[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27508-27562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10799]
[[Page 27507]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 91
May 11, 2011
Part III
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; Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 27508]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 100804324-1265-02]
RIN 0648-BA01
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the 2011-2012 harvest
specifications for most of the species in the groundfish fishery and
management measures for that fishery off the coasts of Washington,
Oregon, and California consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This rule also establishes, under
emergency authority in section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA),
harvest specifications for eight overfished species, and for flatfish.
Emergency authority is being invoked to implement measures that
were included in Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP, which NMFS disapproved
in December 2010. These include a new rebuilding plan for petrale sole,
revised rebuilding plans for the remaining seven overfished species,
and revised status determination criteria and precautionary harvest
control rule for flatfish.
DATES: This rule is effective May 11, 2011. Comments must be received
no later than June 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Copies of this rule, the Record of Decision (ROD) and
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) are available from William Stelle, Regional Administrator,
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-
0070. Electronic copies of this final rule are also available at the
NMFS Northwest Region Web site: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov
You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA01, by any one of the
following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Sarah Williams.
Mail: 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA, 98115.
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. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to
remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Williams, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE., Seattle, WA, 98115. By phone at 206-526-4646 or fax at 206-526-
6736.
Electronic Access: This final rule is accessible via the Internet
at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Background information and documents
are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at
http://www.pcouncil.org/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the 2011-2012
groundfish harvest specifications and management measures on November
3, 2010 (75 FR 67810). The proposed rule comment period was extended
through January 4, 2011 (75 FR 75449, December 23, 2010) to provide
additional opportunity for public comment given the delay in
implementation. NMFS received 35 letters of comment, which are
addressed later in the preamble of this final rule. See the preamble to
the proposed rule for additional background information on the fishery
and on this final rule.
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 final rule, which implements the NMFS preferred
alternative described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS), would set 2011-2012 and beyond harvest specifications and
management measures for most of the groundfish species or species
complexes managed under the PCGFMP. Specifications for the overfished
species and flatfish are also included in this final rule but are
adopted under the emergency authority described in section 305 of the
MSA. 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 for 2011 and 2012.
The Notice of Availability for the FEIS for this action was
published on March 11, 2011 (76 FR 13401). The final NMFS preferred
alternative in the FEIS is a modified version of the Council's final
preferred alternative (FPA) which was described in the proposed rule
for this action. The NMFS preferred alternative differs from the
Council's FPA and the specifications discussed in the proposed rule on
this action with respect to the specifications for yelloweye rockfish
and cowcod, and management measures relative to the Cowcod Conservation
Area (CCA). These differences are discussed in detail in the Provisions
Implemented Through Emergency Rule and Changes from the Proposed Rule
sections of this rule.
Provisions Implemented Through Emergency Rule
Section 305(c) of the MSA provides the Secretary of Commerce the
authority to promulgate emergency regulations that are treated as an
amendment to an FMP for the period the regulations are in effect. The
one new and seven revised rebuilding plans, revisions to flatfish
proxies, ACLs for overfished species, and specifications for flatfish
contained in this final rule are being adopted under emergency
authority because these measures were part of, or are based on,
Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP, which NMFS disapproved. This emergency
action is necessary because NMFS is under court order to establish new
specifications for overfished species by April 29, 2011, before the
Council can submit and NMFS can implement a revised Amendment 16-5.
NMFS disapproved Amendment 16-5 because at the time of NMFS'
approval decision, there was not an FEIS to support the decision.
Review of actions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(a))
requires that before approving an FMP or amendment, NMFS must review
the FMP or amendment for consistency with the measures of the MSA
itself as well as other applicable law. One of the primary tools that
NMFS uses to accomplish this review is an adequate FEIS drafted
[[Page 27509]]
consistent with the guidance contained within NAO 216-6 (Environmental
Review Procedures For Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act). NMFS completed the FEIS and made it available for public review
on March 11, 2011.
As is described in the proposed rule preamble, on April 29, 2010,
the district court for the Northern District of California issued an
order in NRDC v. Locke, Case 3:01-cv-00421-JLI, vacating the 2009-10
harvest levels for yelloweye rockfish, cowcod, and darkblotched
rockfish on the basis that the harvest levels did not meet the MSA
mandate to rebuild those stocks in as short a time as possible taking
into account factors including the needs of fishing communities. The
court upheld the integrated or holistic approach used to develop the
harvest levels for all of the overfished species and to analyze their
impacts on communities, which was first applied in Amendment 16-4.
The Council, continuing the integrated or holistic approach
developed in Amendment 16-4 and upheld by the district court, developed
suites of overfished species ACLs, with ACLs for most of the non-
overfished species held constant between the alternatives. The impacts
of these suites of ACLs are analyzed in the FEIS, rather than the
impacts of individual species ACLs. The DEIS included three alternative
suites with lower, intermediate and higher ACLs for the overfished
species, as well as the Council FPA that included the higher ACLs for
all of the overfished species except for darkblotched rockfish, for
which the Council adopted the intermediate ACL.
