSC agreed that the base petrale sole model represents the best
available scientific information, and endorsed its use for status
determination and management in the Council process. The SSC concluded
that there is no basis for rejecting the assessment based on the
estimated catchability coefficient (q) for NWFSC trawl survey. However
the SSC encouraged further investigation of the catchability
coefficient of the survey by experimental evaluation of trawl
performance, quantification of trawlable and untrawlable habitat off
the west coast, or by synthesis of available information and expert
knowledge through development of an informative prior, as had been
anticipated from the 2008 survey catchability workshop. The SSC also
endorsed further evaluation of fishery CPUE data in the next petrale
sole assessment. The petrale sole OFL of 1,021 mt for 2011 and 1,279 mt
for 2012 was based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of
F30 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass
from the 2009 stock assessment.
POP (Sebastes Alutus)
A stock assessment update was prepared for POP in the combined U.S.
Vancouver and Columbia areas using the same forward projection age-
structured model used in the previous stock assessment. Consistent with
the Terms of Reference for Groundfish Stock Assessments, fishery,
survey, and observer data were updated to include the years since the
last assessment. Only minor updates to the data from earlier years were
made.
There were no significant changes in the view of stock status
between the 2007 and 2009 assessment updates. The estimate of depletion
of the spawning biomass at the start of 2009 is estimated to be 28.6
percent. The POP biomass shows an increasing trend. Poor recruitment
has been seen in recent years, compared with the 1950s and 1960s,
although the 1999 year class appears to be larger than any other since
the 1960's. The 2000 year class also appears to be relatively large;
however, this may be due to some small amount of overall bias in
ageing.
A number of sources of uncertainty are explicitly included in this
assessment such as uncertainty in natural mortality, the parameters of
the stock-recruitment relationship, and the survey catch ability
coefficients. There are also other sources of uncertainty that are not
included in the current model. These include the degree of connection
between the U.S. and Canadian stocks; the effect of climatic variables
on recruitment, growth and survival; gender differences in growth and
survival; and the relationship between individual spawner biomass and
effective spawning output and age and maturity.
At the Council's June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated that the
updated assessment for POP represented the ``best available science,''
and would be suitable as the basis for Council management decisions.
The POP OFL of 1,026 mt for 2011 and 1,007 mt for 2012 was based on the
FMSY harvest rate proxy of F50 as applied
to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment
update.
Widow Rockfish (Sebastes Entomelas)
A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for widow rockfish in
the U.S Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka, Monterey, and Conception areas.
The 2009 assessment differed from the previous assessment in several
respects: The assessment used the Stock Synthesis 3 model rather than
an age-based population model; the catch history was revised and
extended back to 1916; catch, age structure, and survey data were
updated through 2008; and data from the NWFSC trawl survey were
included in the assessment.
The widow rockfish spawning biomass steadily declined from 1980 to
2003, when widow rockfish was targeted in a major commercial fishery.
Since 2003, spawning biomass has shown an increasing trend. For 2009
spawning biomass is estimated at 15,625 mt (~95 percent confidence:
5,984-25,266 mt). Depletion in 2009 is estimated at 38.5 percent (14.2-
62.9 percent) of unfished biomass. Because the biomass is below
B40 it remains under a rebuilding plan.
Uncertainty in estimation of widow rockfish recruitment remains
high. The highest known widow rockfish recruitment occurred in 1970.
When compared to the long-term average, recruitment was relatively low
in the early 1990s and since 2001. The 2007 stock assessment update
indicated that the 2000 recruitment was relatively strong; however, the
new stock assessment did not confirm a strong 2000 recruitment. In
general, estimates of recruitment for the most recent years are
uncertain, and can have a considerable impact on the outcomes of
rebuilding projections.
The SSC endorsed the use of the 2009 widow rockfish stock
assessment for status determination and management in the Council
process. The widow rockfish OFLs of 5,097 mt for 2011 and 4,923 mt for
2012 were based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass
from the 2009 stock assessment.
Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes Ruberrimus)
A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for yelloweye
rockfish in 2009 using the Stock Synthesis 3.03b model. The 2009
assessment differed from previous assessments in terms of assumed
population structure and the data used to fit the model. The 2009
assessment was based on three regions (California, Oregon and
Washington) under the assumptions that: Adults are sedentary; density-
dependence is a function of coastwide egg production; and the
proportion of recruits settling in each area is constant over time.
This spatial structure is consistent with our understanding of the
behavior of yelloweye rockfish, and reflects a compromise between a
coastwide assessment and separate assessments for each state.
Even with a large number of changes to data inputs, the results
from the 2009 yelloweye rockfish assessment are consistent with those
from the 2006 and 2007 assessments. All of these assessments suggest
that yelloweye rockfish experienced a substantial decline in abundance
between 1980 and 2000, with increased catches. Large reductions in
harvest have been in place since 2000. The best estimate of depletion
in 2009 from the current assessment is 20.3 percent of unfished biomass
(states of nature: 17.3-23.5 percent). This represents an increase from
the 2007 updated assessment, which estimated depletion in 2007 to be
16.4 percent.
In contrast to the 2006 and 2007 assessments, the 2009 assessment
makes use of data from the NWFSC and triennial trawl surveys as well as
data on discarded yelloweye rockfish collected by observers in the
Oregon recreational charter fishery. However, the International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC) survey data remain the most important index
in the assessment, although IPHC survey data are only available for
Washington and Oregon and not California, where the largest potential
biomass of yelloweye rockfish is estimated to occur.
Data for yelloweye rockfish are sparse and relatively
uninformative, especially regarding current trends. Yelloweye rockfish
catches are very uncertain due to the relatively small contribution to
rockfish market categories and the
[[Page 67820]]
relatively large scale of recreational removals. In addition, since
2001, management restrictions have required nearly all yelloweye
rockfish caught by recreational and commercial fishers to be discarded
at sea. Currently available fishery-independent indices of abundance
are imprecise and not highly informative. It is unclear whether
increased rates of recovery (or lack thereof) will be detectable
without more precise survey methods applied over broad portions of the
coast. Fishery data are also unlikely to produce conclusive information
about the stock for the foreseeable future, due to retention
prohibitions and active avoidance of yelloweye rockfish among all
fleets. Considerable uncertainty regarding the time-series of
historical catches was identified as a key source of uncertainty in the
stock assessment.
At the Council's September 2009 meeting, the SSC cautioned against
using the stock assessment estimates of trends in abundance by region
as the sole basis for the spatial allocation because the trend in
abundance at the coastwide level was much more robust than at the
regional level. The SSC emphasized the value of collecting biological
data, such as age-length and maturation information, for yelloweye
rockfish during the IPHC surveys.
The SSC endorsed the approach used to quantify uncertainty, which
forms the basis for the yelloweye rockfish rebuilding analysis and they
endorsed the use of the 2009 yelloweye rockfish assessment as the best
available science for status determination and management in the
Council process. The yelloweye rockfish OFL of 48 mt for 2011 and 2012
was based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass
from the 2009 stock assessment.
ABC Policy
The proposed ABCs are consistent with the harvest specification
framework proposed for Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP. Under Amendment 23,
the term ABC is redefined to be an annual catch specification that is
the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount associated with
scientific uncertainty. Under the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act National
Standard 1 guidelines, scientific advice that is relatively uncertain
will result in ABCs that are relatively lower, all other things being
equal, i.e., a precautionary reduction in catch will occur due purely
to scientific uncertainty. The ABC is the catch level that ACLs may not
exceed. As explained in more detail below, the SSC recommended a two-
step approach referred to as the P* approach initially for stocks with
relatively data-rich stock assessments and ultimately for other stocks.
In this approach, the SSC determines the amount of scientific
uncertainty in a stock assessment, referred to as sigma. Then the
Council determines the level of risk aversion to use, which is
designated as the P*. The scientists then apply the P* value to the
sigma value to determine the amount by which the OFL is reduced to
establish the ABC.
In January 2009, the SSC's Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species
Subcommittees met to discuss the new Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization requirements, including the development of a
methodology for estimating scientific uncertainty in stock assessments.
At this meeting, two types of uncertainty in biomass estimation were
considered. The first was ``within'' assessment variability, which is
presented in each stock assessment or stock assessment update and
represented by the coefficient of variation for the terminal year
biomass estimate. The second type of uncertainty is ``among''
assessment variation, resulting from a wide variety of factors, many of
which represent a significant model or structural uncertainty. Reasons
for ``among'' assessment variations in stock size estimation, includes
differences in: The modeling software; the makeup of the analytical
team doing the assessment; the composition of the review panel; changes
in data availability; altered ``priors'' for the parameters; and
changes in overall model structure. The SSC evaluated three methods of
quantifying these types of scientific uncertainty, but also recognized
that numerous other unaccounted for factors exist for which there is
currently no method for meaningful analysis, including for example, the
effects of climate and/or ecosystem interactions on the estimation of
an OFL.
The general methodology used by the SSC subcommittees to assess
among-assessment uncertainty was to compare previous stock assessments
and stock assessment updates, and consider the logarithms of the ratios
of the biomass estimates for each pair of assessments and their
reciprocals using the last 20 years from an assessment. This provides a
distribution of stock size differences in log-space and, if this
variation is averaged over species, provides a general view of total
biomass variation (represented as sigma--[sigma]) that emerges among
repeat assessments of stocks, while embracing a wide range of factors
that affect variability in results. During their consideration of
Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP, in March 2010, the SSC recommended the use
of this methodology, but recognized that it was only the first step in
the process of developing methods for estimating uncertainty in OFL, in
part, because it only considers uncertainty in biomass and likely
underestimates total variance. Going forward, the SSC indicated that it
will be important to consider other sources of uncertainty, such as
FMSY. While biomass is most likely the dominant source of
uncertainty, it is anticipated that other factors will need to be
considered in the future.
The SSC recommended the biomass variance statistic of sigma=0.36,
from the analysis of stock assessments and stock assessment updates
from 17 data rich stocks (meta-analysis). To set ABCs, the Council
recommended using an approach where the SSC determines a value of sigma
and the GMT uses the recommended formulation to translate sigma to a
range of P* values (the probability of overfishing). Each P* is then
mapped to its corresponding buffer fraction. The Council then
determines the preferred level of risk aversion by selecting an
appropriate P* value.
In cases where the P* approach is used, the upper limit of P*
values considered will be 0.45. Since estimated OFLs are median
estimates, there is a 50 percent probability that the OFL is
overestimated or underestimated. A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional
reduction for scientific uncertainty. In other words, the ABC is set
equal to the OFL.
For the purposes of using the P* approach, the SSC assigned stocks
to species categories. Using the P* approach, a scientific uncertainty
buffer against overfishing can generally be determined for data rich
species that have had quantitative stock assessments prepared (category
1 species). Since there is greater scientific uncertainty for category
2 and 3 stocks relative to category 1 stocks, the scientific
uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that recommended for
category 1 stocks. The SSC indicated that ideally the approach
recommended for setting ABCs for category 1 stocks should also be
applied to category 2 and 3 stocks. However, there is presently no
analysis available for determining the appropriate value of sigma
([sigma]) to represent scientific uncertainty for stocks in these
categories, unlike the situation for category 1 stocks. In the absence
of an analysis for category 2 and 3 stocks, the SSC suggested two
interim approaches for computing ABCs from OFLs: Use 25 percent and 50
percent reductions from the OFL for deciding the ABC for category 2 and
3 stocks (similar to status quo), respectively; or use the P* approach
using the [sigma] values
[[Page 67821]]
for category 2 and 3 stocks recommended by the SSC. The SSC noted that
their approach allows the Council to express their views on overfishing
risk aversion. With a P* approach for deciding the ABC for category 2
and 3 stocks, the SSC recommended setting the value of sigma ([sigma])
for category 2 and 3 stocks to 0.72 and 1.44 respectively (i.e., two
and four times the [sigma] for category 1 stocks). The difference
between buffers determined using sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44
corresponds fairly closely to the difference between the buffers
previously used for category 2 and 3 stocks (25 percent versus 50
percent) when P* is in the range 0.3 ~ 0.35. Although, the specific
values of 0.72 and 1.44 are recommended by the SSC and considered to be
the best available scientific information, the values are not based on
a formal analysis of assessment outcomes and could change substantially
when the SSC reviews additional analyses in future management cycles.
The Council approved the SSC-recommended [sigma] values for each
species category. For category 1 species the Council adopted a P* of
0.45, which combined with a sigma ([sigma]) value of 0.36, corresponds
with a reduction of 4.4 percent from the OFL when deriving the ABC. For
healthy stocks, the P* of 0.45 is more risk averse than the policy used
in the previous biennial management cycle in which the OYs for most
healthy stocks were set at 100 percent of the ABC. The Council adopted
a general policy of using a P* of 0.4 for category 2 and 3 stocks. The
buffers determined using sigma ([sigma]) values of 0.72 and 1.44 with a
P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 16.7 percent, and 30.6 percent
reductions, respectively. For the purpose of setting the ABCs in 2011
and 2012 the following category 1 species had a P* of 0.45 applied to
the OFL to determine the ABC: Bocaccio south of 40[deg]10' north
latitude, canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch,
widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, petrale sole, lingcod north of
42[deg] N latitude (Oregon and Washington), Pacific whiting (U.S./
Canada), sablefish (coastwide), chilipepper rockfish (coastwide),
splitnose rockfish south of 40[deg]10' north latitude, yellowtail
rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north latitude, shortspine thornyhead
(coastwide), black Rockfish (Washington), black Rockfish (Oregon-
California), California scorpionfish, cabezon (California), cabezon
(Oregon), Dover sole, and English sole. For the purpose of setting the
ABCs in 2011-2012, the following category 2 species had a P* of 0.40
and a sigma value of applied 0.72 applied to the OFL to determine the
ABC: greenstriped rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, starry flounder,
longspine thornyhead (coastwide), shortbelly rockfish, lingcod south of
42[deg] north latitude (California), cowcod (Conception-Cowcod in the
Monterey area are a category 3 stock) and longnose skate. For the
purpose of setting the minor rockfish complex ABCs in 2011-2012, the
ABCs for the sub-complexes are the sum of the component species ABCs.
The SSC identified the appropriate species category for each component
species: A sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (splitnose north,
chilipepper rockfish north, gopher rockfish north of Pt. Conception,
and blackgill rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (greenstriped
rockfish, blue rockfish, and bank rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3
stocks. The P* value used to determine the ABCs for the component
species in the minor rockfish complexes was 0.45. The resulting 2011
and 2012 ABCs for minor rockfish north are reduced by 11 percent from
the OFL (nearshore-15 percent, shelf-11 percent, and slope-9 percent)
and for the minor rockfish south are reduced by 13 percent (nearshore-
14 percent, shelf-16 percent, and slope-8 percent). Like the minor
rockfish complex ABCs, the ``other flatfish'' complex ABCs were derived
from the sum of the component species, with all being category 3
species ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.4). For the ``other fish'' complex the ABC
is a 24 percent reduction from the OFL [sigma]=1.44/P*=0.4)for category
3 species. Tables 1a and 2a present the specifications for each stock
while the footnotes to these tables describe how the proposed
specifications were derived.
Vulnerability to Overfishing and Organization of Stock Complexes
The vulnerability of a stock to becoming overfished is defined in
the National Standard 1 guidelines as a function of its productivity
and its susceptibility to the fishery. The guidelines note that the
``vulnerability'' of fish stocks should be considered when: (1)
Deciding if a stock considered to be ``in the fishery'' or if it is an
ecosystem component stock; (2) considering the management of stocks
managed within complexes and the need to re-structure the stock
complexes; and (3) creating management control rules. The GMT and the
NMFS Vulnerability Evaluation Work Group considered the productivity
and susceptibility of each groundfish stock by providing productivity
and susceptibility (PSA) scores for each stock. A score of 1 to 3 was
identified for a set of attributes related to productivity and
susceptibility. Currently there are 10 attributes for productivity that
reflect stock life history and 12 attributes that reflect
susceptibility to the impacts of fishing and management. Stocks with a
low productivity score and a high susceptibility score were considered
to be more vulnerable, while stocks with a high productivity score and
low susceptibility score were considered to be less vulnerable.
In the consideration of stock complex structure, a four step
approach for defining the relationship between fisheries and
appropriate stock complexes was developed using the PSA score: (1)
Calculate PSA scores for each species in the PCGFMP; (2) identify the
overlap in distributions of each species based on latitude and depth
range; (3) assign each species to the various fisheries; and (4)
overlay the groupings onto the PSA plot. The GMT provided the PSA
vulnerability scores for all of the Pacific coast groundfish and
completed a cluster analysis based on latitude and depth to identify
spatial overlaps. The results of the preliminary cluster analysis
indicate that there is a need to adjust the assignment of PCGFMP stocks
to complexes. The GMT concluded they could not complete the necessary
analyses and discussion to fully implement the changes to stock
complexes suggested by the National Standard 1 guidelines on the
timeline for implementing Amendment 23 or these specifications.
The GMT explored using catch information to consider whether
species that are not in the PCGFMP should be considered for inclusion
as ``in the fishery'' or as ``ecosystem component'' species. By using
NWFSC West Coast Observer Program mortality reports on the non-whiting
trawl fishery in 2007 and 2008, and a simple method for expanding total
catch, the GMT was able to roughly compare the relative magnitude of
total catch of PCGFMP species versus species not in the PCGFMP. Based
on this preliminary analysis of total catch information, the potential
vulnerability scores of these non-PCGFMP species may be
indistinguishable from those scores of species currently in the PCGFMP.
Therefore, further consideration may be warranted in the future to
decide if any of these species should be included in the PCGFMP as ``in
the fishery'' or as an ``ecosystem component'' species. The GMT
recommended revisiting the ``in the fishery'' classification following
this biennial cycle, with consideration of
[[Page 67822]]
changes to stock complexes in the 2013-2014 biennial cycle.
OY Policies
The concept of OY remains in the PCGFMP, however, OYs will no
longer be used as the annual limit on catch; instead, ACLs will be used
for this purpose. As revisions to the National Standard 1 guidelines
did not alter the definition of OY, which is defined 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,'' that definition remains unchanged in the PCGFMP. OY may be
expressed numerically (as a harvest guideline, quota, or other
specification) or non-numerically. Beginning with the 2011 and 2012
harvest specifications, ACLs are intended to, over the long-term, meet
the National Standard 1 guidelines of preventing overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield.
ACL Policy
ACLs are specified for each stock and stock complex that is ``in
the fishery'' as specified under the proposed Amendment 23 framework.
An ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC to
address conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management
uncertainty or other factors necessary to meet any management
objectives. Sector-specific ACLs may be specified in cases where a
sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of
a stock or stock complex. All sources of fishing related mortality
(tribal, commercial groundfish and non groundfish, recreational, and
EFP) retained and discard mortality, plus research catch is accounted
for within an ACL. In general, when recommending ACLs, the Council
follows a risk-averse policy by recommending an ACL that is below ABC
when there is a perception the stock is below its BMSY, or
to accommodate management uncertainty, socioeconomic concerns, or other
considerations.
Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level that produces MSY
(BMSY) is defined as the precautionary threshold. When the
biomass for a category 1 stock or stock complex falls below the
precautionary threshold, the harvest rate will be reduced to help the
stock return to the BMSY level. If a stock biomass is larger
than BMSY, the ACL may be set equal to or less than ABC.
Because BMSY is a long term average, the true biomass could
be below BMSY in some years and above BMSY in
other years. Even in the absence of overfishing, a biomass may decline
to levels below BMSY due to natural fluctuations. Decreasing
harvest rates below the ABC level when a biomass is estimated to be
below BMSY, is a harvest control rule designed to prevent a
stock or stock complex from becoming overfished.
The PCGFMP defines ACL harvest policies for category 1 species. The
40-10 harvest control rule has been applied to stocks with a
BMSY proxy of 40 percent (B40) since
2000. A new harvest control rule referred to as the 25-5 harvest
control rule is proposed for stocks with a BMSY proxy of 25
percent (B25). Consistent with the SSC
recommendations, the new harvest control rule would be used for setting
ACLs for flatfish species not managed under overfished species
rebuilding plans when the biomass estimated from the stock assessment
indicates that the stock has fallen below B25. The
25-5 rule works exactly like the 40-10 rule except that the ACL
adjustment begins when the stock's depletion drops below
B25 and at B5, the ACL is set to
zero. Like the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with an MSST proxy
of B40, the 25-5 harvest control rule is designed to
prevent stocks from becoming overfished. If a stock biomass is larger
than the biomass needed to produce MSY (BMSY), the ACL may
be set equal to or less than the ABC.
Under these harvest policies, when a stock's depletion level falls
below BMSY (or the proxy for BMSY),
the stock is said to be in the ``precautionary zone'' or below the
precautionary threshold. When a stock is below the precautionary
threshold the harvest policies reduce the fishing mortality rate. The
further the stock biomass is below the precautionary threshold, the
greater the reduction in ACL relative to the ABC, until at
B10 for a stock with a BMSY proxy of
B40 or B5 for a stock with a
BMSY proxy of B25, when the OY would be
set at zero. These harvest policies foster a quicker return to the
BMSY level and serve as an interim rebuilding policy for
stock that are below the overfished threshold (Below MSST--below
B25 for a stock with a BMSY proxy of
B40 or B12.5 for a stock with a
BMSY proxy of B25).
The Council may recommend setting the ACL higher than what the
default ACL harvest control rule specifies as long as the ACL: Does not
exceed the ABC; complies with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act; and is consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. On a
case-by-case basis, additional precautionary adjustments may be made to
an ACL if necessary to address management uncertainty. The ACL serves
as the basis for invoking AMs. If ACLs are exceeded more often than 1
in 4 years, then AMs, such as catch monitoring and inseason adjustments
to fisheries, need to improve or additional AMs may need to be
implemented. Additional AMs may include setting an ACT, which is a
specified level of harvest below the ACL. The use of ACTs may be
especially important for a stock subject to highly uncertain inseason
catch monitoring. A sector-specific ACT may serve as a harvest
guideline for a sector or may be used strategically in a rebuilding
plan to attempt to reduce mortality of an overfished stock more than
the rebuilding plan limits prescribe.
For category 2 and 3 species with only rudimentary stock
assessments, the Council has the discretion to adjust the ACLs for
uncertainty on a case-by-case basis. In cases where there is a high
degree of uncertainty about the condition of the stock or stocks, the
ACL may be reduced accordingly. Most category 3 species are managed in
a stock complex (such as other flatfish, minor rockfish, and other
fish) where harvest specifications are set for the complex in its
entirety. For stock complexes, the ACL will be less than or equal to
the sum of the individual component ABCs. The ACL may be adjusted below
the sum of component ABCs as appropriate. For what are now being
referred to as category 2 and 3 stocks, the Council's policy prior to
this specification cycle was to set the OY at 75 percent of the ABC to
account for stocks that have non-quantitative assessments and to set
the OY at 50 percent of the ABC where the ABC is based on historical
data. The previous adjustments were intended to address both scientific
and management uncertainty. Because the ABC values for 2011 and 2012
are the OFLs reduced by scientific uncertainty, adjustment to the ACLs
for additional uncertainty was made on a case-by-case basis.
If a stock is declared overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requires the Council to develop a rebuilding plan within one year from
the declaration date. The policies for setting ACLs for overfished
species managed under rebuilding plans is described below in the
section titled ``Rebuilding Plan ACLs for Overfished Species''.
[[Page 67823]]
As discussed above, the Council's development of the 2011 and 2012
biennial harvest specifications began at Council's November 2009
meeting. Because Amendment 23 was under development while the ACL
alternatives were being developed, some early ACLs under consideration
by the Council were not consistent with Amendment 23 and were removed
after the ABCs were specified (i.e. ACLs that exceeded the ABC). Other
viable ACLs though lower than the ABC's developed under the Amendment
23 structure, are described in terms of pre-Amendment 23 language. The
harvest specifications recommended by the Council and which are being
implemented by this action are consistent with Amendments 23.
ACLS for ``Healthy'' and ``Precautionary Zone'' Species and Species
Complexes
As stated above, the PCGFMP provides guidance on setting harvest
specifications for category 1 stocks depending on the stock's estimated
biomass level. For the following species or species complexes where
there was no new scientific information including stock assessments or
a management guidance change in the harvest strategy, the Council only
considered a single annual ACL for 2011 and 2012: Pacific cod;
chilipepper rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, shortspine thornyhead north
of 34[deg]27' north latitude, black rockfish (Washington), black
rockfish (Oregon/California), longnose skate, other flatfish, and other
fish. The Council recommended final adoption of the ABC/OYs values for
these species at its June 2010 meeting. The information that serves as
the basis for the ACLs for these species can be found in the footnotes
to Table 1a and Table 2a. Because there were new policies applicable or
new information available, the Council considered alternative ACLs for
the following non-overfished species: lingcod north of 42[deg] north
latitude; lingcod south of 42[deg] north latitude; sablefish;
shortbelly rockfish; shortspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north
latitude; longspine thornyhead north of 34[deg]27' north latitude;
longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north latitude; California
scorpionfish; cabezon (California); cabezon (Oregon); Dover sole;
English sole; arrowtooth flounder; starry flounder; and minor rockfish
complexes north and south of 40[deg]10' north latitude.
Pacific whiting is managed consistent with the U.S.-Canada
agreement for Pacific whiting. ACLs for Pacific whiting are adopted on
an annual basis after a stock assessment is completed just prior to the
Council's March meeting. Accordingly, the Council recommended a range
of ACLs for 2011 and 2012, and delayed adoption of final 2011 and 2012
OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs until the March 2011 and 2012 meetings,
respectively. The DEIS for the 2011 and 2012 management measures
considers a range for Pacific whiting ACLs and the resulting impacts.
Lingcod North and South
A lingcod stock assessment was prepared in 2009. The stock
assessment was conducted as two separate stock assessments, one for the
northern portion and one for the southern portion of the stock. For
lingcod off of Washington and Oregon (the northern portion of the
coastwide stock) the biomass was estimated to be at 62 percent of its
unfished biomass, and for lingcod off of California (the southern
portion) the biomass was estimated to be at 74 percent of its unfished
biomass. Three ACL alternatives were considered for the north stock.
Alternative 1, with an ACL of 1,219 mt in 2011 and 1,126 mt in 2012 was
based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with a 50 percent
reduction from the OFL (48 percent reduction from the ABC) for
assessment uncertainty and overfished species bycatch concerns.
Alternative 2, with an ACL of 2,172 mt in 2011 and 2,020 mt in 2012 was
based on the low mortality model in the 2009 assessment. Alternative 3,
with an ACL of 2,330 mt in 2011 and 2,151 mt in 2012, was based on the
2009 stock assessment base model with the ACL set equal to the ABC.
Because lingcod is a healthy stock the Council recommended the ACL be
set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3).
For lingcod south, three ACLs were considered. Alternative 1, with
an ACL of 1,262 mt in 2011 and 1,299 mt in 2012, was based on the 2009
stock assessment base model with a 50 percent reduction from the OFL
for assessment uncertainty and overfished species bycatch concerns.
Alternative 2, with an ACL of 1,421 mt in 2011 and 1,531 mt in 2012,
was based on the low mortality model in the 2009 assessment.
Alternative 3, with an ACL of 2,102 mt in 2011 and 2,164 mt in 2012 was
based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with the ACL set equal to
the ABC. Because lingcod is a healthy stock, the Council recommended
the ACL be set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3).
The trawl rationalization program, as approved by NMFS in
Amendments 20 and 21, lists lingcod as an IFQ species with a coastwide
area designation. Because these harvest specifications for lingcod are
being recommended north and south of 42[deg] north latitude as opposed
to coastwide, NMFS anticipates that quota share for lingcod would need
to be reallocated north and south of 42[deg] N. lat. once the 2011-2012
harvest specifications and management measures are implemented through
a final rule.
Sablefish
Sablefish is one of the most important species to the trawl and
limited entry fixed gear fisheries. Management uncertainty for
sablefish and the risk of overharvesting is considered to be low. This
is because of the increased monitoring of the trawl fisheries that will
occur under rationalization and because the limited entry fixed gear
sector tends to under harvest their allocation. Therefore, when
recommending the sablefish ACLs, the Council focused primarily on
conservation concerns and stock status.
The 2007 coastwide sablefish stock assessment indicates the stock
is at 36 percent of its unfished biomass and is therefore considered to
be in the precautionary zone. The strength of the stock is reliant upon
the strong 1999 and 2000 year classes, with the possibility of a strong
incoming 2004 year class as well. The 2010 OY was previously set by
applying a 40-10 harvest control rule to the coastwide ABC (in 2010 the
ABC was equivalent to the OFL). The coastwide OY was then apportioned
north and south of 36[deg] north latitude, using the average 2003-2006
proportions of the swept-area biomass estimates of sablefish from the
NWFSC shelf-slope trawl survey (72 percent north; 28 percent south).
The OY south of 36[deg] north latitude was then reduced by 50 percent
to account for greater assessment and survey uncertainty in that area.
In determining the 2011-2012 ACLs for sablefish, the Council
considered: (1) How to apply the 40-10 control rule since this stock is
in the precautionary zone; (2) how to apportion the stock north and
south of 36[deg] north latitude; and (3) whether precautionary
reductions were needed to the southern ACL to account for greater
conservation concerns. Options were considered for applying the 40-10
harvest control rule directly to the OFL, resulting in coastwide ACLs
of 8,485 in 2011 and 8,227 in 2012, and making the adjustment to the
ABC resulting in ACLs of 7,296 mt in 2011 and 6,896 mt in 2012. The
Council recommended the more risk-averse adjustment of applying the 40-
10 reduction to the ABC resulting in a coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt for
2011 and 7,863 mt for 2012.