In response to public comment regarding rebuilding plans for
overfished species and to ensure consistency with the court's order in
NRDC v. Locke, Case 3:01-cv-00421-JLI, NMFS included in the FEIS an
additional alternative (identified as Alternative 4, the NMFS preferred
alternative) that was not expressly considered in the DEIS. The NMFS
preferred alternative includes the same ACLs as the Council's FPA,
except those for yelloweye and cowcod. It does not include changes to
the CCAs that were included in the Council's FPA. For cowcod and
yelloweye, the NMFS preferred alternative implements ACLs based on
Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) harvest rates that are associated with
shorter rebuilding periods than those in the Council FPA. Specifically,
in the NMFS preferred alternative, the target rebuilding year and the
SPR harvest rate for cowcod are 2068 and 82.7 percent, and the target
rebuilding year and the SPR harvest rate for yelloweye rockfish are
2074 and 76.0 percent. NMFS determined that the ACL in the Council's
and NMFS' preferred alternative for darkblotched rockfish meets the MSA
standard and is consistent with the court's order. Although the harvest
level for darkblotched is similar to the level vacated by the court in
2010, the new rebuilding plan is based on a new stock assessment, uses
a more conservative SPR harvest rate (64.9 percent rather than 62.1
percent), and rebuilds three years faster than the prior rebuilding
plan (2025 rather than 2028).
The NMFS preferred alternative would rebuild as quickly as possible
while avoiding serious adverse impacts to communities, and thus meets
the MSA standard. Maintaining the 2010 level of economic activity in
the most vulnerable communities could be expected to provide the
consistency necessary for stability in the fishing community
infrastructure and be adequate to support the implementation of the
trawl rationalization program. At the same time the strategy would
shorten the rebuilding duration for five of the overfished species
(bocaccio, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, widow rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish); and maintain the upward rebuilding trajectories for the two
overfished species (canary rockfish and Pacific Ocean perch (POP))
where new stock assessments redefined the starting point from which
rebuilding began. Unlike the Council's FPA, the NMFS preferred
alternative does not implement proposed changes to the CCAs that would
allow commercial fixed gear and recreational fishing in areas shoreward
of 30 fathoms and would also allow retention of shelf rockfish in
depths shallower than 30 fathoms. The impacts of the proposed changes
on cowcod, particularly juveniles, are uncertain, and increased impacts
on juveniles could potentially delay rebuilding. In addition, because
the ACL for cowcod is so extremely low, any measures that potentially
increase cowcod mortality require better information on potential
biological and economic effects to support such a change. In sum, NMFS
concluded that the NMFS preferred alternative is more consistent with
direction provided by the court in NRDC v. Locke, Case 3:01-cv-00421-
JLI, and is more consistent with the MSA obligations to rebuild
overfished species in the shortest timeframe possible, taking into
account the obligation to rebuild, the needs of fishing communities,
and the marine environment.
Comments and Responses
NMFS published a proposed rule on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67810)
with a comment period that closed on December 3, 2010. This comment
period was extended to January 4, 2011 to allow more time for public
comments. NMFS received 35 comments on the proposed rule. The
Department of the Interior submitted a letter stating that they
reviewed the proposed rule and had no comments. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) and the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) all submitted letters in support of the Council's final action
and suggested corrections to the proposed rule. 13 letters were
submitted from fishing industry members in support of the Council's
recommended changes to the depth restrictions in the CCA and the slope
rockfish retention changes. One comment was submitted regarding a
request for a processing at sea exemption. NMFS also received a number
of comments from the public regarding the impacts from the overfished
species specifications. The Council submitted a letter stating that the
Exempted Fishing Permit that was issued in August of 2010 would
actually be conducted in 2011. Oceana and the Natural Resource Defense
Council (NRDC) submitted a joint letter regarding the proposed rule and
FMP Amendments 16-5 and 23. In their letter they criticized NMFS for
setting harvest specifications that allegedly did not comply with the
MSA mandate to rebuild overfished species in a period as short as
possible. Additionally, they criticized the implementation of Amendment
23 stating that the best available science was not used and that NMFS
was not precautionary enough in setting harvest specifications for a
number of species and species complexes. Ocean Conservancy submitted a
letter raising similar issues as the joint Oceana-NRDC letter.
Substantive comments received on the proposed rule are addressed in the
following section:
Amendment 23 Implementation (P*, ABCs, ACLs, etc) and Stock Complexes
Comment 1: The ABC control rule makes Scientific and Statistical
Committee's (SSC) involvement functionally expendable because it
contemplates presenting the Council with a range of potential
scientific uncertainty reduction values, based on the SSC recommended
``sigma'' values and a range of probabilities of overfishing, from
which the Council
[[Page 27510]]
may choose. NMFS should adopt an ABC control rule that allows the SSC
to recommend P* and sigma values along with a decision framework that
allows changes to the recommended ABCs to be fully informed by analyses
of resulting overfishing risks and environmental consequences.
Response: The ABC control rule selected by the Council is based on
the recommendation of the SSC, and is consistent with the MSA and the
NS1 (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). The SSC recommends the OFL and
determines a sigma value representing scientific uncertainty with
respect to stock assessments. Once it has determined those values, it
can provide the Council with the reductions from OFL that would occur
based on the sigma value in conjunction with a range of probabilities
of overfishing. This approach conforms with NMFS's NS 1 guidelines. In
response to comments on the guidelines, NMFS explains that determining
the acceptable level of risk of overfishing that results from
scientific uncertainty is a policy issue for the Council to decide. The
SSC must recommend an ABC to the Council after the Council advises the
SSC on the acceptable probability that a catch equal to the ABC would
result in overfishing (January 16, 2009, 74 FR 3178, Response to
Comment 42 at 3192). The SSC's role is to determine both the level of
scientific uncertainty that exists and to incorporate the Council's
policy decision as to acceptable levels of overfishing risk resulting
from that uncertainty in developing an ABC. The SSC's recommendations
regarding the OFL and sigma limit the range of ABC reductions possible
under the available range of P* values consistent with the best
scientific information regarding scientific uncertainty.