Historically, the coastwide sablefish OY was apportioned north and
south of 36[deg] North latitude by using historical
[[Page 67824]]
landings data (96.5 percent north and 3.5 percent south). However,
beginning with the 2009-2010 harvest specifications and management
measures process, the swept area biomass from the 2003-2006 combined
NWFSC shelf/slope surveys were used to apportion the coastwide OY (72
percent north and 28 percent south). The Council considered
apportioning the coastwide ACLs for 2011 and 2012 using the same
proportions as in 2009-2010. When applied to the 2011 coastwide ACL of
8,110 mt this resulted in a 5,839 mt apportionment to the north and a
2,271 mt apportionment to the south. When applied to the 2012 coastwide
ACL 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,839 mt apportionment to the north and a
2,271 mt apportionment to the south. Because new data were available
from the 2007 and 2008 NWFSC shelf/slope surveys, the Council also
considered apportioning the coastwide ACLs using averaged 2003-2008
data (68 percent north and 32 percent south) and using a weighted
average with more weighing given to recent years (64 percent north and
36 percent south). When using averaged 2003-2008 data and applying it
to the 2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a 5,515 mt to the
north and 2,595 mt to the south and for 2012 when applied to the ACL of
7,863 mt it resulted in 5,347 mt to the north and 2,516 mt to the
south. When using the weighted average of the 2003-2008 data and
applying it to the 2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a
5,190 mt to the north and 2,920 mt to the south and for 2012 when
applied to the ACL of 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,032 mt to the north and
2,832 mt to the south. The apportionment of biomass using the trawl
survey data incorporates the best available information on the
sablefish stock distribution. The Council recommended apportioning the
2011 and 2012 coastwide ACLs with 68 percent going to the north and 32
percent going to the south, based on using averaged 2003-2008 data.
To account for the uncertainty inherent in the abundance estimates
of sablefish south of 36[deg] north latitude (due to the short time-
series of survey data from the southern area and advisory body advice),
the Council recommended making a 50 percent reduction to the 2011 and
2012 southern apportionment of the coastwide ACLs of 2,595 mt and 2,516
mt, respectively, resulting in 2011 and 2012 ACLs for the area south of
36[deg] north latitude of 1,298 mt and 1,258 mt, respectively. Even
with the precautionary reduction in the southern area, the ACL is high
relative to recent catches in the Conception Area. The Cowcod
Conservation Area (CCA) closes a significant amount of the Conception
Area to fishing and the area-swept biomass estimates for the Conception
area are based on the assumption that catch rates outside of the CCAs
are comparable to those inside (the survey does not sample within the
CCAs).
Thornyheads
Shortspine and longspine thornyhead stocks have been assessed
coastwide and projected harvest levels in the stock assessments are
coastwide values. However, since 2008 each of the stocks has been
managed with separate OYs for the areas north and south of Point
Conception (34[deg]27' north latitude). Separate ACLs are being adopted
for shortspine thornyhead north and south of Point Conception, and
longspine thornyhead north and south of Point Conception.
Only one ACL alternative, based on projections from the 2005 stock
assessment and representing 66 percent of the coastwide ACL (the
portion of the biomass estimated to occur north of Point Conception)
was considered for shortspine thornyhead. Due to conservation concerns
in the Conception area and a new specifications structure under
proposed Amendment 23, two ACL alternatives, based on projections from
the 2005 stock assessment, were considered for shortspine thornyhead
south. Alternative 1 represented 34 percent (the portion of the biomass
estimated to occur south of Point Conception) of the coastwide ACL,
reduced by 50 percent for conservation concerns. Under Alternative 1
the ACLs were 405 mt in 2011 and 401 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs
represented 34 percent of the coastwide ACL with no conservation
reductions and were 811 mt in 2011 and 802 mt in 2012. The Council
recommended a continuation of the added precautionary adjustment
included under Alternative 1, and recommended ACLs of 405 mt in 2011
and 401 mt in 2012. The conservation concern is largely due to the fact
that a small proportion of the Conception area is surveyed in the NMFS
trawl survey given the high proportion of untrawlable habitat in the
Conception area and the prohibition of bottom trawling in the Cowcod
Conservation Areas. The conservation concern is specifically south of
Point Conception (of 34[deg]27' north latitude) and is accommodated in
consideration of the ACL for the shortspine thornyhead stock for the
Conception area.
Two ACL alternatives, based on the most recent stock assessment
(2005) were considered for longspine thornyhead north. Both ACL
alternatives are based on the assumption that 79 percent of the
coastwide biomass occurs north of Point Conception. Alternative 1 for
the northern portion of the coastwide ACL, is a 10 percent reduction
from the ABC for conservation uncertainty. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs
were 2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs made the
same assumption regarding stock distribution and represented 79 percent
of the coastwide ACL based on projections from the 2005 stock
assessment. The ACLs under Alternative 2 were 2,825 mt in 2011 and
2,751 mt in 2012. The Council recommended a continuation of the added
precautionary adjustment included under Alternative 1 and the ACLs of
2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012.
Two ACL alternatives, based on the most recent stock assessment
(2005), were considered for longspine thornyhead south. Alternative 1
assumed a constant density throughout the Conception area and
represented 21 percent (the portion of the biomass estimated to occur
north of Point Conception) of the coastwide ACL reduced by 50 percent
for uncertainty. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs were 375 mt in 2011 and
366 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs made the same assumption regarding
stock distribution and represented 21 percent of the coastwide ACL. The
ACLs under Alternative 2 were 751 mt in 2011 and 731 mt in 2012. For
similar reasons as for shortspine thornyhead south, but with a 40
percent reduction from the ABC, the Council recommended a continuation
of the added precautionary adjustment included under For similar
reasons as for shortspine thornyhead south, the Council recommended a
continuation of the added precautionary adjustment included under
Alternative 1 and recommended ACLs of 375 mt in 2011 and 366 mt in
2012.
Cabezon (California)
In recent years, the OY for Cabezon in waters off California was
based on the California State Nearshore Management Plan which uses a
FMSY proxy of F50 and a 60-20
precautionary adjustment for stocks below B60 (60
percent of the unfished biomass). This is in contrast to the PCGFMP
FMSY proxy of F45 percent for Cabezon. In
light of the new ACL requirements for a more precautionary ABC that is
reduced from the OFL for scientific uncertainty, the Council's advisory
bodies recommended using the
[[Page 67825]]
40-10 adjustment to better align the California management strategy
with the PCGFMP. Alternative 1 considered an ACL of 102 mt in 2011 and
105 mt 2012. Alternative 1 is based on the low mortality scenario from
the 2009 stock assessment with a 40-10 reduction. Since scientific
uncertainty is addressed in the ABC specification and the new
assessment indicates a healthy stock status, the more risk averse ACL
Alternative 1 was not considered necessary for managing California
cabezon. Alternative 2 is the ACL set equal to the ABC and results in a
2011 ACL of 179 mt and a 2012 ACL of 168 mt. Following consideration by
the Council, Alternative 2 was recommended. The cabezon fishery is
managed by the State under the California nearshore fishery management
plan. Implementation of the California fishery management plan included
provisions to improve fishery monitoring and research data collection.
Improved stock assessment modeling plus improved inseason data
availability, as implemented under the California fishery management
plan, are expected to substantially reduce uncertainty in management of
the nearshore fishery. Therefore, additional reductions in the ACL
below ABC to address management uncertainty were not recommended by the
Council.
Cabezon (Oregon)
Following a 2009 stock assessment for cabezon off Oregon the SSC
recommended removing the species from the ``other fish'' complex. The
recreational sector was the main source of cabezon removals until the
1990s when hook and line and pot gear commercial fisheries began
targeting cabezon. Cabezon has since become a valuable live-fish
commercial fishery associated with higher live market prices. Given the
small contribution relative to other species in the complex, removing
cabezon in Oregon from the ``other fish'' complex will reduce the risk
of overfishing.
Two ACL alternatives were considered for the cabezon stock off
Oregon. Alternative 1 includes an ACL of 29 mt in 2011 and 2012, and
was based on the results of the low mortality scenario in the 2009
stock assessment. Since scientific uncertainty is addressed in the ABC
specification and the new assessment indicates a healthier stock, the
more risk averse ACL alternative 1 was not considered necessary for
managing Oregon cabezon. Alternative 2 was from the results of the base
model and the 2009 stock assessment, with the ACL set equal to the ABC.
This resulted in a 2011 ACL of 50 mt and a 2012 ACL of 48 mt. Following
consideration by the Council, an ACL of 50 mt in 2011 and an ACL of 48
mt in 2012 was recommended. The cabezon fishery is managed by the State
of Oregon under a limited entry nearshore permit program with a
conservative management approach and a management history in which
necessary action to stay within harvest specifications has been taken
by the state.
California Scorpionfish
California Scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27' North latitude (Point
Conception) was first assessed in 2005 and was estimated to be between
58 and 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. For 2011 and 2012
the Council considered two ACL alternatives for California
scorpionfish. Alternative 1 was based on the base model from the 2009
stock assessment with the 60-20 reduction from the California State
Nearshore Management Plan. Alternative 1 resulted in a 2011 ACL of 133
mt and a 2012 ACL of 124 mt. The Alternative 2 ACLs of 135 mt in 2011
and 125 mt in 2012 are ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council
recommended setting the ACL equal to the ABC. Like cabezon, the
California nearshore fishery management plan includes California
scorpionfish which is a healthy stock, and is managed by the state
under provisions for improved fishery monitoring and research data
collection.
Dover Sole
Alternatives 1-3 are based on the results of the 2005 stock
assessment, which estimated the Dover sole biomass to be at 59.8
percent of its unfished biomass in 2005 and was projected to be
increasing. Alternative 1 is the 2010 OY which is based on the results
of the 2005 assessment with an FMSY proxy of
F40%. The Alternative 1 ACL of 16,500 mt is the MSY harvest
level which is considerably larger than the coastwide catches in any
recent years. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the FMSY
harvest proxy from F40% to F30% for flatfishes.
The MSY harvest level at F30% is 17,560 mt. Alternative 3 is
based on the results of the 2005 assessment with an FMSY
proxy of F30%, with the ACL set equal to the ABC, and was
considered because the Dover sole stock biomass is above
BMSY. Alternative 3 results in ACLs of 42,436 mt in 2011 and
42,843 mt in 2012. After consideration of these alternatives, the
Council recommended an ACL of 25,000 mt for 2011 and 2012 which is
intermediate to Alternatives 2 and 3. An ACL of 25,000 mt is higher
than recent harvests yet substantially lower than the ABC. This is
anticipated to provide increased harvest opportunities on healthy
stocks for the new trawl ITQ program. With a trawl IFQ program fishers
would allow opportunity within the constraints of the individual quota
shares for both Dover sole and overfished species that co-occur with
Dover sole within. The Council indicated that such opportunities were
necessary at the start of the IFQ fishery to provide harvest
opportunity.
English Sole
Two ACL alternatives were considered for English sole for 2011 and
2012. Alternative 1 is 7,158 mt and 5,790 mt in 2011 and 2012,
respectively. These amounts, are based on the results of the 2007
assessment update with an FMSY proxy of F40% and
the ACL set equal to the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the
FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to F30%
for flatfishes. The 2011 ACL of 19,761 mt and 2012 ACL of 10,150 mt
under Alternative 2 are the ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council
recommended Alternative 2. English sole is a healthy stock that is
primarily caught in the trawl fishery where individual allocations and
improved catch accounting under an IFQ fishery are expected to reduce
the management uncertainty.
Arrowtooth Flounder
Two ACL alternatives were considered for arrowtooth flounder in
2011 and 2012. The Alternative 1 ACLs are 9,109 mt in 2011 and 8,241 mt
in 2012 and are based on the results of the 2007 assessment with an
FMSY proxy of F40% and is the ACL set equal to
the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the FMSY
harvest proxy from F40% to F30% for flatfishes.
The Alternative 2 ACL is set equal to the ABC and results in an ACL of
15,174 mt in 2011 and 12,049 mt in 2012. The Council recommended
Alternative 2. Like English sole, arrowtooth flounder is a healthy
stock that is primarily caught in the trawl fishery, where individual
allocations and improved catch accounting under an IFQ fishery are
expected to reduce the management uncertainty.
Starry Flounder
Starry Flounder was assessed for the first time in 2005 and was
estimated to be above 40 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005.
However, the stock was projected to decline in both the northern and
southern areas. The starry flounder assessment was considered to be a
data-poor assessment relative to other groundfish assessments. The
[[Page 67826]]
Alternative 1 ACL was based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment
with an FMSY proxy of F40% and a 25 percent
precautionary reduction from the ABC to account for management
uncertainty. Alternative 1 results in ACLs of 1,130 mt in 2011 and
1,166 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the
FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to F30%
for flatfishes and includes a 10 percent reduction from the ABC as a
precautionary measure. Alternative 2 results in ACLs of 1,352 mt in
2011 and 1,360 mt in 2012. Alternative 3 reflects the change in the
FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to F30%
for flatfishes. Under Alternative 3 the ACL would be set equal to ABC.
The resulting ACLs under Alternative 3 are 1,502 mt in 2011 and 1,511
mt in 2012. Following consideration of the ACLs, the Council
recommended Alternative 2 with ACLs of 1,352 mt in 2011 and 1,360 mt in
2012.
Minor Rockfish North
In 2010, the ABC for each minor rockfish complex was the sum of the
ABCs. To obtain the total catch OY for the complex, the ``remaining
rockfish'' (species that have been assessed by less rigorous methods or
stock assessments) ABCs were further reduced by 25 percent and ``other
rockfish'' (species that do not have quantifiable stock assessments)
ABCs were reduced by 50 percent. The complex OYs were then based on the
sum of the OYs for the component species contributions. Sub-complex
OYs, minor nearshore rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope
rockfish were also based on the sum of their component species
contributions.
For 2011 and 2012, the Council recommended implementing the OFLs
put forward by the SSC along with the SSC recommended ABC policies of
using a sigma value and the Council recommended P* values. Substantial
changes in minor nearshore north and minor shelf north harvest
specifications from the 2010 levels resulted from the application of
DB-SRA and the DCAC methods for determining OFLs for stocks that have
not been assessed; the apportionment of catch north and south of
40[deg]10' north latitude to derive component species OFLs; and the
application of scientific uncertainty buffers.
The Council expressed concern about the long term impacts of
leaving splitnose and greenstriped rockfish in their current complexes.
If stocks within a complex are caught in proportion to their
contribution to the OFL the risks of overfishing an individual stock is
low. If stocks are not caught in such proportions, then it is possible
for overfishing to occur on a component species. This is more of a
concern with stocks that are targeted and that only contribute a small
proportion of the overall OFL.
Greenstriped rockfish and splitnose rockfish were assessed in 2009.
Given the results of the new assessments the Council considered
removing these stocks from the minor rockfish north complex. Splitnose
rockfish is part of the minor Slope Rockfish North sub-complex, which
is comprised of nine species. In 2011 and 2012, splitnose rockfish is
projected to contribute more than 50 percent of the weight of the minor
Slope Rockfish in the complex. Greenstriped rockfish is a minor shelf
rockfish that would present a similar situation with an OFL
contribution of 55 percent of the complex. Removing a stock from a
complex creates substantial complications for the management system.
New sorting and reporting programs would be required for industry and
the states. The implementation of the trawl shoreside IFQ program and
initial allocation of minor slope rockfish under Amendment 21 would
also be affected. Historical data collected at the complex level would
be unreliable for deriving IFQ catch history at the species level.
Additional observer monitoring under an IFQ program would provide much
needed data for allocations at the species level. Consideration was
given to the potential for a target species within a complex becoming
overfished. Ultimately, the Council recommended leaving splitnose and
greenstriped rockfish in the minor rockfish north complexes at this
time.
For chilipepper rockfish, 7 percent of the biomass from the 2007
assessment area is attributed to the area north of 40[deg]10' north
latitude. The northern portion of the stock is currently managed as
part of the minor rockfish north complex. The Council recommended
continuing the management of this species within the complex north of
40[deg]10' north latitude.
The Council considered dismantling of the minor rockfish complexes
(both north and south) and grouping them by stock vulnerability, based
on the PSA analysis prepared by the GMT. Due to workload and the
complexity of the necessary analysis, the GMT could not complete the
work in time for the 2011-2012 biennial management cycle. The Council
expressed interest in such an analysis for the 2013-2014 biennial
process and encouraged that a broad range of methods be considered
through the Council's STAR-light process (less vigorous review than the
full STAR panel process). The lack of species specific historical
landing data for stocks within complexes makes an analysis difficult.
The trawl IFQ program will require full observer coverage for catch
accounting, and it is expected to provide catch by species data that
could be used in such an analysis.
For minor nearshore rockfish north the Council recommended that
splitnose, greenstriped, and chilipepper rockfish remain in the complex
for 2011 and 2012. A 50 mt contribution for cabezon in waters off
Oregon is removed from the complex. Minor rockfish north is comprised
of three minor rockfish sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope.
Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of the OFLs of the component species
within the complex. ABCs for the minor rockfish complexes and sub-
complexes are based on a sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks
(splitnose and chilipepper rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks
(greenstriped rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks all with a P*s
of 0.45. The ACL for each component species is less than or equal to
the ABC. The ACL for the complex is the sum of the sub-complex ACLs.
The sub-complexes ACLs are the sum of the component stock ACLs. The
resulting 2011 and 2012 ACLs for the minor rockfish north represent a
42 percent (nearshore-15 percent, shelf-56 percent, and slope-23
percent) reduction from the OFL. This is in contrast to the 2010 minor
rockfish north OY which represented a reduction from the 2010 ABC (now
referred to as the OFL) of 38 percent.
Minor Rockfish South
Similar to the minor rockfish north complex, the OFLs recommended
by the SSC and the new ABC policies based on the OFLs for the 2011-2012
cycle resulted in substantial changes relative to 2010. Blue rockfish
is currently managed within the minor rockfish complex. The first blue
rockfish assessment on the West Coast was conducted in 2007 for the
portion of the stock occurring in waters off California north of Point
Conception (34[deg]27' north latitude). The Blue rockfish stock was
estimated to be at 29.7 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007;
therefore, the stock is considered to be in the precautionary zone.
During the 2009 and 2010 biennial specification process, the Council
contemplated removing blue rockfish from the minor rockfish complex.
The decision to continue managing blue rockfish within the minor
nearshore complex was based on both scientific uncertainty and
management needs, given the interaction of blue rockfish with other
[[Page 67827]]
nearshore species. When blue rockfish occur offshore they can be
targeted separately from other nearshore rockfish, but those that occur
inshore mix with other nearshore rockfish stocks. Blue rockfish is
managed under the state of California nearshore management plan which
is a limited entry program with mandatory sorting requirements.
Landings are routinely tracked and monitored, thereby reducing
management uncertainty.
The Council considered the contribution of blue rockfish to the
minor rockfish complex ACL. For more efficient state management, blue
rockfish would continue to be managed as part of the minor rockfish
complex. In 2009-2010, blue rockfish in the California fisheries were
managed with a harvest guideline (HG) to prevent overfishing as blue
rockfish is a stock in the precautionary zone. To prevent an ACL from
being exceeded, the Council recommended continued use of the HG. The
2011 HG will be 242 mt and the 2012 HG will be 239 mt. The HG
contribution for the unassessed portion of the stock south of Pt.
Conception was calculated by first estimating an OFL using the DCAC
methodology and then applying an ABC adjustment ([sigma]=1.44 with a P*
of 0.45). The HG contribution for the assessed area was calculated by
determining the OFL from the 2007 stock assessment, deriving an ABC
using a P* of 0.45 for a category 2 stock, then adjusting the ABC value
using the 40-10 harvest control rule. The 2011 and 2012 blue rockfish
ABC contributions for the assessed and unassessed areas are then summed
to determine the HGs.
Similar to minor rockfish north, consideration was given to the
potential for a target species within a complex becoming overfished and
the contribution of a non-target species managed within a species
complex. The Council contemplated the removal of greenstriped rockfish
in the minor shelf rockfish south complex, but recommended leaving it
in the complex at this time.
Minor rockfish south is comprised of three minor rockfish sub-
complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL for the complex is the
sum of OFLs for nearshore, shelf and slope south sub-complexes. Each
sub-complex OFL is the sum of the OFLs of the component species within
the complex. ABCs for the minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes
are based on a sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher north
of Point Conception, and blackgill rockfish), 0.72 for category 2
stocks (blue, bank and greenstriped rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3
stocks with a P* of 0.45. The ACLs for the complex are the sum of the
sub-complex ACLs. The ACLs for the sub-complexes are the sum of the
component stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC
contribution of each component stock. The ACLs for the minor slope and
shelf sub-complexes were set equal to the 2010 OYs. The resulting 2011
and 2012 ACLs for the minor rockfish south represent a 45 percent
(nearshore-14 percent, shelf-68 percent, and slop-31 percent) reduction
from the OFL. This is in contrast to the 2010 a minor rockfish south OY
reduction from the 2010 ABC (now referred to as the OFL) of 41 percent
in 2010.
Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP removes dusky rockfish and red-dwarf
rockfish from the PCGFMP. These stocks are not considered to be in the
fishery as there are no historical records of them being landed.
Therefore these stocks are removed from the complexes.
Splitnose Rockfish
A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for splitnose
rockfish in 2009. Splitnose rockfish is a slope species currently
managed in the minor rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' north
latitude, but as an individual species south of 40[deg]10' north
latitude. Splitnose rockfish has been managed separately north and
south of 40[deg]10' north latitude because the previous stock
assessment was only for the southern portion of the stock. Although the
SSC recommended 2011 and 2012 coastwide splitnose rockfish OFLs of
2,381 and 2,507 mt, respectively, which were determined by applying the
proxy F50 MSY harvest rate to the projected
exploitable biomass in each year. The Council chose OFL and ABC values
that assume that splitnose rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north latitude
would continue to be managed within the minor nearshore rockfish
complex north. The Council recommended continuing this management
strategy largely due to the implications of determining the catch
history for individual trawl permits for the initial allocation of
quota shares for the shoreside trawl IFQ program under Amendment 20.
Determining the catch history would be difficult because splitnose
rockfish are not targeted and are predominantly discarded at sea
resulting in little landing data.
The Council recommended continued management of splitnose rockfish
with a separate ACL south of 40[deg]10' north latitude and within the
minor slope rockfish sub-complex ACL north of 40[deg]10' north
latitude. As noted above, the minor slope rockfish north complex is
comprised of nine species. In 2011 and 2012, splitnose rockfish were
projected to contribute more than 50 percent of the ABC/ACL of the
minor Slope Rockfish North complex. The north/south apportionment
recommended by the Council was based on the average 1916-2008 assessed
area catch and is 64.2 percent for the area south of 40[deg]10' north
latitude and 35.8 percent for the area north of 40[deg]10' north
latitude. The resulting ACL for 2011 is 1,461 mt and 1,538 mt for 2012.
Shortbelly Rockfish
To understand the potential environmental determinants of
fluctuations in the recruitment and abundance of an unexploited
rockfish population in the California Current ecosystem, a non
quantitative assessment was conducted in 2007. The results of the
assessment indicated the shortbelly stock was healthy with an estimated
spawning stock biomass at 67 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005.
Shortbelly rockfish is an abundant species that is not targeted in any
commercial or recreational fisheries, and which is a valuable forage
fish species. The OFL of 6,950 mt was recommended for the stock in both
2011 and 2012 with an ABC of 5,789 mt ([sigma]-0.72 with a P* of 0.40)
in both 2011 and 2012. The Council considered two ACL alternatives.
Alternative 1 with an ACL of 50 mt was somewhat above the recent
landing level and under Alternative 2 ACL values were set equal to the
ABC (5,789 in both 2011 and 2012). The 50 mt ACL was recommended by the
Council and was intended to be adequate to accommodate incidental catch
while preventing the development of fisheries specifically targeting
shortbelly rockfish. The Council recognized shortbelly rockfish for its
value as a forage fish.
Rebuilding Plan ACLS for Overfished Species
When a stock has been declared overfished a rebuilding plan must be
developed and the stock must be managed in accordance with the
rebuilding plan. An overfished groundfish stock is considered rebuilt
once its biomass reaches BMSY. Rebuilding plans are based on
the results of rebuilding analyses. Life history characteristics (e.g.,
age of reproductive maturity, relative productivity at different ages
and sizes, etc.) and the effects of environmental conditions on its
abundance (e.g., relative productivity under inter-annual and inter-
decadal climate variability, availability of suitable feed and habitat
for different life stages, etc.) are taken into account in the stock
assessment and the rebuilding analysis. A
[[Page 67828]]
rebuilding analysis for an overfished species uses the information in
its stock assessment to determine TMIN, the minimum time to
rebuild to BMSY in the absence of fishing. For each stock,
TMIN is dependent on a variety of physical and biological
factors. The rebuilding analyses are used to predict TMIN
for each overfished species and, in doing so, answer the question of
what is ``as quickly as possible'' for each of the overfished species.
To rebuild a stock by the TMIN date would require
elimination of human-induced mortality on a stock (the complete absence
of fishing mortality is referred to as F = zero). However, the absence
of fishing mortality does not necessarily result in the complete
absence of human-induced fishing mortality. To rebuild by the
TMIN date would require elimination of extractive scientific
research, in addition to any target or incidental commercial,
recreational, or ceremonial and subsistence fishing that results in
overfished species mortality. Eliminating extractive scientific fishing
would eliminate a significant portion of data used to inform stock
assessments and to better understand the biological condition of
groundfish stocks. For overfished species where retention has been
prohibited, little information is available to inform stock
assessments; this has particularly been an issue for species such as
yelloweye rockfish. With the implementation of trawl rationalization,
observer monitoring will increase to full coverage which is expected to
provide more biological data regarding overfished species that are
vulnerable to trawl gear. However, for species such as yelloweye
rockfish and cowcod that are primarily taken in the recreational
fishery and with non-trawl gears, little new biological data is
expected to be available without research collections. Non-extractive
survey techniques, such as Remote Operational Vehicle (ROV) work, are
currently cost prohibitive on a large scale. Because Pacific Coast
groundfish species are so intermixed, extractive scientific fishing for
some non-overfished species would need to be eliminated as well. To
appropriately take into account the status and biology of overfished
stocks, both now and in the future the scientific take of overfished
and other groundfish stocks must continue.
The relative level of depletion, combined with other biological
characteristics of the stock, influences the sensitivity of a stock's
rebuilding time to changes to long-term harvest rates generally used to
set ACLs. Stocks with very low levels of depletion; such as canary
rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye rockfish; are considered to have a
higher sensitivity to changes in harvest rate and higher harvest rates
for these species have a greater risk of not rebuilding by
TTARTGET. From a biological view due to the differences in
productivity between species, one year of delay of rebuilding for
yelloweye rockfish (the slowest of the overfished species to rebuild)
is not equivalent to a one year of delay in rebuilding for petrale sole
(the quickest overfished species to rebuild). The estimate of mean
generation time recommended in the National Standard guidelines for the
calculation of TMAX captures these biological differences,
but it is not incorporated into the other rebuilding parameters.
As advised by the SSC, the Council has elected to set overfished
species harvests based on a constant SPR harvest rate. The SPR is the
expected lifetime contribution to the spawning stock biomass for a
recruit (a fish of specific spawning age or greater) usually expressed
as the number of eggs that could be produced by an average recruit in a
fished stock, divided by the number of eggs that could be produced by
an average recruit in an unfished stock. The SPR harvest rate specifies
the proportion of the spawning stock that can be removed each year and
inherently takes into account the productivity of the stock. The
exploitation pattern, rate of growth, and natural mortality can be
given consideration when calculating an SPR harvest rate. Applying a
constant SPR harvest rate is more precautionary in an uncertain
environment as it reduces the effect of changes in variability in the
scale of biomass (a change in the entire trajectory of biomass from the
first biomass estimate forward to the current biomass estimate). When a
new stock assessment results in a change in the understanding of stock
scale, a constant harvest rate strategy is expected to keep the stock
on track to the TTARGET. In addition, the ``rebuilding
paradox'' (the fishing interaction with the stock increases as the
stock biomass increases) is addressed within a constant SPR approach.
This is because the ACL would change in relation to changes in biomass.
In contrast, constant catch rebuilding strategies do not adjust in
relation to changes in biomass which can be problematic when there is a
downward change in abundance. In this case, the catch may become too
large relative to the size of the biomass population and adjustments
become necessary to meet the same TTARGET. Although the
biennial management cycle requires the focus on ACLs for a two year
period, an SPR harvest strategy is based on a rebuilding trajectory
over time. For stocks with slow trajectories, the differences between
two alternatives considered during a single biennial management cycle
need to be compared in relation to how they rebuild the stock over
time.
Given the changes in perception of stock status and biology, the
Council tracks rebuilding progress in three dimensions: stock
productivity; absolute stock abundance or stock scale; and relative
stock abundance or stock status. Stock productivity is referred to as
recruitment and means the ability of a stock to generate new
individuals of harvestable size. Stock scale is the total number of
individuals in a population. This value is rarely known, but is usually
estimated from relative abundance or through other methods. Absolute
stock abundance is an estimate of the current biomass usually measured
by indices that track trends in population biomass over time. Stock
status is the current biomass relative to the unfished biomass. Each of
these dimensions is subject to considerable scientific uncertainty and
can change the overall rebuilding outlook from cycle to cycle. To
determine whether a stock is better or worse off compared to a previous
assessment, all three dimensions must be examined. Changes in the
understanding of stock productivity can affect rebuilding plans by
altering our perception of how quickly a stock can increase. Changes in
our understanding of life history traits (e.g. mortality, maturity,
fecundity, or growth) can change the evaluation of stock productivity.
Measuring recruitment is difficult given the elusive and inaccessible
early life histories of most groundfish species and the fact that
recruitment events are not constant. In the case of many groundfish,
recruitment is highly variable and sporadic. Age or length data, along
with survey biomass estimates and removal histories, all inform
recruitment patterns, but to varying degrees of resolution. The most
recent couple of years of recruitment are often the most uncertain.