Comment 2: The proposed sigma values for category 1 stocks
represent underestimated and/or inaccurate quantification of scientific
uncertainty; they do not account for uncertainty arising from sources
other than estimates of biomass in stock assessments, and they do not
accurately account for uncertainty in estimates of biomass in stock
assessments.
Response: While the proposed sigma value for data-rich stocks
(category 1) does not include quantification of all known sources of
scientific uncertainty, it is the best scientific information available
at this time and the SSC will continue to refine this value in future
biennial cycles. The SSC acknowledged that its recommended sigma value
for data-rich species does not account for all sources of scientific
uncertainty, but recommended this value as ``the current best estimate
of scientific uncertainty.'' (Supplemental SSC Report, April 2010,
Agenda I.2.b). The Supplemental SSC Report 1 included in the March 2010
briefing book, which is the Councils record for each meeting and
contains reports from advisory bodies, state and Federal agencies and
public comments, states that the SSC viewed quantifying the uncertainty
surrounding stock size estimations as the highest priority, given the
large variability in stock assessments. The SSC did not recommend
quantifying other sources of uncertainty for the 2011-2012
specifications cycle, but noted that it intends to consider other types
of errors for future biennial cycles, specifically forecast uncertainty
and uncertainty in the optimal harvest rate. In short, the SSC's
recommended sigma values are the best available scientific information
at this time. In addition, with respect to longspine thornyhead and
shortspine thornyhead, the ACLs for the area south of 40[deg]10' N.lat
are reduced below the ABC to account for uncertainty associated with
limited trawl surveys.
Comment 3: The proposed sigma values for category 2 and 3 stocks
lack a technical basis and thus are arbitrary. The Council should have
used the PSA analysis to generate an appropriate P*.
Response: The SSC noted that scientific uncertainty with respect to
the biomass estimates for category 2 and 3 stocks cannot be precisely
quantified due to the lack of available information about these stocks.
The NS 1 guidelines recognize that precise quantification assessments
are not available for all stocks, such as the category 2 and 3 stocks
at issue here (See Response to Comment 36, 74 FR at 3190, January 16,
2009). 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. Also, the SSC noted that results from decision
tables for some category 2 stocks indicate values for sigma of
approximately .72 (PFMC I.2.b, Supplemental SSC Report, April 2010).
The specific sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44 were recommended by the SSC
and are considered to be the best available scientific information;
however, 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. These sigma values represent the
SSC's best estimate given the absence of a formal analysis of
assessment outcomes on which to quantify scientific uncertainty as was
done for category 1 stocks. The commenters specifically mention that
the Council and NMFS should have used other methods for setting the
sigma values for category 2 and 3 species, such as looking at the
distributions of OFLs for each stock, or the results of the PSA
analysis. However, neither of these methods was suggested by commenters
until very late in the development of the 2011-2012 specifications nor
recommended by the SSC for this specifications cycle.
Comment 4: The P* values used in the proposed rule are too high,
and allow for too great a risk of overfishing due to an inaccurate
estimate of the OFL, especially for overfished species. P* and
resulting ABCs for category 2 and 3 stocks are not consistent with SSC
recommendations.
Response: The NS1 guidelines provide the following standards for
setting the ABC: (1) The ABC may not exceed the OFL, and (2) the
probability that overfishing will occur cannot exceed 50 percent and
should be a lower value. The Council chose a P* value of .45, or a 45
percent probability of overfishing, for data-rich species with data-
rich assessments. For category 2 and 3 species, with data-poor or no
assessments, the Council generally applied a P* value of .4, or a 40
percent probability of overfishing. The comment suggests that the 50
percent cap set by the NS1 guidelines is inadequate, and that the MSA
requires a lower probability of overfishing. NMFS considered this issue
in developing the NS 1 guidelines and ultimately determined that while
neither the MSA nor the relevant case law requires the use of a
specific probability, a 50 percent probability of success is a lower
bound. NMFS acknowledges that some overfishing may occur even with ABCs
that account for scientific uncertainty, however, it does not believe
that the MSA requires a complete elimination of any probability of
overfishing, as reflected in the guidelines (Response to Comment 63, 74
FR at 3195-96, January 16, 2009). The Council's choice of P* is
consistent with the guidelines.
The commenters specifically point to the ABCs for overfished
species, and contend that these are not consistent with rebuilding
plans. However, ACLs for the overfished species are based on and
consistent with the rebuilding plans, which are in turn based on the
[[Page 27511]]
rebuilding analyses for these species. The process for developing the
ACLs is described in the preamble to the proposed rule for this action
(75 FR at 67827-29, January 16, 2009) and in the FEIS. Thus, the ACLs
for the overfished species are in most cases set far below the ABCs
derived following the ABC control rule set forth in Amendment 23.
For category 1 stocks, the scientific uncertainty reduction from
OFL that results from a P* of .45 and a sigma of .36 is 4.4 percent.
For healthy stocks, this reduction is more risk-averse than the
approach of setting the OY equal to ABC that was used in previous
biennial cycles. For species in the precautionary zone, application of
the 40-10 or 25-5 harvest control rules results in an additional
reduction between ABC and ACL.
The commenters also contend that the P* values the Council adopted
for category 2 and 3 stocks are inconsistent with the SSC's
recommendation, which the commenters characterize as requiring P*
values that would result in reductions from OFL of approximately 25
percent and 50 percent. The Council adopted a general policy of using a
P* of 0.4 for category 2 and 3 stocks. The Council discussed P* values
for category 2 and 3 stocks of 0.35 and 0.32, respectively. In its
report the SSC noted that these P* values, in combination with the
sigma values described above, would have resulted in an approximately
24 percent reduction from OFL for category 2 stocks, and an
approximately 51 percent reduction from OFL for category 3 stocks,
approximating the 25 percent and 50 percent reductions from former ABC
that the Council used prior to this specification cycle. However, the
SSC did not make a recommendation regarding appropriate P* values but
did endorse the Council's final ABC values. In discussing the issue of
the buffer between OFL and ABC for category 2 and 3 stocks the Council
noted that previously the buffer between former ABC and OY took into
account many sources of uncertainty, including scientific uncertainty,
but that under NS 1 the buffer between OFL and ABC is now specific to
scientific uncertainty. There was therefore concern regarding ``double
counting'' of uncertainty that might result from using status quo
buffers to determine the ABC for category 2 and 3 species. For this
reason, the Council concluded that it would be inappropriate to use
these reductions to quantify scientific uncertainty in the reduction
from the OFL to ABC. A review of the ACLs for category 2 and 3 stocks
shows that for a number of stocks, the reductions from ABC to ACL
address stock status, management uncertainty, and other factors. For
example, the ACLs for longnose skate, starry flounder, the other fish
complex and the other flatfish complex are all reduced below the ABC to
account for management uncertainty. The ACL for sablefish is reduced
below the ABC according to the 40-10 harvest control rule, as this
species is in the precautionary zone. The southern ACLs for longspine
thornyhead and shortspine thornyhead are reduced in order to account
for uncertainty associated with trawl surveys in those areas. These
reductions are all described in the FEIS and the proposed rule.
The commenters specifically discuss what they see as potential
negative impacts from the ABCs for lingcod, sablefish and black
rockfish. The FEIS considered the risk of overfishing to all species
and no OFLs were projected to be exceeded under any of the
alternatives. For lingcod, the ACL (2330 mt in 2011) was set equal to
the ABC, however the projected catches are only 685 mt leaving a
substantial buffer. Additionally, it is likely that the catches will
come in under the ACL because of the limited shelf opportunities given
the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) configurations implemented through
this rule. For sablefish the estimated catch of 5407 mt is well below
the ACL value of 6813 mt and the ABC of 8418 mt. Finally, for black
rockfish the estimated catch of 905 mt is well below the ACL of 1426 mt
and the coastwide ABC of 1589 mt to minimize the risk of overfishing.
For the minor rockfish complexes, a P* value of 0.45 was used in
combination with the SSC-recommended sigma values to determine the ABCs
for the component stocks. Historically, the OY for minor rockfish north
has been shared between Oregon and California with no formal catch
sharing agreements because the OY was generally high enough to prevent
concerns over the allocation of catch between the states. A struggle
for fish could result from 2011-2012 ACLs that are significantly lower
than the 2010 OY for the minor nearshore rockfish north subcomplex.
(PFMC Supplemental Groundfish Management Team (GMT) Report, I.2.b April
2010). Applying a P* of 0.45 to determine the ABC for this subcomplex
results in an ABC lower than the 2010 OY, but higher than the other
alternatives considered for determining the ABC. This option
constitutes an interim approach to accounting for scientific
uncertainty given the current organization of the complexes and the
time needed to work out a sharing agreement between the states if
necessary. Applying a P* of .45 for the minor rockfish complex
components reflects the fact that in contrast to the Other Fish and
Other Flatfish complexes, the component stocks in the minor rockfish
complexes are not all category 3 stocks. In addition, it reflects the
fact that the complexes are not ideally organized to account for
scientific uncertainty, and represents a balance between the risk of
overfishing due to scientific uncertainty and the risk of unnecessarily
limiting fisheries in this biennium until a thorough analysis of the
rockfish complexes can be completed.
Comment 5: ACLs should be reduced from ABCs to account for
management uncertainty where there is not accurate data regarding true
catch amounts and no modeling of management uncertainty. The ACL and
ACT control rules should identify all sources of management
uncertainty. It is not clear how management uncertainty is accounted
for by the use of the ACTs for yelloweye rockfish and POP.