Absolute stock abundance, or stock scale, has also demonstrated
considerable variability across assessments. This variability is often
a result of uncertainty in catch histories, which scales the biomass
via estimates of fishing mortality, but is also sensitive to life
history parameters such as growth and mortality. Any changes in these
estimates can have large effects in perceived biomass. These changes in
scale are commonly seen in estimates of
[[Page 67829]]
unfished biomass, as the scale of the entire population trajectory can
shift up or down. Changes in population scale will affect the level of
catch needed to achieve the rebuilding goals if harvest levels are not
based on harvest rates. Changes in the understanding of stock
productivity and relative biomass can result in changes in the
estimated time to rebuild and rebuilding reference points.
Stock status or depletion is expressed as an estimate of current
biomass relative to the estimate of unfished biomass. Importantly,
changes in the estimate of unfished biomass can change with new data,
even though the current population biomass stays the same. Likewise, as
more data becomes available on productivity in current years it may
alter our understanding of current year biomass relative to an unfished
biomass. Because stock status is the basis for determining when a stock
is rebuilt, subsequent estimates of when a stock is projected to
rebuild at a specific SPR may change as estimates of stock status
change.
At its June 2010 meeting, the Council made final recommendations
on: 2011-2012 harvest specifications (OFLs, ABC, ACLs ACTs, catch
allocations and set-asides); rebuilding plans for overfished species;
and, management measures designed to keep total catch mortality within
the final preferred ACL levels.
Bocaccio
The new 2009 assessment shows that bocaccio is rebuilding ahead of
schedule. The Council considered, but did not recommend extending the
bocaccio rebuilding plan north of 40[deg]10' north latitude to Cape
Blanco based given advisory body advise that extending the rebuilding
plan further north would not aid stock recovery and would complicate
current management. Three bocaccio ACL alternatives derived from the
2009 rebuilding analysis were considered by the Council. The
Alternative 1 ACLs of 53 mt in 2011 and 56 mt in 2012 applies an SPR
harvest rate of 95 percent and has a predicted median time to rebuild
of 2019, which equals the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero (i.e.,
the shortest time to rebuild the stock at this point) and 7 years
before the TTARGET specified in the current rebuilding plan.
The 2012 bocaccio HG for the California recreational fishery
Alternative 1, would reduce the Southern Management Area fishing season
to only a five month fishing season during the least valuable months.
The resulting season would not encompass the critical months for
rockfish fishing from March through April when coastal pelagic and
highly migratory species are not available to the fishery. In addition,
the season in the South-Central Management Area would be reduced by 1
month resulting in a 6-month fishing season. The Alternative 2 ACLs of
109 mt in 2011 and 115 mt in 2012 are consistent with an SPR harvest
rate of 90 percent with a predicted median time to rebuild the stock of
2020 or one year longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero
and rebuilds 6 year earlier than the TTARGET specified in
the current rebuilding plan. Most bocaccio mortality occurs in the
California recreational fisheries. Under this alternative the only
constraint over status quo in the recreational fishery is for ``other
flatfish'' where fishing is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m)
depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and offshore
seamounts from May 15 through September 15; and is closed entirely from
January 1 through May 14 and from September 16 through December 31).
Alternative 2 for the California recreational fishery, given the
preferred catch sharing alternative selected by the Council, would be
sufficient to allow for a depth increase to 30 fm (55 m) or possibly 40
fm (73 m) in the cowcod conservation area (CCA) and retention of shelf
and slope rockfish including bocaccio in the CCA. Bocaccio co-occur
with chilipepper and widow rockfish, which have historically been taken
with trawl gear south of 40[deg]10' north latitude. Under the trawl IFQ
program, fishers could target chilipepper rockfish providing they have
adequate quota pounds to cover all IFQ species in the catch.
The Alternative 3 ACLs of 263 mt in 2011 and 274 mt in 2012 are
based on the current rebuilding plan and are based on the status quo
SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent. This alternative has a predicted
median time to rebuild of 2022 or three years longer than the minimum
time to rebuild with F=zero and rebuilds 4 years earlier than the
TTARGET specified in the current rebuilding plan. This
alternative applies the same SPR harvest rate as in 2009-10, even
though it results in slightly lower harvest levels. This alternative
also takes into account the status of the stock and facilitates
rebuilding early, while attempting to strike a balance between
rebuilding the stock and minimizing severe economic consequences to
communities. Bocaccio is a relatively productive species which is
difficult for fishers to avoid and co-occurs with other stocks (e.g.,
widow and chilipepper). As with Alternative 2, the California
recreational fishery could increase the RCA depths from 20 fm (37 m) to
30 fm (55 m) under this alternative. As noted above under Alternative
2, with the trawl IFQ program, fishers could target chilipepper
providing they have adequate quota pounds to cover all IFQ species in
the catch. Alternative 3 provides the greatest opportunity for
targeting chilipepper with trawl gear. The Council expressed concerns
relative to bocaccio catch in the initial year of the new IFQ program.
For species where more than 80 percent of the OY has been harvested
annually, concern was expressed in regards to the implications of full
catch accounting and the number of fishers that may choose to carry-
over quota pounds into 2012 or 2013.
Because the rebuilding progress was considered adequate, and the
assessment did not change our fundamental understanding of the stock,
the SSC recommended maintaining the status quo rebuilding plan (i.e.,
no modifications to TTARGET or SPR harvest rate) under
Alternative 3. Total catch from 2000-2008 was 50 percent of the OY,
indicating that management has been effective at curtailing fishing
mortality to facilitate rebuilding as quickly as possible.
ACL allocations were also considered by the Council. The following
are the Council's recommended allocations for Bocaccio in 2011: Limited
entry non-whiting trawl, 29.6 mt; limited entry and open access non-
nearshore fixed gears, 57.9; limited entry and open access nearshore
fixed gear, 0.3; California recreational 161.8 mt. The following are
the Council's recommended allocations for bocaccio in 2012: Limited
entry non-whiting trawl, 30.9 mt; limited entry and open access non-
nearshore fixed gears, 60.4; limited entry and open access nearshore
fixed gear, 0.3; California recreational 168.9 mt. The recreational
portion of the non-trawl allocation of bocaccio would accommodate a
potential increase in bocaccio impacts in the recreational fishery as a
result of allowing retention of shelf rockfish within the 30 fm (55 m)
depth restriction in the CCA.
Although the Council-recommended ACLs are 263 mt in 2011 and 274 mt
in 2012, the proposed management measures and catch allocations were
projected to result in bocaccio total catch mortality of 249.6 mt in
2011 and 260.6 mt in 2012, which is 13.4 mt less than the annual ACLs.
Managing the fishery to a level that is 13.4 mt less than the annual
ACLs is intended to allow the stock to rebuild faster while recognizing
the management uncertainty associated with the species.
[[Page 67830]]
Canary Rockfish
The historical catch data used in the 2009 stock assessment update
was significantly different from that used in previous assessments.
This change caused a relatively large change in the unfished and
terminal year (2009) biomass estimates. When compared to the results of
the 2007 stock assessment, the depletion level in recent years is lower
in the 2009 stock assessment. The perception of the relative status and
productivity of canary rockfish has changed and stock cannot be rebuilt
by the current TTARGET (2021) even in the absence of
fishing, therefore the rebuilding plan must be modified.
The impacts of three ACL alternatives were analyzed and included
ACLs of 49 in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012, 94 in 2011 and 99 mt in 2012;
and, 102 mt in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012. Alternative 1 with an ACL of 49
mt in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012 takes into account the less optimistic
assessment update with a more precautionary harvest rate (SPR=94.4
percent). Alternative 1 results in a TTARGET of 2025 which
is 4 years longer than the TTARGET in the existing
rebuilding plan and 1 year longer than the minimum time to rebuild with
F=zero. The canary rockfish ACLs in Alternative 1 are similar to the
2007-2008 OY of 44 mt which resulted in substantial hardship on fishers
and communities because substantial harvest of other healthy species
was foregone. Under Alternative 1 a large closed area would be needed
for the limited entry fixed gear fishery in the north or reductions to
sablefish harvest would be necessary in order to stay within the
overfished species constraints. With the ACLs proposed under
Alternative 1, the canary rockfish ACL and associated apportionment to
the non-nearshore fisheries is so low that the sablefish allocations
would have to be reduced by as much as 42 percent. The California
nearshore fishery would also be severely constrained, requiring
statewide 20 fm (37 m) Shoreward RCA lines and large trip limit
reductions or total closures for some species would be necessary. This
is in contrast to status quo where the non-trawl RCAs are 20 fm (37 m)
in most northern areas and 60 fm (110 m) south of 34[deg]27 north
latitude. All recreational fisheries would experience reduced season
lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. In addition, the trawl IFQ
fishery is intended to provide long-term benefits to the fishery in the
form of bycatch reduction and economic stability. Given the full catch
accounting proposed under trawl IFQ program and that all catch,
discarded and retain will count towards the individuals IFQ shares, the
risk of the fishery exceeding the ACL is reduced compared 2010 and
prior years. In the short term, fishers will need to learn how to avoid
canary rather than simply discarding them at-sea. ACLs for overfished
species that are too low could be perceived as too risky (risk of
exceeding the individual quota pounds) by fishers such that they limit
their fishing participation for healthy target species; or hold quota
pounds of constraining overfished for sale to fishers who incur
overages. Reduce fishing time may result in fishers being unable to
develop new methods or strategies risk to avoid overfished species. The
long-term success of the trawl rationalization program to maintain low
incidental catch of overfished species in conjunction with profitable
harvest of healthy stocks is consistent with the needs of communities
specified in the PCGFMP.
Alternative 2 included ACLs of 94 mt in 2011 and 99 mt in 2012.
This alternative takes into account the less optimistic assessment
update with a more precautionary harvest rate (SPR=89.5 percent) than
the current rebuilding plan and results in a TTARGET that is
two years longer than F=Zero. Under this alternative the California
nearshore fishery would experience changes to the RCA and/or reductions
in catch.
Alternative 3 includes ACLs of 102 mt in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012.
The alternative would maintain the SPR harvest rate of 88.7 percent in
the current rebuilding plan. This is a conservative SPR harvest rate
that results in a TTARGET that is three years longer the
target year with no F=zero. Due to the nature of the canary stock, even
higher ACL harvest levels in the range considered by the Council have
small impacts on the time to rebuild. This is because the range of ACLs
being considered represent a very low level of fishing mortality.
Canary rockfish are under the rebuilding paradox (as the stock
increases its biomass it becomes increasingly more difficult for
fishers to avoid) and are difficult to avoid, so the ACL under this
alternative would address those expected increased interactions. The
California nearshore fishery would continue to be constrained under
this alternative, preventing access to target species. The shoreward
nontrawl RCA would be the same as under the No Action Alternative (20
fm (37 m) in most northern areas, 60 fm (110 m) south of 34[deg]27
north latitude). Landings of non-overfished species would be reduced
from the No Action Alternative levels in order to stay within the
overfished species constraints. Alternative 1, the trawl IFQ fishery is
intended to provide long-term benefits to the fishery. Under
Alternative 3, canary rockfish would be less of a limit to access to
healthy target species and the risk of encountering canary rockfish in
excess of an individual's quota shares is reduced. Although canary
rockfish is still expected to constrain harvest of healthy stocks under
Alternative 3, the constraints on harvest from the perceived risk of
exceeding an individual's quota shares and is not expected to undermine
the long term benefits that shorebased trawl IFQ program. In the short
term fishers will need to learn how to avoid canary rockfish rather
than simply discarding them at-sea. However, long term benefits in
reduced bycatch and improved avoidance techniques are expected in a
rationalized trawl fishery.
The Council also considered the allocation of the canary ACL among
fishery sectors. The following are the Council's recommended
allocations for canary rockfish in 2011: Limited entry non-whiting
trawl, 19.3 mt; limited entry Pacific whiting 14.1 mt (catcher/
processor 4.8 mt, mothership 3.4 mt, and shorebased 5.9 mt); limited
entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 2.3; limited entry and
open access nearshore fixed gear, 3.3; Washington recreational, 4.4;
Oregon recreational 14.5 mt; and California recreational 22.9 mt. The
following are the Council's recommended allocations for canary rockfish
in 2012: Limited entry non-whiting trawl, 19.3 mt; limited entry
Pacific whiting 14.8 mt (catcher/processor 5 mt, mothership 3.6 mt, and
shorebased 6.2 mt); limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed
gears, 2.3; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 3.3;
Washington recreational, 4.4; Oregon recreational 14.5 mt; and
California recreational 24.2 mt. Although the Council's recommended
ACLs are 102 mt in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012, the proposed management
measures and catch allocations were projected to result in canary total
catch mortality of 82 mt in 2011 and 87 mt in 2012, that is 20 mt less
than the annual ACLs. The catch allocations are consistent with how the
2010 Washington and Oregon recreational fisheries have been managed and
with the PCGFMP Amendment 21 which specifies trawl and non-trawl
allocations. Managing the fishery to a level that is 20 mt less than
the annual ACLs is intended to allow the stock to rebuild faster while
reducing inseason management changes for the species.
[[Page 67831]]
Cowcod
Three ACL alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis
for the Conception area contribution and based on results of the 2009
stock assessment update were considered for analysis. As was done in
previous biennial harvest specifications, the Conception area ACL was
doubled as an appropriate harvest contribution for the unassessed
Monterey area.
Under Alternative 1, the ACL would be 2 mt for 2011 and 2012, with
an SPR harvest rate of 90 percent with a median time to rebuild of
2064, which is four years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with
F=zero. Under this alternative extractive research would not be
possible. Additional modifications to the California recreational
fishery southern management area may be necessary. Under Alternative 1,
cowcod is less constraining than other overfished species occurring in
the same areas. Although the low cowcod ACL would allow for an increase
the CCA depth restriction from 20 fm to 30 fm (37-55 m) for the
California recreational and fixed gear fisheries, the bocaccio ACLs
would not. The Alternative 2 ACL of 3 mt for 2011 and 2012 is based on
an SPR harvest rate of 82.7 percent in 2011 and 2012. Although cowcod
impacts have been minimized by prohibiting retention and area closures
in California waters, there have been instances when 3 mt has been
estimated to have been incidentally taken. Alternative 2 has a median
time to rebuild of 2068 which is eight years longer than the minimum
time to rebuild with F=zero. The cowcod harvest limit would be
sufficient to allow the proposed 30 fm (55 m) or 40 fm (73 m) depth
restriction in the CCA and retention of shelf and slope rockfish
including bocaccio in the CCA. The Alternative 3 ACL of 4 mt in 2011
and 2012 is the status quo alternative based on an SPR harvest rate of
79 percent with a median time to rebuild of 2071 or eleven years longer
the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. The three ACL alternatives are
predicted to rebuild the stock 8, 4, and 1 year(s), respectively prior
to the TTARGET of 2072 specified in the current rebuilding
plan. The Council recommended maintaining the 4 mt ACL under
Alternative 3 with no change to the SPR harvest rate of 79 percent from
2009-2010. Modifying the depth restriction in the CCA from 20 fm (37 m)
to 30 fm (55 m) or 40 fm (73 m) is not projected to result in increased
catch of cowcod and can be accommodated under Alternative 3. Because
cowcod impacts have varied over the last 5 years (according to the
total mortality reports), Alternative 3 would encompass the
variability. Cowcod is extremely important to the recreational fishery
and the trawl fishery south of 40[deg]10' north latitude. Trawl
activity has declined south of 40[deg]10' north latitude over the last
few years due in part to the buyback program. Trawl activity is
expected to increase due to the new trawl rationalization program.
Darkblotched Rockfish
The 2009 assessment results indicated that the fishing mortality
rate has been greatly reduced and darkblotched appear to be rebuilding
gradually at close to previous rebuilding projections. Three ACL
alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis were considered.
The Alternative 1 ACLs of 130 mt and 131 mt for 2011 and 2012,
respectively. The Alternative 1 ACLs are based on an SPR harvest rate
of 81.8 percent and result in an estimated median time to rebuild of
2018, which is two years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with
F=zero. The whiting trawl fishery would likely be constrained by this
alternative. Reductions in the darkblotched rockfish OYs are highly
limiting to the trawl fisheries because darkblotched rockfish co-occur
with the most economically important species in the fishery such as
petrale sole, sablefish, and whiting. Trawl opportunities on the slope
would be limited as the seaward RCA moved deeper. With the low ACL
under Alternative 1, ACLs for overfished species that are too low could
be perceived as too risky (risk of exceeding the individual quota
pounds) by fishers such that they limit their fishing participation for
healthy target species; or hold quota pounds of constraining overfished
for sale to other fishers who incur overages. Reduced fishing time may
result in fishers being unable to develop new methods or strategies to
avoid overfished species. Darkblotched rockfish quota shares may
increase in value. Alternative 2 was based on an SPR harvest rate of
64.9 percent and resulted in a 2011 ACL of 298 mt and 2012 ACL of 296
mt, with a median time to rebuild of 2025. The median time to rebuild
is nine years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero and 3
years sooner than the TTARGET in the current rebuilding
plan. The Alternative 3 ACLs of 332 mt in 2011 and 329 in 2012 are
based on an SPR harvest rate of 62.1 percent which is the SPR harvest
rate specified in the current rebuilding plan. Alternative 3 has a
median time to rebuild of 2027 which is eleven years the minimum time
to rebuild with F=zero. The three ACL alternatives are predicted to
rebuild the stock 10, 6, and 1 year(s), respectively, earlier than the
TTARGET specified in the current rebuilding plan. The SSC
did not recommend any changes to the current rebuilding plan. The
Council recommended Alternative 2, a 2011 ACL of 298 mt and a 2012 ACL
of 296 mt.
Petrale Sole
The results of the 2009 stock assessment estimated the petrale sole
biomass to be at 11.6 percent of its unfished biomass. Because petrale
sole is below the BMSY proxy of B25% it was
declared overfished by NMFS on February 9, 2010 and therefore requires
the development of a rebuilding plan.
The ACL alternatives considered for petrale sole are all projected
to rebuild the stock to the B25% level well in advance of
TMAX (2021). The shortest time to rebuild petrale sole is
TMIN (2014), which is the estimated rebuilding period if all
sources of fishing-related mortality were eliminated beginning in 2011.
With petrale sole, successful rebuilding by TMIN is also
projected to occur even with some allowable harvest. The Alternative 1
ACLs of 459 and 624 mt in 2011 and 2012 respectively were based on an
SPR harvest rate of 50 percent. The median year estimated to rebuild
the stock under Alternative 1 is 2014, which is TMIN.
Alternative 2 applies the 25-5 precautionary harvest control rule
beginning in 2011 and results in ACLs of 776 mt and 1,160 mt in 2011
and 2012, respectively. Alternative 2 is estimated to rebuild the stock
by 2015 or 1 year the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. Alternative
3 would specify a 2011 ACL of 976 mt which is at the ABC level and for
2012 the 25-5 precautionary adjustment would be applied, resulting in a
1,160 mt ACL. Alternative 3 is estimated to rebuild the stock by 2016
or two years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero and 5
years earlier than TMAX.
The Council recommended Alternative 3. Petrale sole are a major
target stock in the current non-whiting trawl fishery. Industry has
indicated that an allowable harvest below the 1,000-1,200 mt level
risks losing market share to substitute species and significantly
disrupts the fishery. The fall petrale sole fishery has been a valuable
economic asset to both the fishers and processors when both the weather
and the late year trip limits put an economic hardship on the industry.
The petrale sole fishery has become an established holiday season
marketing item for the processors, brokers,
[[Page 67832]]
wholesalers, restaurants, and grocery stores. While Alternative 3 is
below this critical level of harvest, it is the highest alternative
considered for 2011-2012. It would constrain the non-whiting trawl
fishery, but cause less disruption to the fishery and economic harm to
trawl-dependent fishing communities than the other alternatives.
Petrale sole make seasonal inshore-offshore migrations and are
targeted in bottom trawl efforts on the shelf in the summer and in
spawning aggregations in discrete areas on the shelf/slope break in the
winter. One strategy for faster rebuilding of petrale sole would be to
close the petrale sole fishing areas where the fish aggregate and spawn
in the winter. The 2009 petrale sole assessment and rebuilding analysis
indicated that larger and more mature fish are caught by the offshore
winter fleet. Reducing these fishing opportunities has been shown to
rebuild the stock relatively faster than allowing the mix of summer and
winter petrale sole fishing that has occurred prior to 2010. Under
Alternative 3, the 200 fm (366 m) seaward RCA coastwide would continue
to be modified in periods 1 (January-February) and 6 (November-
December) to provide access to petrale sole. Proposed changes to the
200 fm (366 m) RCA line in the Heceta Bank area are not expected to
result in measurable impacts on spawning aggregations of petrale sole
over the existing 200 fm (366 m) RCA line. In addition, the shoreward
RCA line between of 48[deg]10' north latitude and 40[deg]10' north
latitude would be maintained at 75 fm (137 m) year round to reduce
petrale sole catch. Under a rationalized trawl fishery, with individual
accountability, the risk of exceeding the petrale sole trawl allocation
or ACL is lower than under cumulative trip limit management where the
fleet is modeled as a whole.
Given petrale sole's productivity and the fact that the species is
caught almost exclusively by a single fishery sector, rebuilding the
stock is more straight forward than rebuilding long-lived rockfish. The
Council's recommended alternative deviates from the Council's policy of
overfished species being managed as incidental only, because the ACLs
recommended for petrale sole would allow for a targeted fishery with a
minimal delay in rebuilding (2 years more than F=ZERO).
Petrale sole is one of the most economically important stocks to the
non-whiting trawl fishery. Petrale sole is the third most valuable
species in terms of its overall annual ex-vessel value, contributing,
on average, 19 percent of total ex-vessel revenue in the non-whiting
trawl fishery. Despite increases in the Dover sole ACL, petrale sole is
so unique in its market desirability that it will be difficult if not
impossible to make up lost revenue by switching to the harvest of other
groundfish species. Allowing this level of harvest will extend the
rebuilding period by two years from TMIN.
POP
The 2009 stock assessment update changed the perception of stock
status. Although the population dynamics were similar to the 2007
assessment, the scale of the terminal year (2009) biomass estimate
changed such that the TTARGET (2017) in the current
rebuilding plan cannot be attained even in the absence of fishing.
Although the SPR was held constant (86.4 percent) from 2007 through
2010, the target rebuilding year changed as a result of revised
rebuilding analyses (2007-2008 TTARGET was 2015; 2009-2010
TTARGET was 2017). Because the TTARGET (2017) in
the current rebuilding plan cannot be attained even in the absence of
fishing, the existing rebuilding plan must be revised.
Three alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis based
on the 2009 stock assessment update were analyzed for the Council's
June meeting. All ACL alternatives contemplate a change in the median
time to rebuild the stock greater than the current TTARGET.
The Alternative 1 ACLs of 80 mt in 2011 and 2012 was based on an SPR
harvest rate of 93.6 percent with a median time to rebuild of 2019, one
year longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. The
Alternative 2 ACLs of 111 mt in 2011 and 113 mt in 2012 were based on
an SPR harvest rate of 91.2 percent with a predicted median time to
rebuild the stock of 2019 or one year longer than the minimum time to
rebuild with F=zero. The Alternative 3 ACLs of 180 mt in 2011 and 183
mt in 2012 are based on the status quo SPR harvest rate of 86.4 percent
from the current rebuilding plan. Alternative 3 has a predicted median
time to rebuild of 2020 or two years longer than the minimum time to
rebuild with F=zero. This alternative results in slightly lower catches
than those in 2009-2010.
The Council recommended Alternative 3 (180 mt and 183 mt, in 2011
and 2012 respectively). POP is a slope rockfish species that is
primarily taken in the trawl fishery. As discussed above for canary
rockfish, the ACLs under Alternatives 1 and 2 could compromise the
long-term bycatch reduction benefits of IFQ management. The trawl IFQ
fishery is intended to hold individual fishers responsible for their
catch and creates a management structure that encourages fishers to
develop methods or fishing strategies that reduce the catch of
overfished species. Therefore, long term benefits in reduced bycatch
and improved avoidance techniques are expected in a rationalized
fishery. However, ACLs for overfished species that are too low could be
perceived as too risky (risk of exceeding the individual quota pounds)
by fishers such that they limit their fishing participation for healthy
target species; or hold quota pounds of constraining overfished for
sale to fishers who incur overages. Reduced fishing time may result in
fishers being unable to develop new methods or strategies to avoid
overfished species. Given the full catch accounting proposed under
trawl IFQ program and that all catch, discarded and retained, will
count towards the individual's IFQ shares, the risk of the fishery
exceeding the ACL is reduced compared with 2010 and prior years. In the
short term, fishers will need to learn how to avoid POP rather than
simply discarding them at-sea. The long-term success of the trawl
rationalization program to maintain low incidental catch of overfished
species in conjunction with profitable harvest of healthy stocks is
consistent with the needs of communities specified in the PCGFMP, by
allowing some limited harvest of POP as unavoidable bycatch which
permits targeting of Pacific whiting and slope fisheries.
The needs of fishing communities were considered by evaluating how
the alternative POP ACLs affect the opportunity for targeting healthy
stocks that co-occur with POP. POP is primarily a trawl caught species
landed in Oregon and Washington. The vulnerability (dependency on
groundfish fishing and resiliency) of port group areas were considered
in the supporting DEIS. Fishing communities in Oregon, Washington and
northern California where healthy trawl-caught target species that co-
occur with POP are landed were considered to be among the vulnerable
and most vulnerable communities.
Widow Rockfish
The 2009 assessment indicated that the stock is at 38.5 percent of
unfished biomass, just short of being rebuilt. The rebuilding analysis
projects that the stock will be rebuilt by 2010 under each of the ACL
alternatives considered by the Council. All of the Alternatives result
in a TTARGET that is 5 years earlier than the current
rebuilding plan.
The Alternative 1 ACL is a constant harvest level of 200 mt in 2011
and 2012. Alternative 1 represents catch levels far less than status
quo. Because
[[Page 67833]]
the Pacific whiting fisheries have been constrained by the catch of
widow rockfish in recent years, the whiting sectors are expected to be
seriously constrained under this alternative. The Pacific whiting
fleets have been managed under bycatch limits for widow rockfish for
several years and have taken extensive measures to keep incidental
catch rates low. Despite this, unexpected widow rockfish catch events,
where several tons of widow rockfish have been incidentally taken in
single haul, have continued to occur in the Pacific whiting fishery. As
the widow rockfish stock rebuilds, avoiding such events is increasingly
more difficult. With a 200 mt ACL there is a higher likelihood that
such an event would result in the closure of fishery coop or sector.
The Alternative 2 ACL is a constant harvest level of 400 mt in 2011 and
2012. The whiting trawl fishery may be constrained under this
alternative, given the increase in widow biomass as it nears a rebuilt
status. The Alternative 3 ACL is a constant harvest level of 600 mt in
2011 and 2012 which is slightly higher than recent total catch
mortality. In addition to whiting, widow rockfish co-occurs with other
stocks such as bocaccio and chilipepper. It's difficult for fishers
targeting Pacific whiting and chilipepper to avoid widow rockfish. The
higher ACL alternative may provide additional opportunities for some
sectors of the fishery. It is less likely that Pacific whiting sectors
would be constrained under this alternative. The Council recommended
Alternative 3 with an ACL based on a constant harvest level of 600 mt
in 2011 and 2012. The SPR harvest rate associated with 600 mt is 91.7
percent in 2011, and 91.3 percent in 2012, which is only slightly lower
than the 2009-2010 SPR harvest rate of 95.0 percent. The 600 mt ACL,
which is somewhat higher than the 2010 OY of 509 mt, is expected to
accommodate recent catches and is unlikely to result in targeting of
the stock.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Yelloweye rockfish have a life history that illustrates the classic
challenge of rebuilding overfished rockfish stocks; they are slow to
mature, have low productivity, and can live in excess of 100 years.
Stocks exhibiting low productivity will have longer predicted
rebuilding periods due to longer mean generation times. Three ACL
alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis were considered
for yelloweye rockfish. Alternative 1, with an ACL of 13 mt for 2011
and 2012 was determined by applying an SPR harvest rate of 80.7
percent. Alternative 1 has a median time to rebuild of 2065, which is
19 years before TTARGET in the current rebuilding plan and
18 years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. With an
ACL of 13 mt the Oregon and California commercial nearshore fisheries
would be severely constrained with more restrictive depth closures and/
or reductions to landed catch compared to status quo or the other
alternatives. All recreational fisheries would have greatly reduced
season lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. Alternative 2 is
based on an SPR harvest rate of 76 percent and results in an ACL of 17
mt for 2011 and 2012. The median time to rebuild under Alternative 2 is
2074 or 10 years before the current TTARGET and 27 years
longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. With an ACL of 17
mt, the Oregon and California nearshore fisheries would need more
restrictive RCAs compared to the 20 fm (37 m) shoreward boundary used
in all areas in 2010. The 20 fm (37 m) depth restrictions implemented
in 2009 between 40[deg]10' north latitude and 43[deg] north latitude
would remain in effect. Large trip limit reductions or total closures
for some species would be necessary in order to stay within the
overfished species ACLs. All recreational fisheries would have reduced
season lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. In California,
yelloweye rockfish impacts are extremely constraining to the
recreational fishery North of Point Arena and reductions in the ACLs
from the preliminary preferred alternative of 20 mt would result in
additional season length reductions in the North-Central North of Point
Arena Management Area. This management area is already severely
constrained, with only a three-month fishing season at 20 fm (37 m).