Response: The NS1 guidelines do not expressly contemplate a buffer
between ABC and ACL as the primary means to address management
uncertainty. An ACT may be established to account for management
uncertainty in controlling the catch at or below the ACL, but ACTs are
just one type of accountability measure that can address management
uncertainty. NMFS specifically considered a system such as that
described by the commenter that would require that ACL be set below the
ABC to account for management uncertainty, but ultimately rejected it
on the basis that it was Congressional intent that ACL should be
considered a true limit, not a target catch level (Response to Comment
8, 74 FR at 3183, January 16, 2009). Instead, the guidelines require
that, to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, Councils must address the
management uncertainty in their fisheries using appropriate
accountability measures, which could possibly include setting an ACT.
While the Council in fact set the ACL below the ABC for a number of
stocks (longnose skate, starry flounder, the other fish complex, the
other flatfish complex), consistent with the guidelines, the Council's
primary means for addressing management uncertainty is through
accountability measures. Section 4.1 and tables 4-1 and 4-3 in the FEIS
describe the actual impacts that are expected to the stocks in the
fishery as a result of the management measures included in the
integrated alternatives. For most of the non-overfished stocks,
expected catch levels are far below the ACLs set for these
[[Page 27512]]
stocks. Thus, the proposed management measures are expected to ensure
that for the non-overfished stocks, actual catch levels will not
approach the ACLs. For the overfished stocks, the ACLs are based on the
rebuilding plans. Management measures have been specifically designed
to keep the catch of these stocks below their ACLs.
The NS 1 guidelines make clear that the use of ACTs is optional,
not required. The proposed guidelines did require ACTs as reference
points, but the final action ``retains the concept of an ACT and an ACT
control rule, but does not require them to be included in FMPs.'' The
guidelines note that where fisheries lack inseason management controls
to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, ``AMs should utilize ACTs that are
set below ACLs so that catches do not exceed the ACL.'' (74 FR at 3178,
January 16, 2009).
The Groundfish FMP provides for inseason management to prevent
catch limit overages. The current system of inseason management in the
groundfish fishery has resulted in very few catch limit overages in the
last four years. Catch limit overages have occurred for canary rockfish
(2001-2007), Dover sole (2006), POP (2007) and darkblotched
rockfish(2000, 2001, and 2007) (PFMC, Agenda item G.5.a, attachment 1,
November 2009).
Projecting canary rockfish impacts has been problematic, especially
in the limited entry trawl sector. Under a rationalized fishery, there
is individual accountability and real time reporting that is expected
to substantially improve performance relative to the 2010 fishery
(i.e., ability to stay within the ACL). For recreational fisheries, the
Council recommended the use of HGs as an accountability measure to
increase the probability that total catch will stay within the ACL. POP
and Dover sole are trawl dominant and management performance is also
expected to improve under a rationalized fishery structure. However,
the nature of POP catch in the whiting fishery could result in high
incidental catch events such as occurred in the Pacific whiting
shoreside fishery in 2007. For development of the Council's FPA in the
EIS, the Council recommended ACTs for POP and yelloweye rockfish for
the FPA in order to increase the likelihood that catches will remain
below the ACL. This final rule implements an ACT for POP, but not for
yelloweye rockfish. This final rule implements an ACL for yelloweye
that is 2.2 mt above the projected catch. The ACL value is based on the
high end estimates of projected set aside amounts. Therefore, NMFS
believes that the 2.2 mt difference between the ACL and the projected
catch means that an ACT is not necessary for yelloweye. Further, with
the implementation of the Trawl Rationalization program NMFS will have
better inseason monitoring and will be able to track catches relative
to set aside allocations and close fisheries or take other appropriate
action if fisheries are projected to attain their allocations.
Comment 6: The use of stock complex ACLs must be consistent with
new guidance outlined in the NS1 guidelines to ensure that stocks are
sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and
vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management
actions on the stocks is similar. NMFS should either reorganize species
complexes to include stocks with similar vulnerabilities to the
fishery, or designate indicator species from among the most vulnerable
species in each complex. In addition, species-specific ACLs should be
set where possible.
Response: The Council recognized the need for reorganization of the
four complexes described in the EIS to reflect the results of the
vulnerability analysis conducted by the GMT. However, it was determined
that this work could not be completed in time for the 2011-2012
specifications and management measures. The Council and NMFS anticipate
the development of recommendations for reorganized stock complexes in
time for the 2013-14 specifications.
As the commenters point out, the GMT analyzed the vulnerability of
the stocks currently managed in complexes and determined that the
existing complexes are comprised of stocks with a range of
vulnerabilities. It was recognized that the existing complexes were
created prior to the revised NS 1 and are not organized in the best
possible manner for taking into account scientific uncertainty and the
relevant management issues. For this reason, it has been noted by the
GMT that the reorganization of stock complexes is an issue they will
work on for the 2013-2014 biennial specifications and management
measures cycle. The results of any analysis conducted could be
presented to the Council for action. The analysis needed to support
such reconsideration could not be completed in time for the current
cycle.
The commenters state that until the complexes can be reorganized,
indicator stocks should be designated to represent the more vulnerable
stocks in the complexes. Typically indicator stocks would be used for
an assemblage of similar species when most of the species do not have
an assessment. This is not the case for 2011-2012 because the Council
developed assessments for all species even if they were data-limited
assessment for data poor stocks. The issue is not the absence of an
estimate for safe levels of harvest, even if it is data poor, it is
that by grouping the ACLs there is uncertainty that each individual
species remains under its contributions to the group. Indicator stocks
do not address this issue. Additionally, the premise behind using an
indicator species is that it is representative of the group. Because
the current stock complexes are not organized such that the species
within each group are exposed to similar fishing pressure, it is
unclear how an indicator species would be selected to represent the
group. As previously stated, the analysis needed to support a
reorganization of the current stock complexes or to define indicator
stocks could not be completed for this biennial cycle, but will be
addressed at a later date. NMFS agrees that stock complexes should be
organized so they include similarly vulnerable species and that
indictor stocks may be a useful tool to manage fisheries in a
sustainable manner while preventing overfishing of the most vulnerable
species.
To aid in the management of stock complexes, NMFS will be notifying
the states of Washington, Oregon and California of the intent to
propose revisions to the regulatory provisions at Sec. 660.12 (8),
Sec. 660.130(d), Sec. 660.230(c), and Sec. 660.330(c) pertaining to
the sorting and reporting of groundfish catch. NMFS believes that
refining the sorting requirements for the rockfish complexes is
necessary for catch accounting and management of the most vulnerable
stocks within complexes. Because this provision would require state and
Federal reporting systems to be modified including the data systems
that house these data, such a change cannot happen for the 2011 fishing
season.
During the process of developing the 2011-2012 ACLs, the Council
considered removing several species from the minor rockfish complexes,
but did not do so for this biennial cycle because changes necessary to
manage these species individually under the trawl rationalization
program could not be completed in time for this cycle.
Comment 7: The FPA lacks adequate buffers for the data-poor stock
complexes. Specifically, the minor nearshore subcomplexes contain OFL/
ABC buffers of roughly 14 percent and no buffer between ABC and ACL,
even though these complexes contain highly vulnerable component species
such as copper, China and quillback. The minor
[[Page 27513]]
slope subcomplexes contain OFL/ABC buffers of roughly 9 percent, and
ABC/ACL buffers of between 12-25 percent, even though these
subcomplexes are composed of data-poor category 3 species and highly
vulnerable rougheye and shortraker.
Response: It is unclear which kind of ``buffers'' the commenters
see as inadequate and therefore it is difficult to respond to this
comment. The ABCs for the species included in the complexes were
recommended by the SSC and adopted by the Council as described above in
response to Comment 4. The Council specifically accounted for
management uncertainty in the ACLs for the Other Fish and Other
Flatfish by adopting ACLs lower than the sum of the ABCs for the
individual components of these complexes. The ACLs for the minor shelf
and slope rockfish subcomplexes are also significantly lower than the
ABCs for these subcomplexes (shelf north--50 percent lower, slope
north--12 percent lower, shelf south--49 percent lower, slope south--25
percent lower). In addition, the projected catches of the complexes and
subcomplexes, with the exception of the minor nearshore rockfish north
subcomplex, are all significantly below the ACLs. For the minor
nearshore rockfish north subcomplex, as is discussed in the FEIS,
monitoring may indicate a need for inseason management measures to
prevent exceeding the ACL (FEIS at pg 352). In summary, given the
reductions between OFL and ABC, and ABC and ACL, and the fact that
catches are expected to be lower than the ACL for most of the complexes
and subcomplexes, overfishing on these complexes and subcomplexes is
unlikely.
Comment 8: The Amendment must specify AMs that will be triggered
when ACLs are reached.
Response: The NS1 guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009) state
that FMPs should include AMs, which ``are management controls to
prevent ACLs, including sector-ACLs, from being exceeded, and to
correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur.'' NMFS believes
that the Groundfish FMP currently provides for robust inseason
management measures. Under current practices the Council is presented
with inseason updates at each of its meetings. Following an evaluation
of the catch to date and catch projections presented by its advisory
bodies, the Council makes recommendations to NMFS on regulation changes
in order to keep catch within the catch limits. However, NMFS notes
that there is a lack of clarity in the amendment with respect to the
connection between ACLs and AMs. In its December 27, 2010, letter to
the Council, NMFS identified this issue and suggested that it should be
addressed through the development and submission of an additional
amendment to the FMP.
Comment 9: NMFS should identify and incorporate a specific list of
relevant ecological factors into the management of West Coast
Groundfish and specify how such factors will be used in the
determination of OY, ACLs, or ACTs.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that ecological factors can be an
important consideration in setting MSY and OY levels. In the Response
to Comment 24 of the NS 1 guidelines NMFS states that ``* * *
ecological conditions not directly accounted for in the specification
of MSY can be among the ecological factors considered when setting OY
below MSY'' (74 FR at 3187, January 16, 2009). The NS1 Guidelines
describe ACT as an accountability measure that accounts for management
uncertainty, and does not specifically incorporate ecological concerns.
Under the FMP, as amended by Amendment 23, ecological factors can
be a consideration in setting the ACL below the ABC and in setting the
OY (FMP Section 2.2). The extent of our knowledge on ecological factors
with respect to choosing between the integrated alternatives is
considered in the FEIS but our ability to compare these factors with
respect to the alternatives is extremely limited. The Council and NMFS
have incorporated ecosystem considerations into management of the
groundfish fishery in a number of ways (e.g. closed areas that protect
particularly productive and/or sensitive areas, and consideration of
relevant ecological factors in stock assessments). See Agenda Item
J.1.c, Attachment 1, PFMC March 2011 (Assessing Ecosystem Policy
Principles and Bringing Ecosystem Science into the Pacific Fishery
Management Council Process). NMFS is actively engaged in developing
ecosystem information about the California Current ecosystem, and the
Council is considering development of an Ecosystem Fishery Management
Plan and incorporating ecosystem factors into the fishery management
process. See Agenda Item J.1, Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan (PFMC
March 2011).