Alternative 2 ACLs would also require a reduction in the season length
in the Northern or North-Central South of Point Arena Management Areas
to remain within the yelloweye rockfish harvest guidelines resulting in
lost revenue to coastal communities in these areas. Alternative 3 would
apply an SPR harvest rate of 72.8 percent and result in an ACL of 20 mt
for 2011 and 2012. The median time to rebuild under Alternative 3 is
2084 which is the TTARGET specified in the current
rebuilding plan and 37 years longer than the minimum time to rebuild
with F=zero. For the non-nearshore fixed gear fisheries, management
measures under this alternative would allow full access to the sectors'
sablefish allocation. A less restrictive RCA compared to 2010 would be
in place in Oregon (100 fm (183 m) vs. 125 fm (229 m). For the
nearshore fishery, the shoreward RCA would be the same as under the No
Action Alternative (20 fm (37 m) in most northern areas, 60 fm (110 fm)
south of 34[deg]27 north latitude). For the recreational fisheries,
season structure and depth restrictions would be similar to 2010 with
some increased opportunity in the California recreational fishery, as
described below. In California, 20 mt (37 m) yelloweye rockfish ACL
would allow the limited season in the North-Central North of Point
Arena Management Area to be sustained as well as allowing a one and a
half month increase to the season in the Northern Management Area over
No Action. This alternative also provides one and a half months of
additional fishing opportunities over status quo in the North-Central
South of Point Arena Management Area and the Monterey and Morro Bay
South-Central Management Areas.
The SPR harvest rate specified in the current rebuilding plan is
71.9 percent, which when applied results in an ACL of 20 mt in 2011 and
21 mt in 2012 with a median time to rebuild of 2087, three years longer
than the current TTARGET and 40 years longer than the
minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. The Council recommended
Alternative 3 with a more conservative harvest rate (SPR = 72.8
percent) than is currently specified in the rebuilding plan and which
maintains the current TTARGET. With a 20 mt ACL, slightly
higher fishing opportunities for recreational and commercial fixed gear
fisheries would be expected relative to the other alternatives.
Following consideration of the ACLs and resulting impacts, the Council
recommended Alternative 3, with a 20 mt ACL in 2011 and 2012 and with
the specification of a 17 mt ACT.
A ramp-down OY strategy was adopted for yelloweye rockfish during
the 2007 and 2008 biennial specification and management cycle. The ramp
down began with an OY of 23 mt in 2007 and 20 mt in 2008. The OY was to
be reduced each year until ultimately reaching 14 mt in 2011 based on
an SPR harvest rate of 71.9 percent. A constant SPR harvest rate of
71.0 percent was to remain in place through 2084 which was the
TTARGET date. All of the yelloweye rockfish OYs considered
by the Council were expected to cause severe impacts to fisheries and
communities. The Council expressed strong concern about the severity of
the impact on communities resulting from ramp down strategy as the OY
drops below 17 mt. When considering 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications and management measures, the Council
[[Page 67834]]
recognized the need to restrict the fisheries, but also took into
account the potentially widespread negative effects that very low ACLs
would have on the fisheries and fishing communities.
Yelloweye rockfish is the key constraining stock for the non-
nearshore fixed gear sectors. Yelloweye bycatch rates in these fixed
gear sectors have remained relatively stable over recent years, with
the lower bycatch projections in 2011 and 2012 resulting from the
decreasing sablefish ACLs. Although the bycatch numbers provided to the
Council for decision making were the best estimates of bycatch for the
non-nearshore fixed gear fisheries, concerns were raised about
management uncertainty arising from the bycatch model. The bycatch
projections from the model have been conservative in recent years, in
part because of the assumption that the fixed gear sablefish
allocations are fully harvested. This assumption may be less
conservative in 2011-2012 because of the lower sablefish ACLs and the
fact that the inseason changes to the DTL trip limits the Council has
made over this cycle have increased the likelihood that a higher
portion of the allocations for those sectors will be taken. Sablefish
landings are monitored inseason and action would be taken to keep the
sablefish allocations from being exceeded.
ACL allocations were also considered by the Council. The following
are the Council's recommended allocations for yelloweye rockfish in
2011 and 2012: Limited entry non-whiting trawl, 0.6 mt; limited entry
and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 1.3; limited entry and open
access nearshore fixed gear, 0.7; Washington recreational, 2.6; Oregon
recreational, 2.4 mt; and California recreational, 2.6 mt. The Council
also considered two alternative allocation arrangements between the
states of Oregon and California for yelloweye rockfish: A simple 50:50
catch sharing plan and a sharing plan with Oregon receiving 55 percent
and California receiving 45 percent derived from the stock assessment.
Oregon is constrained by yelloweye rockfish under both allocation
alternatives. With a 17 mt ACT, annual nearshore fishery landings would
need to be further reduced to accommodate cuts under either of the new
catch sharing plans. In addition to being constrained by yelloweye
rockfish, California is projected to be constrained by canary rockfish
due to the presence of two high bycatch areas (one north of 40[deg]10'
and the other south of 40[deg]10'). Under the 17 mt yelloweye rockfish
ACT, the California nearshore fishery would not reach its yelloweye
rockfish limit because it would first be constrained by canary
rockfish. California would be able to maximize cabezon landings because
the majority of the cabezon catch is taken in shallow depths where
bycatch rates are low. Precisely tracking recreational catch inseason,
especially in the California recreational fishery, has been a
challenge, which prompted the Council to adopt an ACT for yelloweye
rockfish.
The tradeoffs considered by the Council were between more
restrictive depth restrictions and higher reductions in landed catch.
In Oregon, overfished species impacts were modeled assuming a 20 fm (37
m) depth restriction (option a) and a 30 fm (55 m) depth restriction
(option b). In California, overfished species impacts are modeled
assuming a 20 fm (37 m) depth restriction statewide (option a) and a 20
fm (37 m) depth restriction between 42[deg] and 40[deg]10' north
latitude only (option b). Although the 20 fm (37 m) depth restriction
provided little yelloweye savings in Oregon, it provided greater
savings in California since a greater proportion of catch comes from
the deeper depths. Following consideration of the catch sharing plans
the Council recommended.
Summary of Rebuilding Measures
The harvest specifications and management measures being
implemented through Federal regulation and intended to rebuild
overfished species are summarized below. Management measures adopted
for 2011 and 2012 are expected to keep the incidental catch of
overfished species within the ACLs and ACTs. Management measures
designed to rebuild overfished species, or to prevent species from
becoming overfished, may restrict the harvest of relatively healthy
stocks that are harvested with overfished species. As a result of the
constraining management measures imposed to rebuild overfished species,
a number of the ACLs for healthy stocks may not be achieved.
Bocaccio
Date declared overfished: March 3, 1999.
Areas affected: South of 40[deg]10' north latitude.
Status of stock: 28.12 percent of its unfished biomass in
2009.
B0: 7,946 mt.
BMSY: 3,178 mt.
TF=0: 2018.
TMAX: 2031.
TTARGET: 2026 (median year to rebuild).
Target SPR Harvest rate: 77.7 percent.
OFL: 737 mt in 2011 732 in 2012.
ACL: 263 mt in 2011 274 mt in 2012.
Biology of the stock: Bocaccio is most abundant in waters off
central and southern California. Juveniles settle in nearshore waters
after a several month pelagic stage. Adults range from depths of 6.5-
261 fm (12- 478 m). Most adults are caught off the middle and lower
shelf at depths between 27 fm and 137 fm (50 and 250 m). Larger fish
tend to be found deeper. Bocaccio are found in a wide variety of
habitats, often on or near bottom features, but sometimes over muddy
bottoms. Bocaccio are usually found near the bottom, however, they may
also occur as much as 16.4 fm (30 m) off bottom. Tagging studies have
shown that young fish move up to 148 km (92 miles). Maximum age of
bocaccio was determined to be at least 40 and perhaps more than 50
years.
Management measures for 2011 and 2012: Since 2002 both commercial
and recreational fisheries have been subject to very restrictive
management measures that have brought catches down to very low levels.
Area closures or RCAs have been one of the most effective measures to
reduce catch of bocaccio. South of 40[deg]10' north latitude RCAs
between 15 and 180 fm (329 m) provide protection for bocaccio, with the
largest concentrations occurring in the 54 fm (99 m) to 82 fm (150 m)
depths. The existing CCAs, where sport and commercial bottom fishing is
prohibited, have also provided significant protection for bocaccio.
Bocaccio have historically been taken by commercial trawl and fixed
gear vessels and in the recreational fisheries. Adult bocaccio are
often caught with chilipepper rockfish and have been observed schooling
with speckled, vermilion, widow, and yellowtail rockfish. South of
40[deg]10' north latitude the bottom trawl, limited entry fixed gear,
and open access fishing opportunities, in the depths where bocaccio are
most commonly encountered, have been reduced though the use of RCAs.
Management of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to
constrain the harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch
accounting and real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is
expected to reduce management uncertainty in the trawl fishery,
including bocaccio management uncertainty.
Bocaccio are also vulnerable to commercial non trawl gears and to
recreational fishing gear. To limit incidental catch of bocaccio in the
limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries, these fisheries
continue to be restricted by RCAs and trip limits that
[[Page 67835]]
are intended to cover landings of incidentally caught bocaccio only.
California recreational fisheries will be constrained by bag limits.
Management performance during rebuilding: Total catch estimates for
the 2002-2007 period are based on the total mortality reports produced
by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the NWFSC, while
the 2008 estimates are based on GMT scorecard estimates and
recreational estimates from California Department of Fish and Game.
Approximately 75 percent of total trawl catch during this period were
discarded catch. Commercial fishery discards have been concentrated
around the central California region (Monterey Bay to San Francisco)
region. Although the rebuilding OY is estimated to have been exceeded
during two of the early years of rebuilding, since 2004 the total
estimated catch (landings plus discards) has averaged approximately 80
tons. This represents less than 50 percent of the adopted OY values,
and has been associated with low SPR harvest rates, such that SPR has
been greater than 0.9 percent since 2004.
Canary Rockfish
Date declared overfished: January 4, 2000 (65 FR 221).
Affected area: Coastwide.
Status of the stock: 23.7 percent in 2009.
B0: 25,993 mt.
BMSY: 10,397 mt.
TF=0: 2024.
TMAX: 2046.
TTARGET: 2027 (median year to rebuild).
SPR harvest rate: 88.7 percent.
OFL: 614 mt for 2011 and 622 mt for 2012.
ACL: 102 in 2011 and 107 in 2012.
Biology of the stock: Canary rockfish are a continental shelf
(shelf) species. Juveniles settle in nearshore waters after a several
month pelagic stage. Adults range from depths of 25-475 fm (46-868 m).
Most adults are caught off the middle and lower shelf at depths between
44 fm and 109 fm (80 and 200 m). Larger fish tend to be found in deeper
waters. Canary rockfish are usually associated with areas of high
relief such as pinnacles, but also occur over flat rock or mud and
boulder bottoms. They are usually found near the bottom and are
occasionally found off the bottom or in soft-bottom habitats that are
atypical for rockfish. A tagging study showed that canary rockfish can
migrate up to 700 km (435 miles). The maximum age of canary rockfish is
84 years.
Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Unavoidable incidental
catches of canary rockfish occur in trawl, fixed gear, open access, and
recreational fisheries targeting groundfish, as well as commercial and
recreational fisheries targeting species other than groundfish. Adult
canary rockfish are often caught with bocaccio, sharpchin rockfish,
yelloweye rockfish, yellowtail rockfishes, and lingcod. Researchers
have also observed canary rockfish associated with silvergray and widow
rockfish.
Management measures intended to limit bycatch of canary rockfish
include RCAs, cumulative trip limits to constrain the limited entry
fixed gear and open access fisheries coastwide, IFQs in the whiting and
nonwhiting shoreside fisheries, and canary limits in the whiting
fishery. The use of broad- based RCA configurations has had the most
effect in reducing canary rockfish mortality.
Bottom trawling is prohibited in the trawl RCA, which covers depths
where canary rockfish have most frequently been caught. To reduce
incidental take of canary rockfish in the area north of 40[deg]10'
north latitude, vessels fishing shoreward of the RCAs are required to
use selective flatfish trawl gear. Current footrope restrictions would
remain in place. Incidental catch of canary rockfish in the mothership
and catcher/processor sectors will be constrained by sector-specific
allocations that require closure of the sector when reached. Management
of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to constrain the
harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and
real time reporting in the shorebased IFQ program is expected to reduce
management uncertainty in the trawl fishery. The retention of canary
rockfish continues to be prohibited in the commercial fixed gear
fisheries. Recreational fisheries are managed through bag limits, size
limits and seasons. As necessary, seasons can be shortened and bag
limits reduced to stay within the ACLs. The retention of canary
rockfish continues to be prohibited in the recreational fisheries.
Management performance during rebuilding: Following the 1999
declaration that the canary rockfish stock was overfished the canary OY
was reduced by over 70 percent in 2000 (to 200 mt) and by the same
margin again from 2001-2003 (to 44 mt). In retrospect, revised catch
data indicate that from 2003 to 2008, when the rebuilding OY was
between 47 and 44 mt, the OY was exceeded 5 out of 6 years, but catches
well below the ABC (In retrospect, due to current methods used for
total mortality estimates, the catches are higher than we had estimated
at the time. However, they were still below the ABC).
Cowcod
Date declared overfished: January 4, 2000.
Areas affected: South of 40[deg]10' north latitude.
Status of stock: 4.5 percent in 2009.
B0: 2,183 mt.
BMSY: 873 mt.
TF=0: 2060.
TMAX: 2097.
TTARGET: 2071 (median year to rebuild).
SPR harvest rate: 79 percent.
OFL: 13 mt in 2011 and 13 mt in 2012.
ACL: 4 mt in 2011 and 2012.
Biology of the stock: Cowcod are found at depths of 11-200 fm (75-
366 m). Cowcod range from central Oregon to central Baja California and
Guadalupe Island. However, they are rare off Oregon and Northern
California. It has long been argued that smaller cowcod are found at
the shallow end of the depth range. Recent submersible work, however,
indicates that cowcod size distribution may be more associated with sea
floor structure than depth. In Monterey Bay, juvenile cowcod recruit to
fine sand and clay sediments at depths of 22-56 fm (40-100 m) during
the months of March-September. Adults are found at depths of 50 280 fm
(90-500 m) usually on high relief rocky bottom. Adult cowcod are
believed to be less abundant in depths greater than 175 fm (323 m).
Management measures in 2011 and 2012: All directed fishing
opportunities have been eliminated since 2001. Retention of cowcod will
continue to be prohibited for all commercial and recreational
fisheries. To prevent incidental cowcod harvest, two CCAs (the Eastern
CCA and the Western CCA) in the Southern California Bight were
delineated to encompass key cowcod habitat areas and known areas of
high catches. The CCAs were codified into regulation on November 4,
2003 (68 FR 62374). Fishing for groundfish has been prohibited within
the CCAs, except that minor nearshore rockfish, California
scorpionfish, cabezon, lingcod, and greenling may be taken from waters
where the bottom depth is less than 20 fm (37 m). This rule proposes to
increase the area in which recreational and commercial non-trawl gear
can be used within the CCA by moving the 20 fm (37 m) limit out to 30
fm (43 m). The rule also proposes to add an addition CCA depth contour
line of 40 fm (55 m)
[[Page 67836]]
to regulation for potential use in the future.
Management performance during rebuilding: Estimates of total
mortality indicate that the cowcod OY has not been exceeded in any year
since 2002. The OYs during the rebuilding period have ranged from 4.8
(in 2002-2004) to 4 mt (in 2007-2008), while annual mortality is
estimated to have been between 0.32 mt and 3.51 mt, under the same
rebuilding management measure structure as status quo.
Darkblotched Rockfish
Date declared overfished: January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2338).
Areas affected: Coastwide.
Status of the stock: 27.5 percent of its unfished biomass
level in 2009.
B0: 32,783 mt.
BMSY: 15,763 mt.
TF=0: 2016.
TMAX: 2037.
OFL: 508 mt in 2011, 497 mt in 2012.
ACL: 285 mt in 2011, 296 mt in 2012.
TTARGET: 2025 (median year to rebuild).
SPR harvest rate: 64.9 percent.
Biology of the stock: Darkblotched rockfish are most abundant on
the outer continental shelf and slope, mainly north of Point Reyes
(38[deg] north latitude). Most adult darkblotched rockfish are
associated with hard substrates on the lower shelf and upper slope at
depths between 77 and 200 fm (140 and 366 m). Darkblotched rockfish
migrate to deeper waters with increasing size and age. Diurnal
migration, rising off bottom at night, is a likely behavior of
darkblotched rockfish. Fish landed in California generally had smaller
size at age than fish landed in the two northern states (Oregon and
Washington).
Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Because of their deeper
distribution, darkblotched rockfish are caught almost exclusively by
commercial bottom trawl vessels. Most landings have been made by bottom
trawl vessels targeting flatfish on the shelf, and rockfish and the DTS
species on the slope. Since 2001, darkblotched rockfish have had
species-specific harvest specifications, and were removed from the
minor slope rockfish complex. However, darkblotched rockfish continue
to be managed within the minor slope rockfish trip limits. Management
measures intended to limit catch of darkblotched rockfish include:
RCAs; individual fishery quotas for the limited entry trawl shoreside
trawl fisheries; allocations to the mothership and catcher/processor
sectors of the Pacific whiting fisheries that result in fishery closure
if the allocation is reached; and cumulative minor slope rockfish trip
limits for limited entry fixed gear and open access gears.
The boundaries of the RCAs vary by season and fishing sector and
may be modified in response to new information about geographical and
seasonal distribution of bycatch. The seaward boundary of the trawl RCA
was set at a depth that was likely to keep fishing effort in deeper
waters and away from areas where the bycatch of darkblotched rockfish
was highest.
Cumulative limits for slope rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north
latitude are intended to accommodate incidental take of darkblotched
rockfish in the limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries. As
needed, limited entry fixed gear and trip limits for co-occurring
species may be adjusted to reduce darkblotched rockfish bycatch.
Incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish in the mothership and
catcher/processor sectors will be constrained by sector-specific
allocations that require closure of the sector when reached. Management
of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to constrain the
harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and
real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce
management uncertainty in the trawl fishery.
Management performance under rebuilding: Between 2002 and 2008 the
OY was exceeded once in 2002. Total catch during this period has ranged
between 127 mt (2003) and 264 mt (2007), while landed catch has ranged
between 80 mt (2003) and 189 mt (2004). The average percent retained
during the rebuilding period has been 63 percent.
Petrale Sole
Date declared overfished: February 9, 2010.
Areas affected: Coastwide.
Status of stock: Following the 2009 stock assessment, the
stock was believed to be at 11.6 percent of unfished biomass level in
2009.
B0: 25,334 mt.
BMSY: 6,334.
TF=0: 2014 (TMIN).
TMAX: 2021.
TTARGET: 2016 (median year to rebuild).
SPR harvest rate: 31.0 percent in 2011 and 32.4 percent in
2012.
ABC: 976 mt in 2011 and 1,222 mt in 2012.
ACL: 976 mt in 2011 and 1,160 mt 2012.
Biology of the stock: Petrale sole are found from Cape Saint Elias,
Alaska to Coronado Island, Baja California, Mexico. The range may
possibly extend into the Bering Sea, but the species is rare north and
west of southeast Alaska. Adults migrate seasonally between deepwater
winter spawning areas to shallower spring feeding grounds. During
periods 1 and 6, there is virtually no petrale sole catch that occurs
at depths less than 125 fm (229 m), most interactions occur between
175-200 fm (320 m-366 m), and catches then drop off quickly outside of
the 200 fm (366 m) line. Depth distributions change during periods 2
and 5, when petrale sole are typically deeper than 125 fm (229 m), but
shallower than 175 fm (320 m), an intermediate depth for this species.
Finally, petrale sole are shallowest during periods 3 and 4, when
highest bycatch rates are observed shallower than 125 fm (229 m).
Petrale sole show an affinity to sand, sandy mud, and occasionally
muddy substrates.
Spawning occurs over the continental shelf and continental slope.
Spawning occurs in large spawning aggregations in the winter. Petrale
sole tend to move into deeper water with increased age and size.
Petrale sole begin maturing at three years. Petrale sole eggs and
larvae are eaten by planktivorous invertebrates and pelagic fishes.
Juveniles are preyed upon (sometimes heavily) by adult petrale sole, as
well as other large flatfishes. Adults are preyed upon by sharks,
demersally feeding marine mammals, and larger flatfishes and pelagic
fishes. Petrale sole compete with other large flatfishes. Petrale sole
have the same summer feeding grounds as lingcod, English sole, rex
sole, and Dover sole.
Management measures for 2011 and 2012: Annual catches of petrale
sole by gears other than groundfish bottom trawl have been minor
coastwide. For the trawl fishery, IFQ management along with RCA
restrictions would be used to constrain the petrale sole catch and to
reduce fishing on spawning aggregations in the winter months. Because
petrale sole exhibit distinct seasonal depth migrations, the trawl RCA
would vary by season. Trip limits will continue to be used in the non-
trawl fisheries.
POP
Date declared overfished: March 3, 1999.
Areas affected: Vancouver and Columbia.
Status of stock: Following the 2009 stock assessment, the
stock was believed to be at 28.6 percent of unfished biomass level in
2009.
B0: 37,780 mt.
[[Page 67837]]
BMSY: 15,112 mt.
TF=0: 2018.
TMAX: 2045.
TTARGET: 2020 (median year to rebuild).
SPR harvest rate: 86.4 percent.
ABC: 1,026 in 2011 and 1,007 mt in 2012.
ACL: 180 mt in 2011 and 183 MT 2012, with an ACT of 157 in
both years.
Biology of the stock: The POP population off the northern U.S. west
coast (Columbia and U.S.-Vancouver areas) is at the southern extreme of
the stock's range. POP are found on the upper continental slope
(slope), 109-150 fm (200-275 m) during the summer and somewhat deeper
164-246 fm (300-450 m) during the winter. Adults sometimes aggregate up
to 16 fm (29 m) above hard bottom features and may then disperse and
rise into the water column at night. The maximum age of POP has been
determined to be 70 to 90 years. The mean generation time is 28 years.
POP recruitment into the population occurs when the stock is at 3 years
of age. Age of maturity and size varies with locality. POP reach 90
percent of their maximum size by age 20 years.
Management measures for 2011 and 2012: POP occurs in similar depths
as darkblotched rockfish, although they have a more northern geographic
distribution. Adult POP are often caught with other upper slope
groundfish such as Dover sole, thornyheads, sablefish, and
darkblotched, rougheye, and sharpchin rockfish. North of 40[deg]10'
north latitude, POP are caught in similar fisheries as darkblotched
rockfish. POP are rarely caught in the recreational fisheries.
Management measures for 2011 and 2012 that are intended to limit the
bycatch of POP and keep fishing mortality within the ACL include: RCAs,
individual fishery quotas for the limited entry trawl shoreside trawl
fisheries, allocations to the mothership and catcher/processor, and
cumulative trip limits for commercial fixed gear fisheries.
Because POP co-occur with darkblotched rockfish, measures to reduce
the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish benefit POP. These
measures include seaward trawl RCA boundaries that are established to
keep fishing effort in deeper water where POP are less abundant.
Incidental catch of POP in the mothership and catcher/processor sectors
will be constrained by sector-specific allocations that require closure
of the sector when reached. Management of the bottom trawl fishery
under IFQs is expected to constrain the harvests to be within the trawl
allocations. Full catch accounting and real time reporting in the
shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce management uncertainty in
the trawl fishery.
Management performance under rebuilding: The OYs for POP were
exceeded in: 2001 by 1.3 percent (307 mt out of a 303 mt OY); and in
2007 by 4.0 percent (156 mt out of a 150 mt OY). The overage in 2007
was due to a relatively rare and unexpected bycatch event.
Widow Rockfish
Date declared overfished: January 11, 2001.
Areas affected: Coastwide.
Status of stock: 38.5 percent of its unfished biomass in
2009.
B0: 40,547 million eggs.
BMSY: 16,218 million eggs.
TF=0: 2010.
TMAX: 2035.
TTARGET: 2010 (median year to rebuild).
SPR harvest rate: 91.7 in 2011, 91.3 in 2012.
OFL: 5,097 mt in 2011, 4,923 mt in 2012.
ACL: 600 mt in 2011 and 2012.
Biology of the stock: Widow rockfish are most abundant off northern
Oregon and southern Washington. Young of the year recruit to shallow
nearshore waters after spending up to 5 months as pelagic larvae and
juveniles in offshore waters. Adults range from bottom depths of 13 fm
to 300 fm (24 m to 549 m). Most adults occur near the shelf break at
bottom depths between 77 fm to 115 fm (140 m to 210 m). Adults are semi
pelagic with their behavior being dynamic. Large concentrations of
widow rockfish form at night and disperse at dawn, an atypical pattern
for rockfish. Widow rockfish tend to be more easily caught in higher
abundance during El Nino (anomalously warm and dry) years. Maximum age
of widow rockfish is 59 years.
Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Widow rockfish co-occurs with
other stocks like yellowtail, bocaccio and chilipepper. Prior to
rebuilding, large pure catches of widow rockfish were taken with
midwater trawl gear. RCA management measure are to restrict fishing on
the shelf are expected to continue, and would continue to be beneficial
to the recovery of widow rockfish. Management of the bottom trawl
fishery under IFQs is expected to constrain the harvests to be within
the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and real time reporting in
the shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce management uncertainty
in the trawl fishery. Incidental catch of widow rockfish in the
mothership and catcher/processor sectors will be constrained by sector-
specific allocations that require closure of the sector when reached.
Non trawl and recreational fisheries have little incidental catch
of widow rockfish. Cumulative trip limits are intended to accommodate
low levels of incidental catch.
Management performance under rebuilding: Since 2002, total catch
has been well below the annual OY. In recent years, the annual catch
has primarily been incidental catch in the Pacific whiting midwater
trawl fisheries. The Pacific whiting fisheries have been managed with
bycatch limits that result in fishery closure if the limit is reached.
Monitoring programs (observers in the mothership and catcher/processor
sectors and monitoring under full retention EFPs in the shorebased
sector) have been in place throughout the rebuilding period.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Date declared overfished: January 11, 2002.
Areas affected: Coastwide.
Status of stock: 20.3 percent of its unfished biomass in
2009.
B0: 994 million eggs.
BMSY: 398 million eggs.
TF=0: 2047.
TMAX: 2089.
Target: 2084 (median year to rebuild).
SPR rate: 72.8 percent.
OFL: 48 mt in 2011 and 2012.
ACL: 20 mt in 2011 and 2012, with an ACT of 17 mt in both
years.
Biology of the stock: Yelloweye rockfish juveniles have been found
at depths greater than 8 fm (15 m) in areas of high bottom relief.
Adults range to depths of 300 fm (549 m). Most adults are caught off
the middle and lower shelf at depths between 50 fm and 98 fm (91 m and
180 m). Adult yelloweye rockfish tend to be solitary and are usually
associated with areas of high relief with refuges such as caves and
crevices, but also occur on mud adjacent to rock structures. They are
usually found on or near the bottom. Maximum age of yelloweye rockfish
is 115 years. Researchers have observed adult yelloweye rockfish
associated with bocaccio, cowcod, greenspotted rockfish, and tiger
rockfish.
Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Yelloweye rockfish inhabit
areas typically inaccessible to trawl gear. In the coastal trawl
fishery, incidental catch occurs during the harvest of other target
fisheries operating at the fringes of yelloweye rockfish habitat.
Yelloweye rockfish is particularly vulnerable to hook and line gear.
Because yelloweye rockfish exhibit site fidelity and they are
[[Page 67838]]
a more sedentary rockfish species, RCAs have been effective in reducing
the catch of yelloweye rockfish. Specific yelloweye rockfish RCAs have
been specified for the recreational and commercial non-trawl fisheries.
North of 39[deg] north latitude RCAs out to depths of 100-125 fm (183-
229 m) are expected to reduce yelloweye rockfish catch.
For 2011 and 2012, the 100 and 125 fm (183 and 229 m) RCA lines at
the southwest corner of Heceta Bank were moved seaward to better follow
the bathymetry that they represent; the unmodified lines were, in many
cases, extremely shallow. The industry has reported this to be an area
of high yelloweye rockfish bycatch. While the impacts of this change to
the RCA to yelloweye rockfish are not quantifiable, it is assumed that
the modification will reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts. North of
40[deg]10' north latitude, Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation areas
(YRCAs) will continue to be used to reduce yelloweye rockfish catch in
the commercial fixed gear, open access, and recreational fisheries. Off
Washington, recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut will
continue to be prohibited inside the YRCAs and for limited entry fixed
gear and open access fishing, the ``C'' shaped YRCA off Washington will
continue to be designated as an area to avoid. YRCAs off the coast of
Washington are defined in Federal regulation at 50 CFR Sec. 660.390.
The North Coast Commercial YRCA restricts commercial limited entry and
open access, the Salmon Troll YRCA restricts salmon troll fishing, and
the recreational YRCA off the southern coast of Washington prohibits
all recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut. The California
recreational YRCAs and commercial non-trawl gear YRCAs will continue to
be defined in regulation and may be implemented inseason. As in 2009
and 2010 the YRCAs not in effect at the start of 2011.
Management performance under rebuilding: Following the 2002
declaration that the yelloweye rockfish stock was overfished the total
catch mortality of yelloweye rockfish was drastically reduced and has
been maintained between 12.3 mt and 19.6 mt. These catch levels
represent a 95% reduction from average catches observed in the 1980s
and 1990s. Between 2002 and 2008, 54-76 percent of the annual catch was
from the recreational fisheries. The annual OY has not been exceeded
since 2002.
Management of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to
constrain the harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch
accounting and real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is
expected to reduce management uncertainty in the trawl fishery.
Ecosystem Component Species
Ecosystem component (EC) species are identified in the PCGFMP. The
EC species are those species that are not considered to be ``in the
fishery'' or targeted in any fishery. EC species are not typically
retained for sale or personal use. The EC species are not actively
managed. The EC species are determined to not be subject to
overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, or overfished, nor
are they likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the
absence of conservation and management measures.
Although harvest specifications are not specified for EC species,
the incidental catch is monitored to ensure they continue to be
classified correctly. While EC species are not considered to be ``in
the fishery,'' Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP indicates that the Council
should consider measures for the fishery to minimize bycatch and
bycatch mortality of EC species consistent with National Standard 9,
and to protect their associated role in the ecosystem. EC species are
not required to have reference points specified, but should be
monitored to the extent that any new pertinent scientific information
becomes available (e.g., catch trends, vulnerability, etc.) to
determine changes in their status or their vulnerability to the
fishery. If necessary, they should be reclassified as ``in the
fishery.''
The Council considered specifying shortbelly rockfish as an EC
species, but decided against doing so. Shortbelly rockfish is an
abundant species that is not targeted in any commercial or recreational
fisheries, and which is a valuable forage fish species. Rather than
classifying shortbelly rockfish as an EC species, the Council chose to
recommend a very restrictive ACL which is intended to accommodate
incidental catch while preventing the development of fisheries
specifically targeting shortbelly rockfish.
Overfishing
Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected
to a rate or level of fishing mortality that is above the stock's
capacity to produce MSY (an estimate of the largest average annual
catch or yield that can be taken over a significant period of time
under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions). This level
is also referred to as MFMT (the maximum fishing mortality threshold)
in the PCGFMP. Under the PCGFMP, OFLs for all species will be set based
on the MFMT, which is expressed as a harvest unlike OFLs. None of the
2011 or 2012 OFLs would be set higher than the MFMT or its proxy
applied to a stock's abundance. The corresponding ABCs will be set
below the OFL and ACLs will be set at or below the ABC. The groundfish
management measures including those in this proposed rule are designed
to keep harvest levels within specified ACLs.
When evaluating whether overfishing has occurred for any species
under the PCGFMP, NMFS compares that species' estimated total catch
(landed catch + discard) in a particular year to the MFMT applied to
the estimated abundance (the ABC for 2010 and years earlier, and OFL
beginning in 2011). Overfishing is difficult to detect inseason for
many groundfish, particularly for minor rockfish species, because most
species are not individually identified on landing. Species
compositions, based on proportions encountered in samples of landings
and extrapolated observer data, are applied during the year. However,
final results are not available until after the end of the year.
This proposed rule discusses overfishing estimated to have occurred
in 2007 and 2008. When new data are available, NMFS updates estimates
of whether overfishing has occurred as part of the agency's report to
Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm)
NMFS estimates that no overfishing occurred on any species during
the 2007 or 2008 fishing season, since no species or species complex
total catch exceeded its ABC. During 2007 and 2008 the total catch of
three species did exceed the OYs. In 2007, canary rockfish exceeded its
44 mt OY by 1.6 percent with the total catch estimated to have been
44.7 mt. In 2007, POP exceeded its 150 mt OY by 4.0 percent with a
total catch estimate of 156.0 mt. In 2008, sablefish exceeded its 5,934
mt OY by 2.4 percent with the total catch estimate of 6,078 mt.
Amendment 20: Carry-Over Provision
Under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP, up to 10 percent of unused IFQ
quota pounds in a vessel's account may be carried over for use in the
next fishing year. Similarly, in order to cover an overage (landings
that exceed the amount of quota pounds held in a vessel account) that
is within 10 percent of the quota pounds that have been in the vessel
account during the year, the vessel owner may use that amount from the
quota pounds he will receive in the
[[Page 67839]]
following fishing year to account for the overage in the current year.
The rationale for the carry-over as presented in the Amendment 20 EIS
is to provide increased flexibility to fishery participants. During the
biennial harvest specification and management process, specifically at
the Council's June 2010 meeting, the Council further considered how the
carry-over provision works in relationship to the 2011-2012 harvest
specifications, particularly ACLs and the trawl allocations.
The primary risk pertaining to carry-over provisions is the risk
associated with management uncertainty, i.e. the risk of the carry-over
provision relative to the ability to manage the fisheries to stay
within the ACLs and whether that risk is acceptably low. An examination
was done on the worst case scenario which would occur if every quota
holder carried an underage (landings that are less than the amount of
quota pounds held in a vessel account) of 10 percent for species that
are ``fully prescribed'' in the IFQ fishery. The likelihood of this
occurring was believed to be a low risk. Because both carry-overs and
carry-unders are both expected for the following year, the biological
impacts were expected to be low.
Non-overfished trawl target species where 80 percent or more of the
annual OY was harvested from 2005-2008 include Dover sole, sablefish,
and shortspine thornyhead. Fully harvested stocks are more likely than
others to experience ACL overages due to the carry-over provision.
Under an IFQ fishery, more than 80% of the sablefish allocation is
expected to be harvested, particularly given the lower ACLs in 2011-
2012 relative to recent OYs. Petrale sole is likely to be fully
harvested with a lower harvest level than in the past. Whiting may also
be fully or near fully harvested. Dover sole has a higher harvest level
than in recent years and therefore the fishery has a lower risk of
exceeding the Dover sole trawl allocation or the ACL as a result of the
carry-over provision. The overfished species, other than petrale sole,
will likely have 80 percent or more of the annual ACL harvested and
thus are potential species for which an ACL overage due to the carry-
over provision may be possible.
Management Measures
New management measures being proposed for the 2011-2012 work in
combination with the existing regulations to create a management
structure that is intended to constrain fishing so the catch of
overfished groundfish species does not exceed the rebuilding ACLs while
allowing, to the extent practicable, the ACLs for healthier groundfish
stocks that co-occur with the overfished stocks to be achieved. Routine
management measures for the commercial fisheries include: Bycatch
limits, trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size
limits, and gear restrictions. Routine management measures for the
recreational fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear
restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area closures.
Routine management measures are used to modify fishing behavior during
the fishing year to allow a harvest specification to be achieved, or to
prevent a harvest specification from being exceeded. The groundfish
fishery is managed with a variety of other regulatory requirements that
are not considered routine, and which are not changed through this
rulemaking and are found at 50 CFR Sec. 660, Subparts C through G. The
regulations at 50 CFR Sec. 660, Subparts C through G include, but are
not limited to, long-term harvest allocations, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, monitoring requirements, license limitation
programs, and essential fish habitat (EFH) protection measures. The
routine management measures specified at 50 CFR Sec. 660.60(c),
Subpart C in combination with the entire collection of groundfish
regulations as specified at 50 CFR 660, Subparts C through G are used
to manage the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery to stay within the
harvest specifications identified in the rulemaking. This section
presents proposed management measures developed for 2011-2012.
At the Council's April 2010 meeting the Enforcement Consultants
(EC) raised catch accounting concerns relative to U.S. vessels
(including processing vessels) that fish for species managed under the
PCGFMP and that transport catch to another country, such as Canada and
Mexico, thereby circumventing catch accounting. The EC further
investigated the issue including the possible implementation of
regulatory language to ensure that Federal regulations provide for full
catch accounting before catch leaves the United States. At the
Council's June 2010 meeting the EC provided the Council with draft
regulatory language that would require the submission of vessel
activity reports for any non-IFQ catcher vessel, mothership processor,
or catcher/processor engaged in fishing for groundfish in the EEZ
before it leaves the EEZ by crossing the seaward boundary, or crosses
the borders to the EEZs of Mexico or Canada. The Council recommended
that a vessel activity report be implemented. However, development and
implementation of a vessel activity report would take more time than is
available for this rulemaking. Therefore, a vessel activity report is
under consideration for future implementation and has not been included
in this action.
Limited Entry Trawl
Incidental Trip Limits for Trawl Rationalization--Amendment 20
The Shoreside IFQ program being implemented under Amendment 20 to
the PCGFMP will require the following incidentally caught species to be
managed with trip limits: Minor nearshore rockfish north and south,
black rockfish, cabezon (46[deg]16 to 42[deg] north latitude and south
of 42[deg] north latitude), spiny dogfish, shortbelly rockfish, Pacific
whiting, and the ``other fish'' category. If determined necessary, trip
limits may also be established for longnose skate, California
scorpionfish, and as sub-limits within the other fish category, big
skate, California skate, leopard skate, soupfin shark, finescale
codling, Pacific rattail, kelp greenling, and cabezon off Washington.
The establishment of trip limits for these species will allow
incidental catch to be landed and for the fishers to be paid for those
landings. Overall, the amount of regulatory discards for incidentally
caught species is expected to be reduced. Under the shoreside IFQ
program gear switching provisions, trawl trip limits apply to
incidental landing allowances regardless of whether the vessels are
using either trawl or fixed gears. In the development of trawl trip
limits, monthly landings in the limited entry non-whiting and whiting
trawl fishery from 2008 and 2009 were examined and compared to the 2010
trip limits. These trip limits do not apply to vessels in the
mothership and catcher/processor sectors of the whiting fishery.
Minor Nearshore Rockfish and Black Rockfish North and South of
40[deg]10 North Latitude
The minor nearshore rockfish and black rockfish trip limits for
vessels participating under the shoreside IFQ program using trawl or
fixed gears north and south of 40[deg]10 north latitude would be
specified at 300 lbs/month for periods 1 through 6. The highest monthly
landings of nearshore rockfish in the trawl fishery during 2008 and
2009 were between 150-200 pounds; with the majority of the landings
having been less than 50 pounds. In a
[[Page 67840]]
rationalized trawl fishery increases to minor nearshore rockfish and
black rockfish landings are not expected. This is because of state
regulations restricting trawl fishing in nearshore areas and because
the risk of catching yelloweye rockfish is relatively high in these
areas. In Washington state waters (0-3 miles) commercial fishing with
either trawl or fixed gear (including pots) in nearshore waters is
prohibited. To commercially land targeted amounts of nearshore rockfish
species in Oregon, vessels must hold a state fixed gear nearshore
permit. Landing of incidental amounts of nearshore rockfish are allowed
by trawlers and by fixed gear vessels without nearshore permits,
however recent (2010) state trip limits for these species have been
more restrictive than the federal trip limits and are expected to
remain in place in 2011 and 2012. In California, vessels must hold a
state fixed gear nearshore permit to land nearshore rockfish. With full
catch accounting under the shoreside IFQ program and the anticipated
high cost of purchasing yelloweye rockfish quota pounds, it seems
unlikely that IFQ participants will be targeting nearshore rockfish.
Cabezon (46[deg]16 North Latitude to 42[deg] North Latitude and South
of 42[deg] North Latitude)
Beginning with 2011-2012, cabezon would be managed as a separate
species north of 42[deg] north latitude, as well as south of 42[deg]
north latitude off California. A review of recent landings of cabezon
by the limited entry trawl fleet indicated that landings were
infrequent with most being below 20 pounds. The Council recommended
that the cabezon trip limits for vessels participating in the shoreside
IFQ program using trawl or fixed gears to harvest IFQ species with a
limited entry trawl permit be specified at 50 lbs/month for periods 1
through 6 north and south of 42[deg] north latitude, which would
accommodate the landings seen in the last two years.
Spiny Dogfish
The limits specified in regulation for trawl gear in 2010 are
200,000 lbs (91 mt) per 2 months periods 1 and 2; 150,000 lbs (68 mt)
per 2 months periods 3, and 100,000 lbs (45 mt) per 2 months periods 4
through 6 in both the north and the south. In recent years, no limited
entry trawl vessel has approached or attained the spiny dogfish
cumulative limits specified in Federal regulation. Under a rationalized
fishery, an IFQ vessel could target spiny dogfish with either trawl
gear or fixed gear. Due to anticipated catch of yelloweye rockfish, the
access to spiny dogfish could be constrained. The risk to an individual
of yelloweye rockfish bycatch would likely outweigh the value of
targeting spiny dogfish. Therefore, the Council recommended that the
spiny dogfish trip limits for vessels using trawl or fixed gears to
harvest IFQ species with a limited entry trawl permit north and south
of 40[deg]10 north latitude be specified at 60,000 lbs (27 mt) per 2
month, which would accommodate the trawl landings seen in recent years.
Longspine Thornyhead South of 34[deg]27 North Latitude
Unlike longspine thornyhead in the north, the Council did not
specify trawl/non-trawl allocation for longspine thornyhead south of
34[deg]27 north latitude under Amendment 21. The Council chose to
manage longspine thornyheads south of 34[deg]27 north latitude with
trip limits, and longspine thornyhead in the north with individual
fishing quotas. From 1995-2005, the trawl fishery harvested very small
proportions of the longspine thornyhead OY. Additionally, total
mortality by all fleets in recent years has been well below the OY.
Historically, longspine thornyhead has not been a target species in the
trawl fishery, but instead has been caught in association with
shortspine thornyhead, Dover sole, and sablefish. Given the low
exploitation of longspine thornyhead south, the Council recommended
that south of 34[deg]27 North latitude, the longspine thornyhead
incidental landing limits for vessels using trawl or fixed gears to
harvest IFQ species with a limited entry trawl permit be specified at
24,000 lbs (11 mt) per 2 months, which is the 2010 limit currently
specified in regulation for limited entry trawl gears.
Remaining Groundfish Species
Under the Final Preferred Alternative, the Council specified
incidental trip limits for species not managed with IFQ for vessels
using trawl or fixed gear to harvest IFQ species with a limited entry
trawl permit. For the purpose of setting trip limits for non-IFQ
species, the Council considered the following remaining groundfish
species: Longnose skate, big skate, California skate, California
scorpionfish, leopard shark, soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific
rattail (grenadier), ratfish, kelp greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon
in Washington. A review of the 2008 and 2009 limited entry trawl
landings for these stocks was conducted. Grenadier makes up the largest
component of the remaining fish landings in the trawl fishery and most
landings were less than 8,000 lbs (3.6 mt) with a few landings as high
as 12,000 lbs (11 mt). Historically, there was some buying/selling of
grenadier in an attempt to develop a market, however recent landings
are incidental catch associated with the targeting of DTS species. Big
skate and California skate are also included in the remaining fish
category. In recent years, there has been interest in targeting and
marketing skates. Overall the species being considered had landings
that were less than 1,500 pounds (680 kg) per month with most monthly
landings less than 1,000 pounds (454 kg). The Council recommended that
incidental landing limit for vessels using trawl or fixed gears to
harvest IFQ species with a limited entry trawl permit remain unlimited
at the start of 2011. Should increased landings occur such that there
is concern about overfishing, the Council would likely implement the
appropriate trip limits through routine inseason action. Therefore,
trip limits for the remaining groundfish are being added to the
regulations as a routine management measure.
Trawl Fishery Trip Limit Tables
This action specifies incidental trip limits for species not
managed with IFQ for vessels using trawl or fixed gear to harvest IFQ
species with a limited entry trawl permit. The purpose of allowing trip
limits for these species is to allow incidental catch to be landed and
for the fishers to be paid for those landings. Without trip limits
these incidentally caught species would need to be discarded
(regulatory discard) or forfeited to the state at the time of landing.
A second set of tables is included with this action, in the event that
trawl rationalization is delayed the trawl non-IFQ fishery tables would
be implemented to prevent the fishery from exceeding its
specifications.
RCA Configurations for Vessels Harvesting IFQ Quota Pounds
Based on analysis of West Coast Groundfish Observer Data and
vessel-logbook data, the boundaries of the RCAs were set to prohibit
groundfish fishing within a range of depths where encounters with
overfished species were most likely to occur. The RCAs boundaries vary
by season, latitude, and gear group. Boundaries for limited entry trawl
vessels are different than those for the limited entry fixed-gear and
open access gears. The non-trawl RCAs apply to the limited entry fixed-
gear and open access gears other than non-groundfish trawl. The non-
groundfish trawl RCAs are defined by fishery.
[[Page 67841]]
Trawl RCA boundaries and cumulative limits are routinely adjusted
inseason based upon fishery performance. Managers structure catch limit
opportunities and closed areas with several objectives in mind
including reducing interactions with overfished species while
simultaneously providing for a year round fishing opportunity. While
many adjustments to catch limits and trawl RCA boundaries are
relatively minor, in recent years some of these adjustments have been
relatively extreme and have closed fishing opportunity for wide areas
of the coast mid-season. Under the 2010 management structure for the
trawl fishery, catch projections (and estimates of total catch
inseason) are made using what is often described as the ``trawl bycatch
model.'' This model uses discard estimates from the WCGOP data and
logbook information to develop temporal and spatially stratified
bycatch rates for overfished species. The bycatch model can be used to
estimate both target species and overfished species catch based on a
proposed set of management measures (2-month cumulative trip limits and
RCA configurations). Under a rationalized fishery, there will be full
catch accounting and individuals will be held accountable for their
bycatch. Despite the high level of individual accountability, there is
still a risk of exceeding the trawl allocation since overfished species
interactions can be unpredictable. As a starting place for the
shoreside trawl IFQ program and as a risk adverse measure, the Council
recommended maintaining the RCA structure that was in place in June
2010. As the IFQ fishery develops and if catch data supports
reconsideration of the RCAs, the Council could revise the RCA
boundaries through inseason measures.
Under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP, quota pounds associated with a
limited entry trawl permit may be harvested with either trawl gear or
legal fixed gear. Groundfish regulations specify both trawl and non-
trawl RCAs. The type of gear employed determines the RCA structure. As
such, vessels that harvest IFQ species with trawl gear will be held to
the trawl RCA while vessels that harvest with fixed gear will be held
to the fixed gear RCA.
Gear Switching
The yelloweye rockfish trawl catch allocation is based on the trawl
bycatch model, which projects very low amounts of yelloweye rockfish
catch (0.6 mt) for 2011 and 2012. In general, yelloweye rockfish is
much less vulnerable to being caught by trawl gear than non-trawl
gears. With fixed-gear, nearshore fishers are able to fish in areas and
depth ranges where yelloweye rockfish are found (rock bottom). As a
result, yelloweye rockfish bycatch rates in the nearshore fixed gear
fisheries are much greater than those used to model bycatch in the
trawl fisheries. For reasons similar to those for yelloweye rockfish,
canary rockfish bycatch rates are also higher in the nearshore fixed-
gear fishery model than in the trawl model.
Under a trip limit fishery structure, management measures (trip
limits, trawl gear restrictions and RCAs) restrict trawl yelloweye
retention and fishing and in rocky habitats where yelloweye rockfish
concentrate. Under trawl rationalization, the gear switching provision
allows fishers to used fixed gears to harvest trawl allocations. All
IFQ species caught by those fishing under the gear switching
provisions, including yelloweye and canary, must be covered by trawl
quota pounds. Increased fishing by trawl IFQ program participants using
fixed gear shoreward of the RCA could present an increased risk of
exceeding the trawl sector allocation for yelloweye rockfish, and
possibly canary rockfish. For this reason, the 2011 and 2012 management
measures include measures designed to discourage fixed gear fishing by
trawl IFQ participants in the nearshore, where impacts to yelloweye and
canary rockfish are potentially the greatest.
To discourage fishing in nearshore areas under the gear switching
provision, the Council recommended that the trawl sector receive no
allocation of nearshore species making it unlikely that trawl IFQ
fishery participants will operate in waters shallower than 30 fm (55
m). Further, state regulations require nearshore permits to land
targeted amounts of nearshore species. In Oregon, additional gear
restrictions may restrict fixed gear operations in the nearshore areas.
The shoreward non-trawl RCA structure is designed such that the trawl
IFQ fishery participants' only viable opportunity for shoreward non-
trawl activity is south of 34[deg]27 north latitude, where yelloweye
rockfish and are less common. It is less likely that vessels fishing
seaward of the RCA under the gear switching provision would
encountering overfished species in excess of the trawl fishery
allocations. Gear switching seaward of the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour
may allow access to valuable species such as sablefish and shortspine
thornyheads with less incidental catch than with trawl gear.
Potential Mid-Water Opportunity in 2011-2012
There is an opportunity under the trawl rationalization program to
allow targeting of species such as yellowtail rockfish within the RCA
using midwater trawl gear during the primary whiting season. Under
current trawl rationalization regulations, this opportunity is
available regardless of amount of whiting onboard. A cursory analysis
of data reveals that the risk of exceeding overfished species ACLs as a
result of a mid-water opportunity appears lower than for bottom trawl
gear for some species (e.g., yelloweye); it may be equally as risky for
some species including canary; and appears to have a higher risk for
species including widow rockfish. Under a rationalized trawl fishery
structure with individual accountability, and the Council's recommended
ACLs for canary and widow rockfish, and with the subsequent trawl
allocation, the risk of exceeding ACLs for these species is
sufficiently low. Therefore, this opportunity could be afforded in
2011-2012.
Further Considerations for a Rationalized Trawl Fishery
The 2011 petrale ACL reductions over 2010 and arrowtooth ACL
decision directly affect the initial allocation of individual bycatch
quota (IBQ) for Pacific halibut. Pacific halibut IBQ will be calculated
using a formula based on quota share for arrowtooth flounder and
petrale sole, two target species that correlate to Pacific halibut
bycatch. Therefore, under the new lower petrale ACLs, permits with more
arrowtooth quota pounds will be allocated more halibut IBQ.
Shoreside whiting receives a one-time overfished species allocation
for the initial allocation. Thereafter, this sector will join the
rationalized non-whiting trawl fishery and be allowed to trade/purchase
shares of overfished and non-overfished species.
Limited-Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Non-Trawl Fishery Management
Measures
Management measures for the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and
open access non-trawl fisheries tend to be similar because the majority
of participants in both fisheries use hook-and-line gear. These
fisheries will be most constrained by management measures to decrease
impacts on yelloweye rockfish.
Non-Trawl RCAs
The non-trawl RCA applies to vessels that take, retain, possess or
land groundfish unless they are incidental
[[Page 67842]]
fisheries that are exempt from the non-trawl RCA (e.g. the pink shrimp
non-groundfish trawl fishery). The non-trawl RCA boundaries proposed
for 2011-2012 are the same as those in place for the non-trawl
fisheries in 2009-2010, except for the seaward boundary of the non-
trawl RCA between 45[deg]03.83' north latitude and 43[deg]00' north
latitude.
The seaward and shoreward boundaries of the non-trawl RCAs vary
along the coast, and are divided at various commonly used geographic
coordinates, defined in Sec. 660.11, Subpart C. In 2009-2010, new
divisions of the RCA boundaries were established based on recently
available fishery information, indicating that fishing in some areas
where the non-trawl fishery occurs has higher yelloweye rockfish
impacts than in others, and the RCA boundaries were adjusted to reduce
impacts to yelloweye rockfish in these areas. For 2009-2010 the seaward
boundary of the non-trawl RCA between 45[deg]03.83' north latitude
(Cascade Head) and 43[deg]00' north latitude (Columbia/Eureka line) was
specified at 125 fm (229 m), except on days when the directed halibut
fishery is open, when the fishery is then restricted to waters seaward
of the 100 fm (183 m) line. This regulation, which was new in the 2009-
2010 cycle, was implemented to reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts by
fixed gear fishers targeting sablefish and other target groundfish. For
2011-2012, the modeled-overfished species impacts by the limited entry
and open access fisheries showed that given the lower sablefish ACLs
for 2011 and 2012, along with the Council's final preferred
apportionment of overfished species for the non-nearshore fishery, the
100 fm (183 m) line could be accommodated.
For 2011 and 2012, the non-trawl RCA boundaries from north to south
are proposed to be as follows: From the U.S./Canada Border and
46[deg]16' north latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between
the shoreline and a boundary line approximating the 100 fm (183 m)
depth contour. Between 46[deg]16' north latitude and 43[deg]00' north
latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between the boundary lines
approximating the 30 fm (55 m) and the 100 fm (183 m) depth contours.
Between 43[deg]00' north latitude and 42[deg]00' north latitude the
non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between boundary lines approximating 20
fm (37 m) and 100 fm (183 m) depth contours. Between 42[deg]00' north
latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between the 20 fm (37 m)
depth contour (there is no boundary line approximating the 20 fm (37 m)
depth contour off California) and the boundary line approximating the
100 fm (183 m) depth contour. Moving the seaward RCA boundary from 125
fm (229 m) to the 100 fm (183 m) between 46[deg]16' and 43[deg]00'
north latitude results in a projected increase of 0.1 mt of yelloweye
rockfish for the area between 46[deg]16' and 43[deg]00' north latitude.
Moving the seaward RCA from 43[deg] north latitude to Cascade Head from
125 to 100 fm (229 to 183 m) opens more fishing areas, may decrease
conflicts among fixed gear fishers, may reduce running time to some
fishing grounds (which subsequently decreases expense and improves
safety), and may increase sablefish catch rates in some instances.
The following lines are proposed south of 40[deg]10' north
latitude. Between 40[deg]10' north latitude and 34[deg]27' north
latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between boundary lines
approximating the 30 fm (55 m) and 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.
Between 34[deg]27' north latitude and the U.S. border with Mexico,
including waters around islands, the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be
between boundary lines approximating the 60 fm (110 m) and 150 fm (274
m) depth contours. The boundary lines vary along the coast because of
the different abundances of overfished species along the coast.
For 2011 and 2012, the 100 fm (186 m) and 125 fm (229 m) latitude
and longitude coordinates defining the lines at the southwest corner of
Heceta Bank are proposed to be moved to better follow the bathymetry.
In this area the existing lines are, in many cases, extremely shallow
and reported to allow fishing in areas of high yelloweye rockfish
bycatch by members of the industry. While the impacts to yelloweye
rockfish from refining the 100 fm (186 m) and 125 fm (229 m) line
waypoints are not quantifiable in the Heceta Bank area, it is likely
that the modifications would reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts over the
existing line structure.
This rule proposes to use the boundary line approximating the 100
fm (183 m) depth contour as the seaward boundary for the non-trawl RCA
north 40[deg]10' north latitude. In the event that the boundary line
approximating the 125 fm (229 m) and depth contour is implemented
around Heceta Head (44[deg]08.30' north latitude) through inseason
action, this action also proposes to revisions to the latitude and
longitude coordinates that define the boundary line approximating the
125 fm (229 m) depth contour to reduce impacts to yelloweye rockfish.
This rule also proposes changes to the boundary line approximating the
60 fm (110 m) depth contour off northern California to better
approximate the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour and to better align the
bycatch data collected that is divided by depth contours. Subsequent
changes to the boundary line approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth
contour in the same area are necessary to prevent unintended crossovers
from the change to the 60 fm (110 m) line. The latitude and longitude
coordinates that define these boundary lines that approximate depth
contours, and are used to define the non-trawl RCA, are found in
groundfish regulations at Sec. Sec. 660.71 through 74, Subpart C
(redesignated from Sec. 660.391 through 394).
In 2009-2010 NMFS defined new YRCAs off northern California that
may be implemented through inseason action if necessary. These YRCAs
will continue to be available for inseason management if catch of
yelloweye rockfish needs to be reduced during 2011-2012. The latitude
and longitude coordinates that define these YRCAs are found in
groundfish regulations at Sec. 660.70, Subpart C.
The Salmon Troll YRCA is found in groundfish regulation at Sec.
660.70, Subpart C, and Sec. 660.333, Subpart F, and in the Pacific
Coast salmon regulations at Sec. 660.405.
Like trawl fishery participants, non-trawl vessels are also subject
to several groundfish closed areas other than those within the RCA
boundary lines and those intended for EFH conservation. The following
closed areas apply to all non-trawl vessels, including both open access
and limited entry fixed gear vessels, and have not been proposed for
modification in 2011 and beyond (Sec. 660.70, Subpart C): A Cordell
Banks Closed Area; closed areas around the Farallon Islands off San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties, CA; the Eastern CCA. The non-trawl
fisheries have little to no incidental catch of POP, darkblotched, or
widow rockfish. The effects of these fisheries on bocaccio, canary,
cowcod, and yelloweye rockfish are constrained as much as possible by
the non-trawl RCA, described above, and by the YRCAs and CCAs.
Non-Trawl Fishery Trip Limits
Trip limits proposed for the non-trawl fisheries in 2011-2012 are
similar to those that applied to these fisheries in 2009-2010 with the
exception of changes to trip limit structures in the sablefish daily
trip limit in the LEFG fishery north of 36[deg] north latitude. Trip
limits in the LEFG fishery north of 36[deg] north latitude are modified
to allow additional flexibility for fishers by eliminating the daily
and weekly trip limits. Daily or weekly trip limits may be imposed, if
necessary, via routine inseason action during 2011-2012 to
[[Page 67843]]
keep total catch of sablefish within the 2011 and 2012 sablefish
allocations. Also, the sablefish trip limits in the LEFG fishery south
of 36[deg] north latitude are modified to allow additional flexibility
for fishers by eliminating the daily trip limit and establishing only a
weekly cumulative limit. Trip limits in the open access sablefish
fishery remain very similar to those that were in place in 2009-2010.
The open access sablefish limits coastwide are more conservative than
the LEFG sablefish limits in both poundage and structure, recognizing
that the open access fleet can expand to an unknown number of
participants. South of 36[deg] north latitude open access sablefish
limits are more conservative than the LEFG sablefish limits in both
poundage and structure, recognizing that the limited entry fleet has
historically harvested a larger proportion of the sablefish ACL South
of 36[deg] north latitude, particularly in the years 2000-2005. Also,
as in past years, thornyheads may not be taken and retained in the open
access fisheries north of 34[deg]27' north latitude.
Primary Sablefish Fishery Tier Limits
Tier limits for the limited entry fixed gear sablefish-endorsed
fleet are lower than in 2009-2010, reflecting the lower sablefish
harvest specifications for 2011 and 2012: in 2011, Tier 1 at 41,379 lb
(18,769 kg), Tier 2 at 18,809 lb (8,532 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,748 lb
(4,875 kg). For 2012 the tier limits are as follows: Tier 1 at 40,113
lb (18,195 kg), Tier 2 at 18,233 lb (8,270 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,419 lb
(4,726 kg).