While the ecological factors listed in the comments are relevant,
at this time the specific elements listed have not been incorporated
into the FMP and the Council decisionmaking process. Therefore
requiring that information to be reported in a stock assessment or in
the determination of OYs, ACLs and ACTs is premature. NMFS agrees that
ecological factors are an important consideration in setting harvest
levels for groundfish species. The commenters reference two food web
models for possible use in considering ecological factors. At this time
these models have not been evaluated by the SSC or GMT for use. NMFS
suggests that the commenters bring these models forward to the
Council's advisory bodies so that they can be evaluated. The groundfish
stock assessment and review process, which includes procedures for
assessing new models, is laid out in the Terms of Reference for both
the groundfish stock assessment and review process and the SSC, which
can be found at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/stock-assessments/safe-documents/2011-safe-document/.
Even though the FMP does not contain a specific list of ecological
factors that must be considered, the FEIS did consider ecological
factors. Chapter 4 of the FEIS evaluated the impacts of the
alternatives according to the impacts on fishing mortality, rebuilding
duration for the overfished species, stock productivity relative to
rebuilding success, genetic diversity and prey availability.
Overfished Species and Flatfish
Comment 10: The rebuilding plan for Darkblotched Rockfish is
inconsistent with the MSA. A TTARGET of 2025 would maintain
the status quo catch limits that were set in 2007-08 that were based on
faulty information about darkblotched's resiliency and would extend the
2009-10 harvest specifications that were invalidated by NRDC v. Locke,
Case 3:01-cv-00421-JLI. Review of recent catch levels as well as trends
in the economic health of the fishery reveal that it is possible to
meet the MSA's conservation priorities by establishing faster
rebuilding targets and lower harvest levels while accommodating the
needs of the fishing community. NMFS should adopt a target rebuilding
date for darkblotched that results in catch levels no higher than 200
metric tons (mt) per year. The catch level for darkblotched was set at
200 mt in 2006 even though economic data from both the commercial trawl
sector and the larger groundfish fishery indicate that revenues in 2006
continued to rebound from 2002 lows. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that the commercial trawl fishery and associated fishing
communities can accommodate current catch levels considerably closer of
200 mt for darkblotched.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter. The harvest rate being
implemented by this rule is the most
[[Page 27514]]
conservative harvest rate for darkblotched rockfish since 2005. The
TTARGET adopted in this final rule does not maintain the
status quo catch limits set based on faulty information in 2007-08, and
it does not extend the 2009-10 harvest specifications invalidated by
NRDC v. Locke. The TTARGET being adopted for darkblotched is
2025, which corresponds to an SPR of 64.9 percent and an ACL of 298 mt.
The SPR harvest rate associated with the invalidated darkblotched
rockfish specifications was 62.1 percent with a TTARGET
equal to 2028. The final rule implements a TTARGET of 2025,
which is only 9 years longer than TF=0, and is three years
earlier than under the 2009-10 harvest specifications. Similarly, the
SPR harvest rate is more conservative than the harvest rate under the
2009-10 harvest specifications. Although the ACL this rule implements
is comparable to the OY during the beginning of the 2009-10 cycle, the
rebuilding period is shorter and the harvest rate is reduced based on
the 2009 stock assessment update and the revised rebuilding analyses,
which are the best scientific information available at this time. In
2005, steepness (productivity) was estimated at 1.0, and was set at
0.95. In 2007, a good deal more age data was included in the
assessment, largely as conditional age-at length compositions, and
steepness was estimated (using the prior from Dorn's meta-analysis) at
0.6. That value of steepness was then fixed in the 2007 assessment and
hence also used in the 2009 update. The SPR chosen following the 2005
rebuilding analysis, and applied in the 2007-08 harvest specifications
(the 2007 SPR was 64.1 percent and the 2008 SPR was 60.7 percent),
corresponded to a TTARGET (median rebuilding year) of 2011,
which was much earlier than for previous rebuilding analyses, due
largely to the high value of steepness (and thus high productivity at
low stock sizes) assumed in the 2005 assessment. Based on the 2007
rebuilding analysis, the darkblotched rockfish stock was projected to
recover 19 years later (2030) than anticipated from the 2005 rebuilding
analysis. This then lead to the adoption by the Pacific Council of a
new TTARGET equal to 2028 with an SPR of 62.1 percent.
Accordingly, as mentioned above, the SPR of 64.9 percent being
implemented by this rule is the most conservative harvest rate for
darkblotched rockfish since 2005. Moreover, the percent of unfished
darkblotched rockfish biomass continues to increase toward rebuilding.
Due to the complexity and interconnectivity of the Pacific
groundfish fishery, the Council and NMFS follow an integrated or
holistic approach to rebuilding because it would not be appropriate to
develop rebuilding plans for each of the overfished species independent
from the rebuilding plans for the others. The rebuilding groundfish
species are correlated both biologically and economically. Changes to
the OYs for any of the overfished species affect the time to rebuild
for that species and the ability of fishermen to harvest other species
of groundfish. In addition, changes in OYs for groundfish species have
differing economic impacts on West Coast fishing communities. Setting a
rebuilding strategy for one species requires the rebuilding strategy
for the other rebuilding species be considered simultaneously.