These tier limits are found in groundfish regulations at Sec.
660.231, Subpart E.
Management measures for the LEFG fishery, including gear
requirements, are found at Sec. 660.330, subpart F, with management
measures specific to the primary sablefish season (e.g. tier fishery)
found at Sec. 660.321, subpart E. Limited entry fixed gear trip limits
are found in Table 2 (North) and Table 2 (South) of subpart E of part
660.
Salmon Troller Lingcod Limits
Salmon trollers will be allowed to keep incidentally caught lingcod
with a ratio limit of 1 lingcod per 15 Chinook, plus 1 lingcod up to a
trip limit of 10 lingcod, up to a maximum limit of 400 lbs per month
when fishing inside the non-trawl RCA. When salmon trollers fish
entirely outside of the non-trawl RCA they are not subject to the
lingcod retention ration described above, but only to the monthly trip
limit.
Open Access Non-Groundfish Trawl Gear Fisheries Management Measures
Open access non-groundfish trawl gear (used to harvest ridgeback
prawns, California halibut, sea cucumbers, and pink shrimp) is managed
with ``per trip'' limits, cumulative trip limits, and area closures.
Trip limits in 2011-2012 are similar to those in 2007-2008 and 2009-
2010. The species-specific open access limits described in the trip
limit table apply unless otherwise specified and, in addition, open
access non-groundfish trawl vessels may not exceed overall groundfish
limits if they are specified. As in past years, the pink shrimp fishery
is subject to a non-species specific groundfish limit of ``500 lb/day,
multiplied by the number of days of the trip, not to exceed 1,500 lb/
trip.'' In addition to the general groundfish limit, vessels fishing
for pink shrimp have species specific sub limits for lingcod and
sablefish that are different from other open access limits described in
Table 3 South to Subpart F. Also, as in past years, thornyheads may not
be taken and retained in the open access fisheries north of 34[deg]27'
north latitude.
The trawl RCA is described in Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South)
to Subpart D. Trawling with open access non-groundfish gear for pink
shrimp will be permitted within the trawl RCA; however, the states
require pink shrimp trawlers to use finfish excluder devices to reduce
their groundfish bycatch, particularly to prevent bycatch mortality for
canary and other rockfishes. The required use of finfish excluders in
the pink shrimp trawl fishery will continue in 2011-2012.
Regulations in this proposed rule include two options for trawl RCA
configurations (in Table 1a (South) and Table 1b (South): One that
would be in place with implementation of the trawl individual quota
program; and one that would be in place if the trawl individual quota
program is delayed. Trawling for ridgeback prawns, California halibut,
and sea cucumber are subject to the same RCA area closures that apply
to vessels fishing in the limited entry trawl fishery, except that non-
groundfish trawling will be permitted shoreward of a boundary line
approximating the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour if and when the inshore
boundary line of the limited entry trawl RCA is moved shallower than
100 fm (183 m). NMFS may clarify the regulatory language regarding the
non-groundfish trawl RCA in 660.333, Subpart F, and in line 41 of Table
3 (South) to 660, Subpart F, regarding how the trawl RCA applies to the
open access non-groundfish trawl sectors. Currently in regulation the
description of non-groundfish trawl RCA refers to the nontrawl RCA,
which is inconsistent with the non-groundfish trawl RCA in Table 3
(South). RCA restrictions off California are particularly intended to
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality for southern and coastwide
overfished species such as bocaccio, cowcod, and canary rockfish. No
changes to other groundfish conservation area restrictions are proposed
for the open access non-groundfish trawl fishery in 2011-2012.
Management measures for the open access fisheries, including gear
requirements, are found at Sec. 660.333, Subpart F. Trip limits are
found in Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) of subpart F of part 660.
Recreational Fisheries Management Measures
Recreational fisheries management measures are designed to limit
catch of overfished and nearshore species to sustainable levels while
also allowing viable fishing seasons. Overfished species that are taken
in recreational fisheries are bocaccio, cowcod, canary, and yelloweye
rockfish. Because sport fisheries are more concentrated in nearshore
waters, the 2011-2012 recreational fishery management measures are
intended to constrain catch of nearshore species such as minor
nearshore rockfish, black rockfish, blue rockfish and cabezon. These
protections are particularly important for fisheries off California,
where the bulk of West Coast recreational fishing occurs. Management
measures for the California recreational groundfish fishery are
designed to reduce the incidental catch of overfished rockfish,
primarily yelloweye and canary rockfish, while providing as much
fishing opportunity as possible for anglers targeting groundfish. Depth
restrictions and RCAs are the primary tools used to keep overfished
species impacts under the prescribed harvest levels for the California
recreational fishery. Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed,
and the Council recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag
limits, area closures, and size limits, to best fit the requirements to
rebuild overfished species found in their regions, and the needs and
constraints of their particular recreational fisheries.
Recreational fisheries management measures for Oregon in 2011-2012
are proposed to be very similar to the recreational fishery management
measures that were in place off Oregon during 2009-2010. Recreational
fisheries off northern California and Washington are constrained by the
need to reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts.
[[Page 67844]]
Changes to recreational fishery management measures off California are
in response to the revised stock status of target species, requests by
the public to simplify regulations, information regarding the
distribution of overfished species and the desire to redistribute
effort displaced by restrictions on take in newly established Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs)in state waters.
Washington
Off Washington, recreational fishing for groundfish and Pacific
halibut will continue to be prohibited inside the North Coast
Recreational YRCA, a C-shaped closed area off the northern Washington
coast, the South Coast Recreational YRCA, and the Westport Offshore
YRCA. Coordinates for all of these YRCAs are defined at Sec. 660.70,
Subpart C. The RCA for recreational fishing off Washington will be the
same as in 2010. The aggregate groundfish bag limits off Washington
will be reduced from 15 fish to 12 fish, because very few anglers were
attaining the 15 aggregate groundfish bag limits. The rockfish and
lingcod sub-limits will remain the same as in 2007-2008 and 2009-2010:
10 rockfish sub-limit with no retention of canary or yelloweye
rockfish; 2 lingcod sub-limit, with the lingcod minimum size of 22
inches (56 cm). Since catches of cabezon have increased in recent years
and the stock status of cabezon off the Washington coast is unknown,
and to make cabezon retention regulations off the West Coast consistent
with WDFW regulations in Puget Sound, Washington, this rule proposes a
cabezon sub-limit for 2011-2012 of two cabezon per day. The lingcod
seasons in 2011-2012 will be the same as those in 2009-2010. As in
2009-2010, south of Leadbetter Point off the state of Washington, when
halibut are onboard the vessel from May through September, there will
continue to be no retention of groundfish, except sablefish and Pacific
cod.
Oregon
Off Oregon, recreational fishing for groundfish in 2011-2012 will
have the same management measures as in 2009-2010, except that the
Oregon recreational fishery marine fish bag limit will have a seasonal
sub-bag limit for cabezon, as described at Sec. 660.360(c)(2)(iii).
The seasonal sub-bag limit for cabezon is intended to reduce the
projected impacts to cabezon in the Oregon recreational ocean boat
fishery in order to stay within the recreational portion of the 2011
and 2012 cabezon ACLs for Oregon of 50 mt and 48 mt, respectively.
California
For 2011-2012, recreational fisheries off California are proposed
to be managed as five separate areas, down from six in 2009-2010, to
reduce complexity while retaining flexibility in minimizing impacts on
overfished stocks. They are also re-named to shorten their names and to
relate the name of the management area to the region of the coast to
which it applies. The following are the management areas that will be
defined for 2011-2012: The Northern Management Area is defined as the
area from the Oregon/California border to 40[deg]10' north latitude;
the Mendocino Management Area is defined as the area from 40[deg]10
north latitude to 38[deg]57 north latitude; the San Francisco
management area is defined as the area from 38[deg]57 north latitude to
37[deg]11 north latitude; the central management area is defined as the
area from 37[deg]11 north latitude to 34[deg]27 north latitude and the
southern management area is defined as the area from 34[deg]27 north
latitude to the U.S./Mexico border.
California updated its recreational fisheries catch model with data
from the California Recreational Fisheries Survey to make
recommendations to the Council for the 2011-2012 fisheries. Season and
area closures differ between California regions to better prevent
incidental catch of overfished species according to where those species
occur and where fishing effort is greatest, while providing as much
fishing opportunity as possible. The California-wide combined bag limit
for the Rockfish-Cabezon-Greenling (RCG) Complex would continue to be
10 fish per day when the season is open. RCG Complex sub-bag limits
will also remain the same, except that the cabezon limit statewide will
increase from two fish to three fish per day. The increase to the
cabezon sub-bag limit from two fish to three fish is anticipated to
increase cabezon mortality by 10 percent. The increase on cabezon
mortality from increased sub-bag limit, combined with other changes to
management measures that may change the projected impacts to cabezon,
are anticipated to result in annual total mortality of 33.9 mt of
cabezon in 2011 and 2012, which is well within the 2011-2012 cabezon
ACL. The increase in the cabezon sub-bag limit is not anticipated to
affect projected impacts to co-occurring overfished species as effort
is not expected to increase appreciably as a result of the increased
bag limit and overfished species shelf species are not commonly found
in shallow waters where cabezon reside.
Fishing seasons for lingcod will be modified to be the same as the
fishing seasons for the RCG Complex. This modification extends the
fishing season for lingcod later in the year and eliminates portions of
the former seasonal closures that occurred in the winter months. Winter
closures had been used since lingcod was declared overfished in 2001 to
prevent catch of lingcod during its spawning and nesting season while
the stock was rebuilding. According to the most recent stock
assessment, the southern lingcod stock has rebuilt to 70 percent of its
unfished biomass. Therefore the Council recommended and NMFS is
proposing an increase in the length of the recreational lingcod fishing
season, and reducing regulatory complexity by having the seasons for
the RCG Complex and lingcod be the same for 2011-2012. The increase in
fishing season length for lingcod is not anticipated to affect
projected impacts to co-occurring overfished species, as the improved
fishing opportunity is not expected to appreciably increase fishing
effort as retention of lingcod is not expected to be the deciding
factor as to whether or not anglers go fishing. The new seasons for
lingcod are described at Sec. 660.360(c)(3)(iii)(A). This rule also
proposes to retain the lingcod size limit, but to decrease the lingcod
size limit from 24 inches to 22 inches. The 22 inch lingcod size limit
is intended to preserve nest guarding males, yet still allow for
increased lingcod fishing opportunity. The lingcod fillet length
restriction would also be reduced to reflect the change in the size
limit (i.e. 14 inch fillet length restriction under a 22 inch total
length size limit). Overfished species impacts may decrease as a result
of this rule change as anglers obtain their two fish lingcod bag limit
more rapidly, incurring less overfished species impacts in the process.
For the same reasons described above, an increase in the lingcod bag
limit was considered for 2011-2012. However, the increased bag limit
was not recommended at this time due to the potential for increased
impacts to co-occurring overfished rockfish species, such as yelloweye
rockfish, as anglers continue incurring impacts on those species in
pursuit of additional lingcod to fill a higher bag limit.
This rule proposes to implement a gear restriction (e.g. hook
limits) for cabezon and kelp greenling to make the restrictions for
these fish consistent with the existing gear restrictions for rockfish,
so that the same number of fishing lines and hooks apply to all of the
species in the RCG Complex. This
[[Page 67845]]
new gear regulation closes a regulatory loophole, and will prevent
excessive recreational fishing effort using multiple rods to target
cabezon and kelp greenling. The gear restrictions for the RCG Complex
are described at Sec. 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B).
This rule proposes revisions to the time and area closures that
make up the recreational RCA off California. Generally, the proposed
revisions extend the length of the California recreational fisheries in
all Management Areas except the Mendocino Management Area (between
40[deg]10' north latitude and 38[deg]57.50' north latitude) and the
Southern Management Area (south of 34[deg]27' north latitude). In the
Southern Management Area, season length will stay the same as in 2009-
2010, but the depth restriction for recreational fishing for California
scorpionfish will move seaward during January and February, opening
additional areas to fishing that occur between the boundary line
approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour and the boundary line
approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour. This change simplifies
regulations by keeping the depth restrictions for California
scorpionfish in this management area the same throughout the year.
These time and area closures are liberalized for 2011-2012 to allow
additional fishing opportunities to harvest healthy stocks to achieve
but not exceed 2011-2012 ACLs, without causing the projected mortality
of overfished rockfish species, such as yelloweye rockfish, bocaccio,
cowcod and canary rockfish, to exceed their respective harvest limits
in the California recreational fishery.
Incidental catch of cowcod in the area south of 34[deg]27' north
latitude continues to be restricted by the CCAs. Prior to 2011, the
CCAs were closed throughout the year to recreational fishing for
groundfish deeper than the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour. Shallower than
the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour, retention of some species was allowed.
In 2010, the state of California is in the process of implemented
marine protected areas in state waters between Point Conception to U.S.
Mexico border, including state waters adjacent to offshore islands and
rocks. An environmental impact analysis prepared by the state of
California (Draft Environmental Impact Report; California marine life
protection act initiative South Coast Study Region) indicates that
cowcod are likely to benefit from marine protected areas that are
closed to fishing activities. The best available scientific information
on depth distributions of cowcod indicate that adults primarily inhabit
depths deeper than 60 fm (110 m). To provide some additional fishing
opportunities in areas where the bycatch of cowcod is not appreciable,
this proposed rule would allow recreational fishing for some species,
including shelf rockfish, shallower than new boundary lines that
approximate the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour in several areas that are
currently within the CCAs. This proposed rule would also establish new
boundary lines that approximate the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in
several areas within the CCAs, which may be used as the boundary for
recreational fisheries that occur within the CCA during 2011-2012 and
beyond. Latitude and longitude coordinates that define the boundary
lines that approximate the 30 fm (55 m) and 40 fm (73 m) depth contours
within the CCA are found at Sec. 660.71, Subpart C.
Management measures for recreational fisheries off all three West
Coast states are found at Sec. 660.360, Subpart G. Washington Coastal
Tribal Allocations, Harvest Guidelines And
Set-Asides
As in previous years, the mortality of groundfish species in tribal
fisheries are subtracted from the 2011 and 2012 ACLs before other
allocations are derived. In 2011-2012, the tribes will continue to have
formal allocations for sablefish and Pacific whiting that are deducted
from the ACLs for those species. The tribal allocation for sablefish is
10 percent of the ACL north of 36[deg] north latitude, less 1.6 percent
for estimated discard mortality. For 2011 and 2012, the tribal
sablefish allocations are 552 mt and 535 mt, respectively. The formula
for the tribal allocation of Pacific whiting in 2010 was [17.5 percent
* (U.S. OY)] + 16,000 mt and was described in a proposed rule on March
12, 2010 (75 FR 11829) and implemented in a final rule on May 4, 2010
(75 FR 23620). With a U.S. OY of 193,935 mt, the tribal allocation for
the 2010 tribal Pacific whiting fishery was 49,939 mt. In accordance
with the procedures set forth in 50 CFR Sec. 660.50, subpart C, tribal
allocations of Pacific whiting will be established annually until the
co-managers complete the evaluation of the relevant scientific
information and a determination of the long-term tribal allocation for
Pacific whiting is made.
The 2011 and 2012 tribal harvest guideline for black rockfish is
the same as in 2009 and 2010: 13.61 mt (30,000 lbs) for the management
area between the U.S./Canada border and Cape Alava (48[deg]10.00' north
latitude) and 4.5 mt (10,000 lbs) for the management area between
Destruction Island and Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' north latitude).
The tribes have not had formal allocations for Pacific cod or lingcod
in recent years; however, the Council recommended adopting a tribal
proposal for tribal harvest guidelines for these two species in 2011
and 2012 of 400 mt (881,840 lbs). Pacific cod harvest guideline and a
250 mt (551,150 lbs). Lingcod harvest guideline will apply to the
tribes for 2011 and 2012.
For some species on which the tribes have a modest harvest, no
specific allocation or harvest guideline has been determined. The
amounts anticipated to be taken by tribal fisheries for all other
groundfish species or species groups, including overfished species, are
referred to as tribal set-asides. Set-asides for the Pacific Coast
treaty Indian tribal harvest are deducted from the ACL, similarly to
the tribal allocations and harvest guidelines described above. Set-
aside amounts for each species or species group taken in tribal
fisheries are based on the projected catch from the proposed tribal
fishery management measures, described below. Set-aside amounts could
change through the biennial harvest specifications and management
measures process. The set-aside amounts will be specified in the
footnotes to Tables 1a through 2d of subpart C.
Washington Coastal Tribal Fisheries Management Measures
Tribes implement management measures for tribal fisheries both
separately and cooperatively with those management measures that are
described in the Federal regulations. The tribes may adjust their
tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the overall
harvest targets described above, including their estimated impacts to
overfished species. Trip limits are the primary management measure that
the tribes specify in Federal regulations at 660.50, subpart C.
Continued from 2009-2010, the tribes propose trip limit management for
the following species taken in tribal fisheries in 2011-2012: Spiny
dogfish; several rockfish species and species groups, including
thornyheads; and flatfish species and species groups. These trip limits
are described below.
For spiny dogfish, tribal fisheries in 2011-2012 will be restricted
to a cumulative limit of ``200,000 lbs (90,718 kg.) per two month
period.'' This cumulative limit is similar to the bi-monthly cumulative
limit for spiny dogfish that was in place for the limited entry trawl
fishery in 2009-2010.
For rockfish species, the 2011-2012 tribal fisheries will operate
under trip and cumulative limits, and will be
[[Page 67846]]
required by tribal regulations to fully retain all overfished rockfish
species and marketable non-overfished rockfish species. Tribal
fisheries are restricted all gears to ``17,000 lbs (7,711 kg) per two
month period'' for shortspine thornyheads and ``22,000 lbs (9,979 kg)
per two month period'' for longspine thornyheads. As in 2009-2010,
other rockfish, including minor nearshore, shelf and slope rockfish,
are restricted to a ``300 lb (136 kg) per trip'' limit for each species
group. If trip limits for minor nearshore rockfish are made less
restrictive than ``300 lb per trip'' through inseason adjustments
during 2011-2012, then the tribal limit would be set equal to the
incidental trip limits published in Table 1 (North) to subpart D. As in
2009-2010, tribal midwater trawl fisheries in 2011-2012 are subject to
a cumulative limit for yellowtail rockfish of 180,000 lb per two months
and the landings of widow rockfish must not exceed 10 percent of the
cumulative poundage of yellowtail rockfish landed by a given vessel for
the year. As in 2009-2010, trip limits for canary rockfish and
yelloweye rockfish in 2011-2012 are ``300 lb (136-kg) per trip'' and
``100 lbs (45 kg) per trip,'' respectively. The tribes will continue to
develop management measures, including depth, area, and time
restrictions, in the directed tribal Pacific halibut fishery in order
to minimize incidental impacts on yelloweye rockfish.
Tribal cumulative limits for most flatfish species in 2011-2012
will be very similar to the limited entry trawl fishery trip limits
from 2009-2010. The 2011-2012 tribal cumulative limits are as follows:
``110,000 lbs per two months'' for Dover sole, English sole, and Other
Flatfish, combined; and 150,000 lbs per months for arrowtooth flounder.
The tribal cumulative for petrale sole will be the same in 2011-2012 as
it was in 2009-2010: 50,000 lb per two months.
Tribal fishing regulations, as recommended by the tribes and the
Council and adopted by NMFS, are in Federal regulations at 660.50,
subpart C.
Housekeeping Measures
NMFS is proposing to correct and update the descriptions of season
dates and trip limits throughout the regulations. NMFS proposes to
replace, where appropriate, the words ``end'', ``ends'' or ``ending''
with ``closed'', ``closes'', or ``closing''. Changes to the language
pertaining to season dates and trip limits are intended to improve
enforceability by making the regulations consistent with the definition
of ``closure or closed'' at 660.11, subpart C. Changes are proposed for
the following sections: Sec. 660.131, and subpart D; Sec. 660.231.
Housekeeping changes to the season dates and trip limits descriptions
by replacing ``end'' with ``close'' do not change the intent or effect
of these seasonal and trip limit regulations.
NMFS is also proposing to clarify language describing the fishing
restrictions within some Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCAs)
that are not currently in effect as a housekeeping measure within this
action. In the definitions of the Point St. George, South Reef, Reading
Rock, Point Delgada North, and Point Delgada South YRCAs there is
language that states that ``fishing for groundfish is open [within the
YRCA] from January 1, through December 31.'' However, other
restrictions may be in effect for these non-trawl fisheries that
geographically overlap these YRCAs. Currently, the language implies
that fishing for groundfish is open when it may otherwise be
restricted. Therefore, the language above will be stricken from the
descriptions of those YRCAs in sections: Sec. 660.302, Subpart E;
Sec. 660.330, subpart F; and Sec. 660.360, subpart G. Housekeeping
changes to the description of these YRCAs does not change the intent or
effect of these area restrictions.
Additionally, NMFS may clarify language regarding the non-
groundfish trawl RCA and how it applies to the open access non-
groundfish trawl sectors. See ``Open access non-groundfish trawl gear
fisheries management measures'' for additional information on these
proposed changes.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that most
of the 2011-2012 groundfish harvest specifications and management
measures in this proposed rule are consistent with the national
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
However, NMFS has not made such a determination with respect to the
specifications, including the rebuilding plans, for yelloweye rockfish,
darkblotched rockfish and cowcod. There may be some questions whether
the ACLs for these species are consistent with the court order in NRDC
v. Locke. In addition, there may be some question whether the
reductions in the protections in the CCAs are consistent with
rebuilding requirements. NMFS specifically invites comments regarding
these issues. NMFS will take into account the complete record,
including any data, views, and comments received during the comment
period, in making its final determination on whether the 2011-2012
specifications and management measures are consistent with the above-
described standards and laws. If NMFS concludes, based on the overall
record and public comments, that some rebuilding provisions are
inconsistent with the court order or other rebuilding requirements,
NMFS could make the necessary changes in the final rule and return the
action to the Council for further consideration.
A DEIS was prepared for the 2011-2012 groundfish harvest
specifications and management measures. The DEIS includes an RIR and an
IRFA. The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of
availability for the draft EIS on August 27, 2010 (75 FR 52736). A copy
of the DEIS is available online at http://www.pcouncil.org/.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this
section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A
copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of
the analysis follows: The Council's RIR/IRFA compares all the
alternatives by discussing the impacts of each alternative on
commercial vessels, buyers and processors, recreational charter
vessels, seafood consumers, recreational anglers, non-consumptive
users, non-users, and enforcement. Based on analyses discussed in
Chapter 4 of the DEIS, the following summary is based on the Council's
RIR/IRFA and focuses on the Council's final preferred alternative
proposed to be implemented by this action and the non action
alternative.
The overall economic impact of the Final Preferred Alternative is
that many sectors are expected to achieve social and economic benefits
similar to those under the current regulations, or the No Action
alternative. However, there are differences in the distribution of ex-
vessel revenue and angler trips on a regional basis and on a sector-by-
sector basis. These changes are driven by changes in the forecast
abundance for target species and overfished species. Change in the
nearshore species harvest guidelines may positively impact recreational
fisheries in certain regions compared with No Action. With the
exception of the nearshore open access sector, all other non-tribal
commercial fisheries sectors are expected to achieve lower levels of
ex-vessel revenues than under No Action. The limited entry
[[Page 67847]]
fixed gear sector shows the greatest projected decline in revenue as a
result of the sablefish ACL decrease. The Pacific whiting fishery is
expected to be able to attain revenues similar to No Action; however,
the impact to this fishery is dependent on results of the upcoming
stock assessment cycle for Pacific whiting.
On a coastwide basis, commercial ex-vessel revenues for the non-
tribal directed groundfish sectors are estimated to be approximately
$69 million per year under the Final Preferred Alternative compared
with approximately $71 million under No Action, and the number of
recreational bottom fish trips is estimated to be 645 thousand under
the Final Preferred Alternative compared with 609 thousand under No
Action. The decline in commercial fisheries revenues is largely the
result of a reduction in harvest of sablefish under the action
alternatives.
A variety of time/area closures applicable to commercial vessels
have been implemented in recent years. The most extensive of these are
the RCAs, which have been in place since 2002 to prohibit vessels from
fishing in depths where overfished groundfish species are more
abundant. Different RCA configurations apply to the limited entry trawl
sector and the limited entry fixed gear and open access sectors. In
addition, the depth ranges covered can vary by latitudinal zone and
time period. The alternatives vary somewhat in terms of the extent of
RCAs. In additions to the RCAs, two CCAs have been in place since 1999
in the Southern California Bight to reduce bycatch of the overfished
cowcod stock and yelloweye conservation areas have been established off
the Washington Coast to reduce bycatch of the overfished yelloweye
rockfish stock. The Final Preferred Alternative for the limited entry
non-whiting trawl fleet generates slightly lower ex-vessel revenue on a
coastwide basis when compared to revenues under the current regulations
or no action alternative. This is primarily driven by a decrease in the
abundance of sablefish and petrale sole as opposed to changes in status
of constraining species. Area-based management for the limited entry
non-whiting trawl fleet under the preferred alternative will be
comparable to what was in place in 2009 and 2010--the area north of
Cape Alava, Washington and shoreward of the trawl RCA will remain
closed in order to protect overfished rockfish species. Given the
decreased amount of fishable area in northern Washington since 2009
higher costs for fishery participants from increases in fuel required
to travel to and fish at those deeper depths would remain.
The limited entry whiting fishery is expected to be able to attain
revenues similar to the previous biennial period. Rebuilding species
that largely constrain the whiting fishery include widow and canary
rockfish. The past few years have witnessed an increase in the
incidental take of widow rockfish in the whiting fisheries despite
bycatch avoidance behavior. This trend is likely to continue as it is
expected that the fishery will continue to encounter more widow
rockfish as that stock rebuilds. It is important to note that potential
ex-vessel revenue in these fisheries ultimately depends on the Pacific
whiting stock assessment, which is adopted annually by the Council
during the March meeting.
The fixed gear sablefish sector will generate lower revenue under
the Final Preferred Alternative than No Action because the sablefish
ACL has decreased. However, the fixed gear fleet will have somewhat
more area available than under No Action, because fishing will be open
at depths deeper than 100 fm (183 m) north of 40[deg]10' north latitude
whereas under No Action, depths between 100 fm (183 m) and 125 fm (229
m) were only open on days when the Pacific halibut fishery was open.
Fixed gear fisheries south of 36[deg] north latitude will see sablefish
harvest close to status quo levels. There are no recommended changes to
area management relative to status quo.
Under the Final Preferred Alternative, the nearshore groundfish
fishery is expected to have a moderate increase in ex-vessel revenues
compared with No Action due to increased targeting opportunities for
black rockfish (between 42 north latitude and 40 10' north latitude)
and cabezon south (South of 42 north latitude). Fishing areas open to
the nearshore fleets will be roughly the same as under No Action.
Fishing opportunity and economic impacts to the nearshore groundfish
sector are largely driven by the need to protect canary and especially
yelloweye rockfish.
The final preferred alternative is projected to provide the west
coast economy with slightly lower ex-vessel revenues than was generated
by the fishery under No Action. However, effects on buyers and
processors along the coast will vary depending location. In addition,
the Council's preferred alternative attempts to take into account the
desire expressed by buyers and processors to have a year round
groundfish fishery. Individual quota management for trawl fisheries
should help accommodate this preference; however in practice in the
absence of trip limits it is somewhat uncertain how trawl landings will
be distributed in time and space.
In terms of recreational angler effort, the number of angler trips
under the final Council-preferred alternative is slightly higher
compared to No Action, but somewhat less than in 2009. However, an
increase in angler effort under the final Council-preferred alternative
is occurring primarily in south and central California, while northern
Washington shows a slight increase and Oregon shows no change compared
with No Action. It is expected that under the proposed 2011-2012
management measures, tribal groundfish fisheries will generate less
revenue and personal income than under No Action due to a reduction in
sablefish harvest.
The 2011-2012 period will be the first groundfish management cycle
in which the shoreside trawl sector fisheries would be conducted under
the Amendment 20 trawl rationalization program, including issuance and
tracking of individual fishing quotas (IFQ) for most trawl-caught
groundfish species. IFQ management is designed to provide opportunities
for fisherman and processors to maximize the value of their fishery by
creating incentives to make the optimum use of available target and
bycatch species. Since all trawl trips will be observed, catch of
constraining overfished species will be monitored in real time, and
individuals will be held directly responsible for ``covering'' all
catch of groundfish species with IFQ. Since IFQ for constraining,
overfished species represents a real cost in terms of money and/or
fishing opportunity, it is expected that fishers will take
extraordinary steps to avoid unnecessary catch of these species. At the
same time there is uncertainty about how individuals will be able to
manage the individual risk inherent in a system based on personal
responsibility. This issue may present a considerable challenge,
especially to small businesses that have access to only a single
limited entry trawl permit. Exhausting all readily available supplies
of IFQ for a particularly constraining species, such as yelloweye, may
result in the business being effectively shut down for the remainder of
the season. Partly for this reason it is expected that over time the
number of vessels and permits engaging in the limited entry trawl
fishery will decline as fishers strive to consolidate available IFQ
onto a smaller number of vessels in order to reduce the costs of
harvesting the quotas. A smaller number of active vessels will mean
reductions in the number of crew hired and in
[[Page 67848]]
expenditures made in local ports for materials, equipment, supplies and
vessel maintenance. As such, while wages and profits for those crew and
vessel owners that do remain in the fishery should increase, the amount
and distribution of exvessel revenues and community income will change
in ways that are not yet foreseeable, but probably to the detriment of
some businesses and communities currently involved in the groundfish
trawl fishery. Due to these types of countervailing uncertainties,
impacts on trawl fisheries under the 2011-2012 management measures used
in this analysis were estimated using a model designed to project
overfished species bycatch levels under a status quo cumulative trip
limit management regime. Likewise, the model used to estimate community
income impacts was calibrated based on recently estimated spending
patterns for regional vessels and processors. While providing a useful
starting point for comparing gross-level effects under the
alternatives, the true range of economic impacts achievable under the
rationalized, IFQ-managed fishery may reflect a considerable departure
from these estimates.
The Council analysis includes a discussion of small businesses.
This proposed rule will regulate businesses that harvest groundfish.
According to the Small Business Administration, a small commercial
harvesting business is one that has annual receipts under $4.0 million
and a small charter boat business is one that has annual receipts under
$7 million. The Council estimates that implementation of the Final
Preferred Alternative will affect about 2,600 small entities. These
small entities are those that are directly regulated by the proposed
rule that will be promulgated to support implementation of the Final
Preferred Alternative. These entities are associated with those vessels
that either target groundfish or harvest groundfish as bycatch.
Consequently, these are the vessels, other than catcher-processors,
that participate in the limited entry portion of the fishery, the open
access fishery, the charter boat fleet, and the tribal fleets. Catcher/
processors also operate in the Alaska pollock fishery, and all are
associated with larger companies such as Trident and American Seafoods.
Therefore, it is assumed that all catcher/processors are ``large''
entities. Best estimates of the limited entry groundfish fleet are
taken from the NMFS Limited Entry Permits Office. As of June 2010,
there are 399 limited entry permits including 177 endorsed for trawl
(172 trawl only, 4 trawl and longline, and 1 trawl and trap-pot); 199
endorsed for longline (191 longline only, 4 longline and trap-pot, and
4 trawl and longline); 32 endorsed for trap-pot (27 trap-pot only, 4
longline and trap-pot, and 1 trawl and trap-pot). Of the longline and
trap-pot permits, 164 are sablefish endorsed. Of these endorsements 130
are ``stacked'' on 50 vessels. Ten of the limited entry trawl endorsed
permits are used or owned by catcher/processor companies associated
with the whiting fishery. The remaining 389 entities are assumed to be
small businesses based on a review of sector revenues and average
revenues per entity. The open access or nearshore fleet, depending on
the year and level of participation, is estimated to be about 1,300 to
1,600 vessels. Again, these are assumed to be ``small entities.'' The
tribal fleet includes about 53 vessels, and the charter boat fleet
includes 525 vessels that are also assumed to be ``small entities.''
The Final Preferred Alternative represents the Council's efforts to
address the directions provided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which emphasizes the need to rebuild stocks in as short a time as
possible, taking into account: (1) The status and biology of the
stocks, (2) the needs of fishing communities, and (3) interactions of
depleted stocks within the marine ecosystem. By taking into account the
``needs of fishing communities'' the Council was also simultaneously
taking into account the ``needs of small businesses'' as fishing
communities rely on small businesses as a source of economic income and
activity and income. Therefore, it may be useful to review whether the
Council's three-meeting process for selecting the preferred alternative
can be seen as means of trying to mitigate impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities. The EIS and RIR/IRFA include analysis of a range of
alternatives that were considered by the Council, including analysis of
the effects of setting allowable harvest levels necessary to rebuild
the seven groundfish species that were previously declared overfished.
An eighth species, petrale sole, was declared overfished in 2010 and
the proposed action includes a new rebuilding plan for this species
along with the 2011-2012 ACLs and management measures consistent with
the adopted rebuilding plan. Associated rebuilding analyses for all
eight species estimate the time to rebuild under various levels of
harvest.
The Council initially considered a wider range of alternatives, but
ultimately rejected from further analysis alternatives allowing harvest
levels higher than what is generally consistent with current policies
for rebuilding overfished stocks and a ``no fishing'' scenario (F=0).
Section 2.2 of the DEIS describes five integrated alternatives
including No Action, the Council's Final Preferred Alternative, and
three other alternatives (including the Council's Preliminary Preferred
Alternative, which is similar to the Final Preferred Alternative).
Comparison of the action alternatives with No Action allows an
evaluation of the economic implications to groundfish sectors, ports,
and fishing communities; and the interaction of depleted species within
the marine ecosystem of reducing ACLs for overfished species to rebuild
stocks faster than they would under the rebuilding strategies that the
Council adopted and have modified consistent with new, scientific
information on the status and biology of these stocks.
Alternative 2011-2012 groundfish management measures are designed
to provide opportunities to harvest healthy, target species within the
constraints of alternative ACLs for overfished species. The integrated
alternatives allow estimation of target species catch under the suite
of overfished ACLs for overfished species both to demonstrate that
target species ACLs are projected to be exceeded and to estimate
related socioeconomic impacts.
The Council reviewed these analyses and read and heard testimony
from Council advisors, fishing industry representatives,
representatives from non-governmental organizations, and the general
public before deciding the final Council-preferred alternative in June
2010. The Council's final preferred management measures are intended to
stay within all the final recommended harvest levels for groundfish
species decided by the Council at their April and June 2010 meetings.
NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects
of the Pacific Coast groundfish PCGFMP fisheries on Chinook salmon
(Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper
Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River,
Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal),
coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern
California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River),
sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle
and lower Columbia River, Snake River
[[Page 67849]]
Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California
Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern
California). These biological opinions have concluded that
implementation of the PCGFMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery
was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in
2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the
groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999, Biological
Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the
Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the
11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering
reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish
Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an
analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.
NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11,
2006, which addressed salmon take in both the Pacific whiting midwater
trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental
Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the
2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered
during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300
fish over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the
reinitiation trigger of 11,000 fish. The Chinook ESUs most likely
affected by the whiting fishery have generally improved in status since
the 1999 section 7 consultation. Although these species remain at risk,
as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that the higher
observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a reconsideration of its
prior ``no jeopardy'' conclusion with respect to the fishery.
For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded that
incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall
limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999
Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion
was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data
to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination
that implementation of the Groundfish PCGFMP is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) were
recently listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008)
were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological
opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting
fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch
of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead. The Southern Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) and the
southern DPS of Pacific eulachon (75 FR 13012, March 18, 2010) were
also recently listed as threatened under the ESA. As a consequence NMFS
has begun the process to initiate consultation on the effects of the
fishery.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials
from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at
16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In
addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by
which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the
PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes,
in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council
considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR
660.324(d) further state ``the Secretary will develop tribal
allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with
the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal
consensus.'' The tribal management measures in this proposed rule have
been developed following these procedures. The tribal representative on
the Council made a motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management
measures, which was passed by the Council. Those management measures,
which were developed and proposed by the tribes, are included in this
proposed rule. The tribal whiting set aside will be established prior
to the beginning of the whiting fishery in April, after further
consultation with the tribes and the states.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, fishing, and Indian fisheries.
Dated: October 20, 2010.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660, as
amended at 75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010, effective November 1, 2010, is
proposed to be further amended as follows:
50 CFR Chapter VI
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.
Subpart C--West Coast Groundfish Fisheries
2. In Sec. 660.11,
a. Add definitions of ``Acceptable Biological Catch'', ``Annual
Catch Limit'', ``Annual Catch Target'', and ``Overfishing Limit'' in
alphabetical order.
b. Revise the definition of ``Fishery harvest guideline''.
c. At the definition for ``Groundfish'', revise paragraphs (7)
introductory text, (7)(ii)(A) and (B), and paragraph (9).
d. At the definition of ``North-South management area'' redesignate
paragraphs (2)(xvii) through (xxii) as (2)(xviii) through (xxiii).
e. At the definition of ``North-South management area'', add
paragraph (2)(xvii).
Sec. 660.11 General definitions.
* * * * *
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) means a harvest specification
that is set below the overfishing limit to account for scientific
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL, and other scientific uncertainty.
* * * * *
Annual Catch Limit (ACL) is a harvest specification set equal to or
below the ABC threshold in consideration of conservation objectives,
socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty and other factors. The
ACL is a harvest limit that includes all sources of fishing-related
mortality including landings, discard mortality, research catches, and
catches in exempted fishing permit activities. Sector-specific annual
catch limits can be specified, especially in cases where a sector has a
formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of a stock or
stock complex.
Annual Catch Target (ACT) is a management target set below the
annual
[[Page 67850]]
catch limit and may be used as an accountability measure in cases where
there is great uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring to ensure
against exceeding an annual catch limit. Since the annual catch target
is a target and not a limit, it can be used in lieu of harvest
guidelines or strategically to accomplish other management objectives.
Sector-specific annual catch targets can also be specified to
accomplish management objectives.
* * * * *
Fishery harvest guideline means the harvest guideline or quota
after subtracting from the ACL or ACT when specified, any allocation
for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes, projected research catch,
deductions for fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as
necessary, and set-asides for EFPs.
* * * * *
Groundfish * * *
* * * * *
(7) Rockfish: In addition to the species below, longspine
thornyhead, S. altivelis, and shortspine thornyhead, S. alascanus,
``rockfish'' managed under the PCGFMP include all genera and species of
the family Scorpaenidae, except dusky rockfish, S. ciliatus; dwarf-red
rockfish, S. rufianus, that occur off Washington, Oregon, and
California, even if not listed below. The Scorpaenidae genera are
Sebastes, Scorpaena, Scorpaenodes, and Sebastolobus. Where species
below are listed both in a major category (nearshore, shelf, slope) and
as an area-specific listing (north or south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.)
those species are considered ``minor'' in the geographic area listed.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.: bronzespotted rockfish, S. gilli;
bocaccio, S. paucispinis; chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi;
chilipepper, S. goodei; cowcod, S. levis; flag rockfish, S.
rubrivinctus; freckled rockfish, S. lentiginosus; greenblotched
rockfish, S. rosenblatti; greenspotted rockfish, S. chlorostictus;
greenstriped rockfish, S. elongatus; halfbanded rockfish, S.
semicinctus; harlequin rockfish, S. variegates; honeycomb rockfish, S.
umbrosus; Mexican rockfish, S. macdonaldi; pink rockfish, S. eos;
pinkrose rockfish, S. simulator; pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni; redstripe
rockfish, S. proriger; rosethorn rockfish, S. helvomaculatus; rosy
rockfish, S. rosaceus; silvergray rockfish, S. brevispinis; speckled
rockfish, S. ovalis; squarespot rockfish, S. hopkinsi; starry rockfish,
S. constellatus; stripetail rockfish, S. saxicola; swordspine rockfish,
S. ensifer; tiger rockfish, S. nigrocinctus; vermilion rockfish, S.
miniatus.
(B) South of 40[deg]10' N. lat.: bronzespotted rockfish, S. gilli;
chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi; flag rockfish, S. rubrivinctus;
freckled rockfish, S. lentiginosus; greenblotched rockfish, S.
rosenblatti; greenspotted rockfish, S. chlorostictus; greenstriped
rockfish, S. elongatus; halfbanded rockfish, S. semicinctus; harlequin
rockfish, S. variegates; honeycomb rockfish, S. umbrosus; Mexican
rockfish, S. macdonaldi; pink rockfish, S. eos; pinkrose rockfish, S.
simulator; pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni; redstripe rockfish, S. proriger;
rosethorn rockfish, S. helvomaculatus; rosy rockfish, S. rosaceus;
silvergray rockfish, S. brevispinis; speckled rockfish, S. ovalis;
squarespot rockfish, S. hopkinsi; starry rockfish, S. constellatus;
stripetail rockfish, S. saxicola; swordspine rockfish, S. ensifer;
tiger rockfish, S. nigrocinctus; vermilion rockfish, S. miniatus;
yellowtail rockfish, S. flavidus.
* * * * *
(9) ``Other fish'': Where regulations of subparts C through G of
this part refer to landings limits for ``other fish,'' those limits
apply to all groundfish listed here in paragraphs (1) through (8) of
this definition except for the following: Those groundfish species
specifically listed in Tables 1a and 2a of this subpart with an OFL for
that area (generally north and/or south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.); spiny
dogfish coastwide. ``Other fish'' may include all sharks, except spiny
dogfish, skates (except longnose skate), ratfish, morids, grenadiers,
and kelp greenling listed in this section, as well as cabezon in waters
off Washington.
* * * * *
North-South management area * * *
(2) * * *
(xvii) Cape Vizcaino, CA-39[deg]44.00' N. lat.
* * * * *
Overfishing limit (OFL) is the MSY harvest level or the annual
abundance of exploitable biomass of a stock or stock complex multiplied
by the maximum fishing mortality threshold or proxy thereof and is an
estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 660.12, revise paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.12 General groundfish prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(8) Fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after offloading,
those groundfish species or species groups for which there is a trip
limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, harvest
guideline, ACT, ACL or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area
during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting
designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACT, ACL or OY applied; except
as specified at Sec. 660.131, subpart C for vessels participating in
the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 660.30, paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(6) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 660.30 Compensation with fish for collecting resource
information--EFPs.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The year in which the compensation fish would be deducted from
the ACL or ACT before determining the fishery harvest guideline or
commercial harvest guideline.
* * * * *
(6) Accounting for the compensation catch. As part of the harvest
specifications process, as described at Sec. 660.60, subpart C, NMFS
will advise the Council of the amount of fish authorized to be retained
under a compensation EFP, which then will be deducted from the next
harvest specifications (ACLs or ACTs) set by the Council. Fish
authorized in an EFP too late in the year to be deducted from the
following year's ACLs or ACTs will be accounted for in the next
management cycle where it is practicable to do so.
* * * * *
5. Revise Sec. 660.40 to read as follows:
Sec. 660.40 Overfished species rebuilding plans.
For each overfished groundfish stock with an approved rebuilding
plan, this section contains the standards to be used to establish
annual or biennial ACLs, specifically the target date for rebuilding
the stock to its MSY level and the harvest control rule to be used to
rebuild the stock. The harvest control rule is expressed as a
``Spawning Potential Ratio'' or ``SPR'' harvest rate.
(a) Bocaccio. The target year for rebuilding the bocaccio stock
south of 40[deg]10 N. latitude to BMSY is 2022. The harvest
control rule to be used to rebuild the southern bocaccio stock is an
annual SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent.
(b) Canary rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the canary
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2027. The harvest control rule to
be used to rebuild the canary rockfish stock is an annual SPR harvest
rate of 88.7 percent.
[[Page 67851]]
(c) Cowcod. The target year for rebuilding the cowcod stock south
of 40[deg]10 N. latitude to BMSY is 2071. The harvest
control rule to be used to rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual SPR
harvest rate of 79 percent.
(d) Darkblotched rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the
darkblotched rockfish stock to BMSY is 2025. The harvest
control rule to be used to rebuild the darkblotched rockfish stock is
an annual SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent.
(e) Petrale Sole. The target year for rebuilding the petrale sole
stock to BMSY is 2016. The harvest control rule is an annual
SPR harvest rate of 31 percent in 2011 and 32.4 percent in 2012.
(f) Pacific Ocean Perch (POP). The target year for rebuilding the
POP stock to BMSY is 2020. The harvest control rule to be
used to rebuild the POP stock is an annual SPR harvest rate of 86.4
percent.
(g) Widow rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the widow
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2010. A constant catch of 600 mt
will be used to rebuild the widow rockfish stock, which is an annual
SPR harvest rate of 91.7 percent in 2011 and 91.3 percent in 2012.
(h) Yelloweye rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the
yelloweye rockfish stock to BMSY is 2084. The harvest
control rule to be used to rebuild the yelloweye rockfish stock is an
annual SPR harvest rate of 72.8 percent.
6. In Sec. 660.50, paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii), (f)(4),(g)(2),
and (g)(7) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The sablefish allocation to Pacific coast treaty Indian tribes
is 10 percent of the sablefish ACL for the area north of 36[deg] N.
lat. This allocation represents the total amount available to the
treaty Indian fisheries before deductions for discard mortality.
(ii) The tribal allocation is 552 mt in 2011 and 535 in 2012 per
year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey
through Vancouver area (North of 36[deg] N. lat.) The tribal allocation
is reduced by 1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality.
* * * * *
(4) Pacific whiting. The tribal allocation for 2010 is 49,939 mt.
The tribal allocations for will be announced each year following the
Council's March meeting when the final specifications for Pacific
whiting are announced.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Thornyheads. The tribes will manage their fisheries to the
following limits for shortspine and longspine thornyheads. The limits
would be accumulated across vessels into a cumulative fleetwide harvest
target for the year. The limits available to individual fishermen will
then be adjusted inseason to stay within the overall harvest target as
well as estimated impacts to overfished species. The annual following
limits apply:
(i) Shortspine thornyhead cumulative trip limits are 17,000-lb
(7,711-kg) per 2 months.
(ii) Longspine thornyhead cumulative trip limits are 22,000-lb
(9,979-kg) per 2 months.
* * * * *
(7) Flatfish and other fish. Treaty fishing vessels using bottom
trawl gear are subject to the following limits: For Dover sole, English
sole, other flatfish 110,000 lbs (49,895 kg) per 2 month; and for
arrowtooth flounder 150,000 lbs (68,039 kg) per 2 month. The Dover sole
and arrowtooth limits in place at the beginning of the season will be
combined across periods and the fleet to create a cumulative harvest
target. The limits available to individual vessels will then be
adjusted inseason to stay within the overall harvest target as well as
estimated impacts to overfished species. For petrale sole, treaty
fishing vessels are restricted to a 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) per 2 month
limit for the entire year. Trawl vessels are restricted to using small
footrope trawl gear.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 660.55 paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text,
(f)(1)(ii) and (k) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.55 Allocations.
* * * * *
(a) General. An allocation is the apportionment of a harvest
privilege for a specific purpose, to a particular person, group of
persons, or fishery sector. The opportunity to harvest Pacific Coast
groundfish is allocated among participants in the fishery when the ACLs
for a given year are established in the biennial harvest
specifications. For any stock that has been declared overfished, any
formal allocation may be temporarily revised for the duration of the
rebuilding period. For certain species, primarily trawl-dominant
species, beginning with the 2011-2012 biennial specifications process,
separate allocations for the trawl and nontrawl fishery (which for this
purpose includes limited entry fixed gear, directed open access, and
recreational fisheries) will be established biennially or annually
using the standards and procedures described in Chapter 6 of the
PCGFMP. Chapter 6 of the PCGFMP provides the allocation structure and
percentages for species allocated between the trawl and nontrawl
fisheries. Also, separate allocations for the limited entry and open
access fisheries may be established using the procedures described in
Chapters 6 and 11 of the PCGFMP and this subpart. Allocation of
sablefish north of 36[deg] N. lat. is described in paragraph (h) of
this section and in the PCGFMP. Allocation of Pacific whiting is
described in paragraph (i) of this section and in the PCGFMP.
Allocation of black rockfish is described in paragraph (l) of this
section. Allocation of Pacific halibut bycatch is described in
paragraph (m) of this section. Allocations not specified in the PCGFMP
are established in regulation through the biennial harvest
specifications and are listed in Tables 1 a through d and Tables 2 a
through d of this subpart.
(b) Fishery harvest guidelines and reductions made prior to fishery
allocations. Beginning with the 2011-2012 biennial specifications
process and prior to the setting of fishery allocations, the ACL or ACT
when specified is reduced by the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal
harvest (allocations, set-asides, and estimated harvest under
regulations at Sec. 660.50); projected scientific research catch of
all groundfish species, estimates of fishing mortality in non-
groundfish fisheries and, as necessary, set-asides for EFPs. The
remaining amount after these deductions is the fishery harvest
guideline or quota. (Note: Recreational estimates are not deducted
here).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Catch accounting for the nontrawl allocation. All groundfish
caught by a vessel not registered to a limited entry permit and not
fishing in the non-groundfish fishery will be counted against the
nontrawl allocation. All groundfish caught by a vessel registered to a
limited entry permit when the fishery for a vessel's limited entry
permit has closed or they are not declared in to a limited entry
fishery, will be counted against the nontrawl allocation, unless they
are declared in to a non-groundfish fishery. Catch by vessels fishing
in the non-groundfish fishery, as defined at Sec. 660.11, will be
accounted for in the estimated mortality in the non-groundfish fishery
that is deducted from the ACL or ACT when specified.
* * * * *
[[Page 67852]]
(k) Exempted fishing permit set-asides. Annual set-asides for EFPs
described at Sec. 660.60(f), will be deducted from the ACL or ACT when
specified. Set-aside amounts will be adjusted through the biennial
harvest specifications and management measures process.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 660.60 paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (g) and (h)(1) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 660.60 Specifications and management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip
landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the
following species or species groups: Widow rockfish, canary rockfish,
yellowtail rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, black
rockfish, blue rockfish, splitnose rockfish, chilipepper rockfish,
bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor
nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope
rockfish; DTS complex which is composed of Dover sole, sablefish,
shortspine thornyheads, longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex sole,
arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the other flatfish complex,
which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species
listed at Sec. 660.11, subpart C; Pacific whiting; lingcod; Pacific
cod; spiny dogfish; cabezon in Oregon and California and ``other fish''
as a complex consisting of all groundfish species listed at Sec.
660.11, subpart C and not otherwise listed as a distinct species or
species group. Specific to the IFQ fishery, sub-limits or aggregate
limits may be specified for the following species: Longnose skate, big
skate, California skate, California scorpionfish, leopard shark,
soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific rattail (grenadier), ratfish,
kelp greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon in Washington. Size limits have
been designated as routine for sablefish and lingcod. Trip landing and
frequency limits and size limits for species with those limits
designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more
frequent basis for the purpose of keeping landings within the harvest
levels announced by NMFS, and for the other purposes given in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
(g) Applicability. Groundfish species harvested in the territorial
sea (0-3 nm) will be counted toward the catch limitations in Tables 1a
through 2d of this subpart, and those specified in subparts D through
G, including Tables 1a (North) and 1a (South) Tables 1b (North) and 1b
(South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) of subpart E,
Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) of subpart F.
(h) * * *
(1) Commercial trip limits and recreational bag and boat limits.
Commercial trip limits and recreational bag and boat limits defined in
Tables 1a through 2d of this subpart, and those specified in subparts D
through G of this part, including Tables 1a (North) and 1a (South),
Tables 1b (North) and 1b (South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) and 2
(South) of subpart E, Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) of subpart F must
not be exceeded.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 660.65, the introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.65 Groundfish harvest specifications.
Harvest specifications include OFLs, ABCs, and the designation of
OYs, and ACLs. Management measures necessary to keep catch within the
ACL include ACTs, harvest guidelines (HGs), or quotas for species that
need individual management, and the allocation of fishery HGs between
the trawl and nontrawl segments of the fishery, and the allocation of
commercial HGs between the open access and limited entry segments of
the fishery. These specifications include fish caught in state ocean
waters (0-3 nm offshore) as well as fish caught in the EEZ (3-200 nm
offshore). Harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d
of this subpart.
* * * * *
10. Section 660.71 is proposed to be amended as follows:
a. Remove paragraph (e)(78),
b. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(79) through (e)(333) as (e)(78)
through (e)(332) respectively.
c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) through (n) as (o) through (r),
respectively.
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (o), revise paragraphs (o)(149)
and (150), redesignate paragraphs (o)(151) through (212) as (o)(153)
through (214), add new paragraphs (o)(151) and (152),
e. Add paragraphs (k), (l), (m), (n), (s), (t), (u), and (v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 660.71 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 10 fm (18 m)
through 40 fm (73 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(k) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]30.41' N. lat., 119[deg]02.93' W. long.;
(2) 33[deg]30.22' N. lat., 119[deg]03.84' W. long.;
(3) 33[deg]29.53' N. lat., 119[deg]04.60' W. long.;
(4) 33[deg]28.57' N. lat., 119[deg]04.06' W. long.;
(5) 33[deg]28.35' N. lat., 119[deg]03.44' W. long.;
(6) 33[deg]27.73' N. lat., 119[deg]03.41' W. long.;
(7) 33[deg]27.31' N. lat., 119[deg]01.80' W. long.;
(8) 33[deg]27.76' N. lat., 119[deg]01.31' W. long.;
(9) 33[deg]27.78' N. lat., 119[deg]00.85' W. long.;
(10) 33[deg]27.95' N. lat., 119[deg]00.75' W. long.;
(11) 33[deg]28.47' N. lat., 119[deg]00.92' W. long.;
(12) 33[deg]29.61' N. lat., 119[deg]00.69' W. long.; and connecting
back to 33[deg]30.41' N. lat., 119[deg]02.93' W. long.
(l) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around San Nicolas Island off the
state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]19.00' N. lat., 119[deg]28.00' W. long.;
(2) 33[deg]18.50' N. lat., 119[deg]39.50' W. long.;
(3) 33[deg]17.18' N. lat., 119[deg]40.26' W. long.;
(4) 33[deg]15.61' N. lat., 119[deg]38.65' W. long.;
(5) 33[deg]12.50' N. lat., 119[deg]30.00' W. long.;
(6) 33[deg]12.00' N. lat., 119[deg]27.00' W. long.;
(7) 33[deg]12.68' N. lat., 119[deg]23.30' W. long.;
(8) 33[deg]13.50' N. lat., 119[deg]20.00' W. long.;
(9) 33[deg]15.50' N. lat., 119[deg]20.00' W. long.;
(10) 33[deg]16.50' N. lat., 119[deg]25.00' W. long.; and connecting
back to 33[deg]19.00' N. lat., 119[deg]28.00' W. long.
(m) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]43.37' N. lat., 119[deg]08.86' W. long.;
(2) 32[deg]42.86' N. lat., 119[deg]07.36' W. long.;
(3) 32[deg]41.13' N. lat., 119[deg]05.46' W. long.;
(4) 32[deg]40.57' N. lat., 119[deg]05.76' W. long.;
(5) 32[deg]41.49' N. lat., 119[deg]09.90' W. long.; and connecting
back to 32[deg]43.37' N. lat., 119[deg]08.86' W. long.
(n) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state
of
[[Page 67853]]
California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following
points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]29.73' N. lat., 119[deg]12.95' W. long.;
(2) 32[deg]28.83' N. lat., 119[deg]10.38' W. long.;
(3) 32[deg]28.17' N. lat., 119[deg]07.04' W. long.;
(4) 32[deg]26.27' N. lat., 119[deg]04.14' W. long.;
(5) 32[deg]25.22' N. lat., 119[deg]04.77' W. long.;
(6) 32[deg]28.60' N. lat., 119[deg]14.15' W. long.; and connecting
back to 32[deg]29.73' N. lat., 119[deg]12.95' W. long.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(149) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 121[deg]57.93' W. long.;
(150) 36[deg]16.80' N. lat., 121[deg]59.97' W. long.;
(151) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]55.95' W. long.;
(152) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *
(s) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]30.89' N. lat., 119[deg]02.42' W. long.;
(2) 33[deg]29.89' N. lat., 119[deg]05.27' W. long.;
(3) 33[deg]29.54' N. lat., 119[deg]05.39' W. long.;
(4) 33[deg]28.53' N. lat., 119[deg]04.27' W. long.;
(5) 33[deg]28.23' N. lat., 119[deg]03.73' W. long.;
(6) 33[deg]27.77' N. lat., 119[deg]03.67' W. long.;
(7) 33[deg]27.32' N. lat., 119[deg]02.80' W. long.;
(8) 33[deg]27.20' N. lat., 119[deg]01.82' W. long.;
(9) 33[deg]27.64' N. lat., 119[deg]00.31' W. long.;
(10) 33[deg]29.96' N. lat., 119[deg]00.45' W. long.; and connecting
back to 33[deg]30.89' N. lat., 119[deg]02.42' W. long.
(t) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around San Nicolas Island off the
state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]20.00' N. lat., 119[deg]29.00' W. long.;
(2) 33[deg]18.72' N. lat., 119[deg]41.27' W. long.;
(3) 33[deg]17.56' N. lat., 119[deg]41.38' W. long.;
(4) 33[deg]15.19' N. lat., 119[deg]38.59' W. long.;
(5) 33[deg]12.35' N. lat., 119[deg]30.11' W. long.;
(6) 33[deg]11.81' N. lat., 119[deg]27.13' W. long.;
(7) 33[deg]12.60' N. lat., 119[deg]23.15' W. long.;
(8) 33[deg]12.93' N. lat., 119[deg]22.26' W. long.;
(9) 33[deg]12.78' N. lat., 119[deg]21.48' W. long.;
(10) 33[deg]13.11' N. lat., 119[deg]17.70' W. long.;
(11) 33[deg]13.77' N. lat., 119[deg]17.77' W. long.;
(12) 33[deg]14.50' N. lat., 119[deg]19.82' W. long.;
(13) 33[deg]15.52' N. lat., 119[deg]19.94' W. long.;
(14) 33[deg]16.67' N. lat., 119[deg]23.12' W. long.; and connecting
back to 33[deg]20.00' N. lat., 119[deg]29.00' W. long.
(u) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]43.67' N. lat., 119[deg]09.11' W. long.;
(2) 32[deg]43.02' N. lat., 119[deg]07.17' W. long.;
(3) 32[deg]40.62' N. lat., 119[deg]04.52' W. long.;
(4) 32[deg]40.00' N. lat., 119[deg]05.00' W. long.;
(5) 32[deg]41.43' N. lat., 119[deg]10.05' W. long.; and connecting
back to 32[deg]43.67' N. lat., 119[deg]09.11' W. long.
(v) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]30.45' N. lat., 119[deg]12.61' W. long.;
(2) 32[deg]28.90' N. lat., 119[deg]10.26' W. long.;
(3) 32[deg]28.49' N. lat., 119[deg]07.04' W. long.;
(4) 32[deg]26.29' N. lat., 119[deg]03.80' W. long.;
(5) 32[deg]24.91' N. lat., 119[deg]04.70' W. long.;
(6) 32[deg]28.57' N. lat., 119[deg]14.91' W. long.; and connecting
back to 32[deg]30.45' N. lat., 119[deg]12.61' W. long.
11. Section 660.72 is proposed to be amended as follows:
a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(143) through (f)(144), and
remove paragraph (f)(198),
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(122) through (a)(195) as (a)(127)
through (a)(200), paragraphs (f)(145) through (f)(197) as (f)(146)
through (f)(198), paragraphs (j)(16) through (j)(254) as (j)(18)
through (j)(256), and paragraphs (j)(4) through (j)(15) as (j)(5)
through (j)(16),
c. Revise paragraphs (a)(121), newly designated (a)(193), (b), (f)
(140) through (f)(142), and newly designated (j)(183) through (j)(185),
d. Add paragraphs (a)(122) to (a)(126), add and reserve paragraph
(a)(145), and add paragraphs (j)(4) and (j)(17), to read as follows:
Sec. 660.72 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 50 fm (91 m)
through 75 fm (137 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(121) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 121[deg]58.97' W. long.;
(122) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 122[deg]00.35' W. long.;
(123) 36[deg]16.02' N. lat., 122[deg]00.35' W. long.;
(124) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]58.53' W. long.;
(125) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]56.53' W. long.;
(126) 36[deg]14.79' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *
(193) 32[deg]55.35' N. lat., 117[deg]18.65' W. long.;
* * * * *
(b) The 50-fm (91-m) depth contour around the Swiftsure Bank and
along the U.S. border with Canada is defined by straight lines
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 48[deg]30.15' N. lat., 124[deg]56.12' W. long.;
(2) 48[deg]28.29' N. lat., 124[deg]56.30' W. long.;
(3) 48[deg]29.23' N. lat., 124[deg]53.63' W. long.;
(4) 48[deg]30.31' N. lat., 124[deg]51.73' W. long.; and connecting
back to 48[deg]30.15' N. lat., 124[deg]56.12' W. long.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(140) 36[deg]16.80' N. lat., 122[deg]01.76' W. long.;
(141) 36[deg]14.33' N. lat., 121[deg]57.80' W. long.;
(142) 36[deg]14.67' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(4) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]27.99' W. long.;
* * * * *
(17) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]20.19' W. long.;
* * * * *
(183) 36[deg]17.49' N. lat., 122[deg]03.08' W. long.;
(184) 36[deg]14.21' N. lat., 121[deg]57.80' W. long.;
(185) 36[deg]14.53' N. lat., 121[deg]54.99' W. long.;
* * * * *
12. Section 660.73 is proposed to be amended as follows:
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(118) through (a)(120), (a)(156), (d)(134),
(d)(180), (h)(157) and (h)(158),
[[Page 67854]]
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(16) as (a)(4) through
(a)(17), paragraphs (a)(17) through (a)(117) as (a)(19) through
(a)(119), paragraphs (a)(121) through (a)(155) as (a)(128) through
(a)(162), paragraphs (a)(157) through (a)(307) as (a)(165) through
(a)(315), paragraphs (d)(135) through (d)(179) as (d)(138) through
(d)(182), paragraphs (d)(181) through (d)(350) as (d)(185) through
(d)(354), and paragraphs (h)(159) through (h)(302) as (h)(158) through
(h)(301),
c. Add paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(18), (a)(120) through (a)(127),
(a)(163) and (a)(164), (d)(134) through (d)(137), (d)(183), (d)(184),
and (h)(157) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.73 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183
m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]40.00' W. long.;
* * * * *
(18) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]17.81' W. long.;
* * * * *
(120) 44[deg]02.34' N. lat., 124[deg]55.46' W. long.;
(121) 43[deg]59.18' N. lat., 124[deg]56.94' W. long.;
(122) 43[deg]56.74' N. lat., 124[deg]56.74' W. long.;
(123) 43[deg]55.76' N. lat., 124[deg]55.76' W. long.;
(124) 43[deg]55.41' N. lat., 124[deg]52.21' W. long.;
(125) 43[deg]54.62' N. lat., 124[deg]48.23' W. long.;
(126) 43[deg]55.90' N. lat., 124[deg]41.11' W. long.;
(127) 43[deg]57.36' N. lat., 124[deg]38.68' W. long.;
* * * * *
(163) 40[deg]30.37' N. lat., 124[deg]37.30' W. long.;
(164) 40[deg]28.48' N. lat., 124[deg]36.95' W. long.;
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(134) 43[deg]59.43' N. lat., 124[deg]57.22' W. long.;
(135) 43[deg]57.49' N. lat., 124[deg]57.31' W. long.;
(136) 44[deg]55.73' N. lat., 124[deg]55.41' W. long.;
(137) 44[deg]54.74' N. lat., 124[deg]53.15' W. long.;
* * * * *
(183) 40[deg]30.35' N. lat., 124[deg]37.52' W. long.;
(184) 40[deg]28.39' N. lat., 124[deg]37.16' W. long.;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(157) 40[deg]30.30' N. lat., 124[deg]37.63' W. long.;
* * * * *
13. Section 660.74 is proposed to be amended as follows:
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(159), (g)(136),
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(160) through (a)(284) as (a)(161)
through (a)(285), (g)(137) through (g)(256) as (g)(138) through
(g)(257),
c. Revise paragraphs (g)(133), (l)(84) and (l)(85),
d. Add paragraphs (a)(159) and (a)(160), (g)(136) and (g)(137), to
read as follows:
Sec. 660.74 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 180 fm (329
m) through 250 fm (457 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(159) 40[deg]30.22' N. lat., 124[deg]37.80' W. long.;
(160) 40[deg]27.29' N. lat., 124[deg]37.10' W. long.;
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(133) 40[deg]30.16' N. lat., 124[deg]37.91' W. long.;
* * * * *
(136) 40[deg]22.34' N. lat., 124[deg]31.22' W. long.;
(137) 40[deg]14.40' N. lat., 124[deg]35.82' W. long.;
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(84) 43[deg]57.88' N. lat., 124[deg]58.25' W. long.;
(85) 43[deg]56.89' N. lat., 124[deg]57.33' W. long.;
* * * * *
14a. Tables 1a through 1c, Subpart C, are proposed to be revised to
read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 67855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.000
[[Page 67856]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.001
[[Page 67857]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.002
[[Page 67858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.003
[[Page 67859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.004
[[Page 67860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.005
[[Page 67861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.006
[[Page 67862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.007
[[Page 67863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.008
[[Page 67864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.009
[[Page 67865]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.010
[[Page 67866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.011
[[Page 67867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.012
[[Page 67868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.013
[[Page 67869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.014
[[Page 67870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.015
[[Page 67871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.016
[[Page 67872]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.017
[[Page 67873]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.018
[[Page 67874]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.019
[[Page 67875]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.020
[[Page 67876]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.021
[[Page 67877]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.022
[[Page 67878]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.023
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart D--West Coast Groundfish--Limited Entry Trawl Fisheries
15. In Sec. 660.130 paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.130 Trawl fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(d) Sorting. Under Sec. 660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful
for any person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after
offloading, those groundfish species or species groups for which there
is a trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota,
harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in
an area during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific
sorting designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY
applied.'' The States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also
require that vessels record their landings as sorted on their state
landing receipt.
* * * * *
16. In Sec. 660.131, paragraph (b)(4)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.131 Pacific whiting fishery management measures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) If, during a primary whiting season, a whiting vessel harvests
a groundfish species other than whiting for which there is a midwater
trip limit, then that vessel may also harvest up to another footrope-
specific limit for that species during any cumulative limit period that
overlaps the start or close of the primary whiting season.
* * * * *
17. In Sec. 660.140 paragraph (a) and the introductory text of
paragraph (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.140 Shorebased IFQ program.
(a) General. The Shorebased IFQ Program requirements in Sec.
660.140 will be effective beginning January 1, 2011, except for
paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(6), and (d)(8) of this section, which are
effective immediately. The Shorebased IFQ Program applies to qualified
participants in the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery and includes a
system of transferable QS for most groundfish species or species
groups, IBQ for Pacific halibut, and trip limits or set-asides, as
necessary, for the remaining groundfish species or species groups. The
IFQ Program is subject to area restrictions (GCAs, RCAs, and EFHCAs)
listed at Sec. Sec. 660.70 through 660.79, subpart C. The Shorebased
IFQ Program may be restricted or closed as a result of projected
overages within the Shorebased IFQ Program, the MS Coop Program, or the
C/P Coop Program. As determined necessary by the Regional
Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other measures
will be used to prevent the trawl sector in aggregate or the individual
trawl sectors (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from exceeding an
ACL, OY, ACT or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP or regulation
at Sec. 660.55, subpart C, or Sec. Sec. 660.140, 660.150, or 660.160,
subpart D.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) IFQ species. IFQ species are those groundfish species and
Pacific halibut in the exclusive economic zone or adjacent state waters
off Washington, Oregon and California, under the jurisdiction of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council, for which QS and IBQ will be
issued. QS and IBQ will specify designations for the species/species
groups and area to which it applies. QS and QP species groupings and
area subdivisions will be those for which ACLs or ACTs are specified in
the Tables 1a through 2d, subpart C, and those for which there is an
area-specific precautionary harvest policy. QS for remaining minor
rockfish will be aggregated for the shelf and slope depth strata
(nearshore species are excluded). The following are the IFQ species:
* * * * *
18. In Sec. 660.150 paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.150 Mothership (MS) Coop program.
(a) * * *
(5) The MS Coop Program may be restricted or closed as a result of
projected overages within the MS Coop Program, the C/P Coop Program, or
the Shorebased IFQ Program. As determined necessary by the Regional
Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other measures
will be used to prevent the trawl sectors in aggregate or the
individual trawl sector (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from
exceeding an ACL, ACT, or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP or
regulation at Sec. 660.55, subpart C, or Sec. Sec. 660.140, 660.150,
or 660.160, subpart D.
* * * * *
19. In Sec. 660.160 paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.160 Catcher/processor (C/P) Coop Program.
(a) * * *
(5) The C/P Coop Program may be restricted or closed as a result of
projected overages within the MS Coop Program, the C/P Coop Program, or
the Shorebased IFQ Program. As determined necessary by the Regional
Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other measures
will be used to prevent the trawl sectors in aggregate or the
individual trawl sector (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from
exceeding an ACL, ACT, or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP or
regulation at Sec. 660.55,
[[Page 67879]]
subpart C, or Sec. Sec. 660.140, 660.150, or 660.160, subpart D.
* * * * *
20. Table 1 (North), Table 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D are
redesignated as Table 1a (North), Table 1a (South) to part 660, subpart
D; the newly redesignated Table 1a (North) and Table 1a (South) are
revised, and Table 1b (North) and Table 1b (South) are added to part
660, subpart D to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.024
[[Page 67880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.025
[[Page 67881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.026
[[Page 67882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.027
[[Page 67883]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.028
[[Page 67884]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.029
[[Page 67885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.030
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart E--West Coast Groundfish--Limited Entry Fixed Gear
Fisheries
21. In Sec. 660.230 paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), and (d)(5)
through (9) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.230 Fixed gear fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Under Sec. 660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful for any
person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after offloading,
those groundfish species or species groups for which there is a trip
limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, harvest
guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area
during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting
designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY applied.'' The
States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also require that
vessels record their landings as sorted on their state landing
receipts.
(2) * * *
(ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, Cabezon
(Oregon and California);
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Point St. George YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates
of the Point St. George YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec. 660.70,
Subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within
the Point St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It
is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with
limited entry fixed gear within the Point St. George YRCA, on dates
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. Limited
entry fixed gear vessels may transit through the Point St. George YRCA,
at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
(6) South Reef YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the
South
[[Page 67886]]
Reef YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec. 660.70, subpart C. Fishing
with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the South Reef YRCA,
on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and
retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with limited entry fixed gear
within the South Reef YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed
through inseason adjustment. Limited entry fixed gear vessels may
transit through the South Reef YRCA, at any time, with or without
groundfish on board.
(7) Reading Rock YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of
the Reading Rock YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec. 660.70, subpart
C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the
Reading Rock YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with
limited entry fixed gear within the Reading Rock YRCA, on dates when
the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time.
This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. Limited entry
fixed gear vessels may transit through the Reading Rock YRCA, at any
time, with or without groundfish on board.
(8) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. The latitude and longitude
coordinates of the Point Delgada (North) YRCA boundaries are specified
at Sec. 660.70, subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is
prohibited within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the
closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or
land groundfish taken with limited entry fixed gear within the Point
Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed
through inseason adjustment. Limited entry fixed gear vessels may
transit through the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, at any time, with or
without groundfish on board.
(9) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. The latitude and longitude
coordinates of the Point Delgada (South) YRCA boundaries are specified
at Sec. 660.70, subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is
prohibited within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the
closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or
land groundfish taken with limited entry fixed gear within the Point
Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed
through inseason adjustment. Limited entry sfixed gear vessels may
transit through the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, at any time, with or
without groundfish on board.
* * * * *
22. In Sec. 660.231, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3)(i) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 660.231 Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Season dates. North of 36[deg] N. lat., the sablefish primary
season for the limited entry, fixed gear, sablefish-endorsed vessels
begins at 12 noon local time on April 1 and closes at 12 noon local
time on October 31, or closes for an individual permit holder when that
permit holder's tier limit has been reached, whichever is earlier,
unless otherwise announced by the Regional Administrator through the
routine management measures process described at Sec. 660.60, subpart
C.* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be
constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of
the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary
season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph
(a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up
to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use
with that vessel (i.e., stacked permits). If multiple limited entry
permits with sablefish endorsements are registered for use with a
single vessel, that vessel may land up to the total of all cumulative
limits announced in this paragraph for the tiers for those permits,
except as limited by paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section. Up to 3
permits may be registered for use with a single vessel during the
primary season; thus, a single vessel may not take and retain, possess
or land more than 3 primary season sablefish cumulative limits in any
one year. A vessel registered for use with multiple limited entry
permits is subject to per vessel limits for species other than
sablefish, and to per vessel limits when participating in the daily
trip limit fishery for sablefish under Sec. 660.232, subpart E. In
2011, the following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 41,379 lb
(18,769 kg) Tier 2 at 18,809 lb (8,532 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,748 lb
(4,875 kg). For 2012 and beyond, the following annual limits are in
effect: Tier 1 at 40,113 lb (18,195 kg), Tier 2 at 18,233 lb (8,270
kg), and Tier 3 at 10,419 lb (4,726 kg).
* * * * *
23. In Sec. 660.232 paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.232 Limited entry daily trip limit (DTL) fishery for
sablefish.
(a) * * *
(2) Following the start of the primary season, all landings made by
a vessel authorized by Sec. 660.231(a) of this subpart to fish in the
primary season will count against the primary season cumulative
limit(s) associated with the permit(s) registered for use with that
vessel. A vessel that is eligible to fish in the sablefish primary
season may fish in the DTL fishery for sablefish once that vessels'
primary season sablefish limit(s) have been taken, or after the close
of the primary season, whichever occurs earlier. Any subsequent
sablefish landings by that vessel will be subject to the restrictions
and limits of the limited entry DTL fishery for sablefish for the
remainder of the fishing year.
* * * * *
24. Table 2 (North) and Table 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E are
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 67887]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.031
[[Page 67888]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.032
[[Page 67889]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.033
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart F--West Coast Groundfish--Open Access Fisheries
25. In Sec. 660.330 paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2) and
(d)(5) through (9) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.330 Open access fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) Sorting. Under Sec. 660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful
for any person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after
offloading, those groundfish species or species groups for which there
is a trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota,
harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in
an area during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific
sorting designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY
applied.'' The States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also
require that vessels record their landings as sorted on their state
landing receipts. For open access vessels, the following species must
be sorted:
* * * * *
(2) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, Cabezon
(Oregon and California);
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Point St. George YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates
of the Point St. George YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec. 660.70,
subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited within the Point
St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful
to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access
gear within the Point St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in
effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be
imposed through inseason adjustment. Open access vessels may transit
through the Point St. George YRCA, at any time, with or without
groundfish on board.
(6) South Reef YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the
South Reef YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec. 660.70, subpart C.
Fishing with open access gear is prohibited within the South Reef YRCA,
on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and
retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access gear within
the South Reef YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed
through inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels may transit
through the South Reef YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on
board.
(7) Reading Rock YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of
the Reading Rock YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec. 660.70, subpart
C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited within the Reading Rock
YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take
and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access gear
within the Reading Rock YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect.
The closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed
through inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels may transit
through the Reading Rock YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish
on board.
(8) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. The latitude and longitude
coordinates of the Point Delgada (North) YRCA boundaries are specified
at Sec. 660.70, subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited
within the Point Delgada
[[Page 67890]]
(North) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to
take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access
gear within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the closure
is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This closure
may be imposed through inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels
may transit through the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, at any time, with
or without groundfish on board.
(9) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. The latitude and longitude
coordinates of the Point Delgada (South) YRCA boundaries are specified
at Sec. 660.70, subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited
within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in
effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish
taken with open access gear within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on
dates when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at
this time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
Open access gear vessels may transit through the Point Delgada (South)
YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
* * * * *
26. Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F are
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.034
[[Page 67891]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.035
[[Page 67892]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.036
[[Page 67893]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.037
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart G--West Coast Groundfish--Recreational Fisheries
27. In Sec. 660.360,
a. Remove paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(C), (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), and
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) as (c)(1)(iv),
(c)(3)(i)(A)(6) as (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(D) through (J)
as (c)(3)(i)(C) through (I), and paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A)(6) as
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(1)(iv),
(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(i)(C) through (H), and (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
d. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D)
introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) and (2), (c)(2)(iii),
(c)(3)(i)(A)(1) through (4), (c)(3)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through
(4), (c)(3)(ii)(B), (c)(3)(iii)(A)(1) through (5), (c)(3)(iii)(C), and
(c)(3)(iii)(D),
d. Add paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D)(3) and (c)(1)(iii), to read as
follows:
[[Page 67894]]
Sec. 660.360 Recreational fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Washington. For each person engaged in recreational fishing off
the coast of Washington, the groundfish bag limit is 12 groundfish per
day, including rockfish, cabezon and lingcod. Within the groundfish bag
limit, there are sub-limits for rockfish, lingcod, and cabezon outlined
in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section. The recreational groundfish
fishery is open year-round except for lingcod, which has season dates
outlined in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section. In the Pacific
halibut fisheries, retention of groundfish is governed in part by
annual management measures for Pacific halibut fisheries, which are
published in the Federal Register. The following seasons, closed areas,
sub-limits and size limits apply:
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Recreational rockfish conservation area. Fishing for groundfish
with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational RCA unless
otherwise stated. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land
groundfish taken with recreational gear within the recreational RCA
unless otherwise stated. A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA may
not be in possession of any groundfish unless otherwise stated. (For
example, if a vessel participates in the recreational salmon fishery
within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in possession of groundfish while
in the RCA. The vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and
retain groundfish shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port.)
(1) West of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line Between the U.S. border with
Canada and the Queets River (Washington state Marine Area 3 and 4),
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a boundary
line approximating the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour from June 1 through
September 30, except on days when the Pacific halibut fishery is open
in this area. Days open to Pacific halibut recreational fishing off
Washington are announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800)
662-9825. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 20 fm (37
m) depth contour are listed in Sec. 660.71, subpart C.
(2) Between the Queets River (47[deg]31.70' N. lat.) and Leadbetter
Point (46[deg]38.17' N. lat.) (Washington state Marine Area 2),
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a boundary
line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour from March 15 through
June 15 with the following exceptions: recreational fishing for
rockfish is permitted within the RCA from March 15 through June 15;
recreational fishing for sablefish and Pacific cod is permitted within
the recreational RCA from May 1 through June 15; and on days that the
primary halibut fishery is open lingcod may be taken, retained and
possessed within the RCA. Days open to Pacific halibut recreational
fishing off Washington are announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-
6667 or (800) 662-9825. Retention of lingcod seaward of the boundary
line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour south of 46[deg]58'
N. lat. is prohibited on Fridays and Saturdays from July 1 through
August 31. For additional regulations regarding the Washington
recreational lingcod fishery, see paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth
contour are listed in Sec. 660.71.
(3) Between Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' N. lat.) and the
Washington/Oregon border (Marine Area 1), when Pacific halibut are
onboard the vessel, no groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed
or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod from May 1 through
September 30.
* * * * *
(iii) Cabezon. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington that are
open to recreational groundfish fishing, there is a 2 cabezon per day
bag limit.
(iv) Lingcod. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington that are
open to recreational groundfish fishing and when the recreational
season for lingcod is open, there is a bag limit of 2 lingcod per day.
The recreational fishing seasons and size limits for lingcod are as
follows:
(A) Between the U.S./Canada border and 48[deg]10' N. lat. (Cape
Alava) (Washington Marine Area 4), recreational fishing for lingcod is
open, for 2011, from April 16 through October 15, and for 2012, from
April 16 through October 13. Lingcod may be no smaller than 24 inches
(61 cm) total length.
(B) Between 48[deg]10' N. lat. (Cape Alava) and 46[deg]16' N. lat.
(Washington/Oregon border) (Washington Marine Areas 1-3), recreational
fishing for lingcod is open for 2011, from March 19 through October 15,
and for 2012, from March 17 through October 13. Lingcod may be no
smaller than 22 inches (56 cm) total length.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Bag limits, size limits. For each person engaged in
recreational fishing off the coast of Oregon, the following bag limits
apply:
(A) Marine fish. The bag limit is 10 marine fish per day, which
includes rockfish, kelp greenling, cabezon and other groundfish
species. The bag limit of marine fish excludes Pacific halibut,
salmonids, tuna, perch species, sturgeon, sanddabs, flatfish, lingcod,
striped bass, hybrid bass, offshore pelagic species and baitfish
(herring, smelt, anchovies and sardines). From April 1 through
September 30; no more than one fish may be cabezon. The minimum size
for cabezon retained in the Oregon recreational fishery is 16 in (41
cm) total length. The minimum size for Kelp greenling retained in the
Oregon recreational fishery is 10 in (25 cm).
(B) Lingcod. There is a 3 fish limit per day for lingcod from
January 1 through December 31. The minimum size for lingcod retained in
the Oregon recreational fishery is 22 in (56 cm) total length.
(C) Flatfish. There is a 25 fish limit per day for all flatfish,
excluding Pacific halibut, but including all soles, flounders and
Pacific sanddabs, from January 1 through December 31.
(D) In the Pacific halibut fisheries. Retention of groundfish is
governed in part by annual management measures for Pacific halibut
fisheries, which are published in the Federal Register. Between the
Oregon border with Washington and Cape Falcon, when Pacific halibut are
onboard the vessel, groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed
or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod. Between Cape Falcon and
Humbug Mountain, during days open to the Oregon Central Coast ``all-
depth'' sport halibut fishery, when Pacific halibut are onboard the
vessel, no groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed,
except sablefish and Pacific cod. ``All-depth'' season days are
established in the annual management measures for Pacific halibut
fisheries, which are published in the Federal Register and are
announced on the NMFS halibut hotline, 1-800-662-9825.
(E) Taking and retaining canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish is
prohibited at all times and in all areas.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and
40[deg]10.00' N. lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing
for all groundfish (except ``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph
(c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m)
depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and offshore
seamounts from May 14, 2011 through
[[Page 67895]]
October 31, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is open); and is closed entirely
from January 1 through May 13, 2011 and from November 1 through
December 31, 2011. Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited
seaward of 20 fm (37 m) from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012
(shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is closed entirely from January 1
through May 11, 2012 and from November 1, 2012 through December 31,
2012.
(2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except
``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this
section) is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May
14, 2011 through August 15, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is
closed entirely from January 1, 2011 through May 13, 2011 and from
August 16, 2011 through December 31, 2011; recreational fishing for
groundfish is prohibited seaward of 20 fm (37 m) and from May 12, 2012
through August 15, 2012 (shoreward of 20 fm is open); and is closed
entirely from January 1, 2012 through May 11, 2012 and from August 16,
2012 through December 31, 2012.
(3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. San
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish
(except ``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this
section) is prohibited seaward of the boundary line approximating the
30 fm (55 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands
and offshore seamounts from June 1 through December 31; and is closed
entirely from January 1 through May 31. Closures around Cordell Banks
(see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section) also apply in this area.
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth
contour are listed in Sec. 660.71.
(4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except
``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this
section) is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40
fm (73 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and
offshore seamounts from May 1 through December 31; and is closed
entirely from January 1 through April 30 (i.e. prohibited seaward of
the shoreline). Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 40
fm (73 m) depth contour are specified in Sec. 660.71.
(5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area),
recreational fishing for all groundfish (except California scorpionfish
as specified below in this paragraph (c)(3)(i) and in paragraph
(c)(3)(v) of this section and ``other flatfish'' as specified in
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of a
boundary line approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour from March
1 through December 31 along the mainland coast and along islands and
offshore seamounts, except in the CCAs where fishing is prohibited
seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth
contour when the fishing season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of
this section). Recreational fishing for all groundfish (except
California scorpionfish and ``other flatfish'') is closed entirely from
January 1 through February 28 (i.e., prohibited seaward of the
shoreline). Recreational fishing for California scorpionfish south of
34[deg]27' N. lat. is prohibited seaward of a boundary line
approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour from January 1 through
December 31, except in the CCAs where fishing is prohibited seaward of
the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour when the
fishing season is open. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating
the 30 fm (55 m) and 60 fm (110 m) depth contours are specified in
Sec. Sec. 660.71 and 660.72.
(B) Cowcod conservation areas. The latitude and longitude
coordinates of the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs) boundaries are
specified at Sec. 660.70, subpart C. In general, recreational fishing
for all groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, except that fishing
for ``other flatfish'' is permitted within the CCAs as specified in
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. However, recreational fishing for
the following species is permitted shoreward of the boundary line
approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour when the season for those
species is open south of 34[deg]27' N. lat.: Minor nearshore rockfish,
shelf rockfish, cabezon, kelp greenling, lingcod, California
scorpionfish, and ``other flatfish'' (subject to gear requirements at
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section during January-February).
Note to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B): California state regulations
also permit recreational fishing for California sheephead, ocean
whitefish, and all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos shoreward of
the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour in
the CCAs when the season for the RCG complex is open south of
34[deg]27' N. lat. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or
land groundfish within the CCAs, except for species authorized in
this section. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30
fm (55 m) depth contour is specified in Sec. 660.71.
(C) Cordell banks. Recreational fishing for groundfish is
prohibited in waters less than 100 fm (183 m) around Cordell Banks as
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec. 660.70,
subpart C, except that recreational fishing for ``other flatfish'' is
permitted around Cordell Banks as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of
this section.
Note to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C): California state regulations
also prohibit fishing for all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos,
California sheephead and ocean whitefish.
(D) Point St. George Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA).
Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited within the Point St.
George YRCA, as defined by latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.
660.70, subpart C, on dates when the closure is in effect. The closure
is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed through
inseason adjustment.
(E) South reef YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish is
prohibited within the South Reef YRCA, as defined by latitude and
longitude coordinates at Sec. 660.70, subpart C, on dates when the
closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This
closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
(F) Reading Rock YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish is
prohibited within the Reading Rock YRCA, as defined by latitude and
longitude coordinates at Sec. 660.70, subpart C, on dates when the
closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This
closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
(G) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish
is prohibited within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, as defined by
latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec. 660.70, subpart C, on dates
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
(H) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish
is prohibited within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, as defined by
latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec. 660.70, subpart C, on dates
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and
40[deg]10' N. lat. (North Management Area), recreational fishing for
the RCG complex is open from May 14, 2011 through October 31, 2011
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 13 and from November 1
through
[[Page 67896]]
December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 and from November 1
through December 31 in 2012).
(2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG Complex is open from
May 14, 2011 through August 15, 2011 (i.e. it's closed from January 1
through May 13 and August 16 through December 31 in 2011), and from May
12, 2012 through August 15, 2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1
through May 11 and August 16 through December 31 in 2012).
(3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. (Bay
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG complex is open from
June 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May
31).
(4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG complex is open from
May 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through
April 30).
(5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area),
recreational fishing for the RCG Complex is open from March 1 through
December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through February 28).
(B) Bag limits, hook limits. In times and areas when the
recreational season for the RCG Complex is open, there is a limit of 2
hooks and 1 line when fishing for the RCG complex and lingcod. The bag
limit is 10 RCG Complex fish per day coastwide. Retention of canary
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, bronzespotted and cowcod is prohibited.
Within the 10 RCG Complex fish per day limit, no more than 2 may be
bocaccio, no more than 2 may be greenling (kelp and/or other
greenlings) and no more than 3 may be cabezon. Multi-day limits are
authorized by a valid permit issued by California and must not exceed
the daily limit multiplied by the number of days in the fishing trip.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and
40[deg]10.00' N. lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing
for lingcod is open from May 14, 2011 through October 31, 2011 (i.e.
it's closed from January 1 through May 13 and from November 1 through
December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 and from November 1
through December 31 in 2012).
(2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino
Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open from May 14,
2011 through August 15, 2011 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through
May 13 and August 16 through December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012
through August 15, 2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11
and August 16 through December 31 in 2012).
(3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. (San
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open
from June 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1
through May 31).
(4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central
Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open from May 1
through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through April 30).
(5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area),
recreational fishing for lingcod is open from March 1 through December
31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through February 28).
* * * * *
(C) Size limits. Lingcod may be no smaller than 22 in (56 cm) total
length.
(D) Dressing/filleting. Lingcod filets may be no smaller than 14 in
(36 cm) in length.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-26941 Filed 10-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P