Utilizing this approach, it is reasonable to assume that integrated
Alternative 1, which considered a TTARGET of 2022 and ACLs
of 222 mt in 2011 and 2012, would have similar biological and socio-
economic impacts to the ACL of 200 mt suggested by the commenter. NMFS
does not agree that fishing communities can accommodate an ACL closer
to 200 mt than the ACL in the final rule without suffering severe
adverse economic impacts. Darkblotched rockfish is currently taken in
research fisheries, Tribal fisheries, limited entry trawl non-whiting
fisheries, limited entry trawl whiting fisheries, and limited entry
fixed-gear fisheries. Darkblotched rockfish are predominantly caught in
bottom trawls operating on the outer continental shelf and slope north
of 38[deg] north latitude between 100 and 200 fm. Reductions in the
darkblotched rockfish ACLs are highly limiting to the trawl fisheries
because darkblotched rockfish co-occur with the most economically
important species in the fishery such as slope rockfish, sablefish,
Pacific whiting, shortspine and longspine thornyheads, and Dover sole.
Under Alternative 1, trawl opportunities on the slope would be limited
as the seaward RCA boundaries were moved deeper. The bottom trawl
fisheries on the continental slope would be restricted year round to a
seaward RCA boundary of 250 fm.
If the ACLs for overfished species are too low, it could undermine
the success of the trawl rationalization program. Economic benefits to
the IFQ fishery are expected to result from cost reductions and
increased access to target species that arise from modifications in
fishing behavior (overfished species avoidance). Individual
accountability will put pressure on operators to fish in areas with
lower encounter rates of constraining overfished species, and the
ability to transfer catch privileges allows the fleet to consolidate to
fewer, but more profitable vessels as the market directs quota in a
manner that is more economically efficient. If the darkblotched
rockfish ACL is too low (Alternative 1)--such that trawl fishers
perceive slope target fisheries to be risky (high risk of exceeding the
individual quota pounds) and the fishers limit their fishing
participation for healthy target species--or if fishers hold quota
pounds of constraining overfished for sale to other fishers who incur
overages, they would not be able to develop new methods or strategies
to avoid catching overfished species.
The recruitment pattern for darkblotched rockfish is similar to
that of many rockfish species, with highly variable recruitment from
year to year adding to the variability in catch accounting between
years. In addition, the available ACL to the groundfish fishery is
reduced by the projected catch of darkblotched in incidental open
access fisheries and non-groundfish fisheries. As another commenter
pointed out, the incidental catch in non-groundfish fisheries such as
pink shrimp would be expected to increase as the darkblotched rockfish
biomass increases, further constraining the groundfish fishery unless
the ACL allowed for such a rebuilding paradox. NMFS believes that
setting a TTARGET that would result in a catch level no
higher than 200 mt has the potential to result in short-term disastrous
effects on already vulnerable communities.
As the darkblotched rockfish biomass increases, it will become
increasingly more difficult to avoid as the stock rebuilds. Unlike the
constant catch strategy suggested by the commenter, which increasingly
restricts the fishery as rebuilding occurs and requires ever increasing
management restrictions to avoid exceeding the ACL, the constant SPR
strategy allows rebuilding to occur at an increasing rate without
changing the TTARGET and without drastic swings in
management measures, which provides management stability to fisheries
and communities and contributes to economic stability. The
2009 stock assessment indicates that darkblotched rockfish was at 18.1
percent of its unfished biomass in 2006 as compared to 27.5 percent in
2009, showing an increasing trend. The recruitment pattern for
darkblotched rockfish is similar to that of many rockfish species, with
highly variable recruitment from year to year. The most recent year of
2008 shows recruitment closer to those seen in 2003-2005 after very low
recruitment in 2006 and 2007. Large year to year swings in recruitment
[[Page 27515]]
affect the accuracy of catch projections. As discussed in the FEIS,
catch models used for the trawl fishery, a catch model based on data
from the fishery managed under a trip limit structure was used to
project catch. Although it is the best available information, because
the trawl fishery is now being managed as a rationalized fishery with
IFQs for the non-whiting fisheries, catch projections based on fishing
distribution under a trip limit structure affect the utility of the
catch model for making projections. In sum, the shorter rebuilding
period and more conservative harvest rate adopted in this final rule
rebuild darkblotched rockfish in a time period as short as possible,
taking into account the statutory factors of the MSA.
Comment 11: The rebuilding plan for Cowcod is inconsistent with the
MSA. The estimated cowcod depletion rate in 2009 is 4.5 percent,
slightly lower than the 4.6 percent rate estimated in the 2007
assessment, indicating that the cowcod population is failing to rebuild
as projected, and may actually be in decline. It is possible to rebuild
cowcod more quickly than the 2071 target proposed by Amendment 16-5,
and NMFS does not address why a target rebuilding year 11 years later
than the shortest possible is ``as short as possible'' pursuant to the
requirements of the MSA. Overall groundfish fishery revenues have
rebounded substantially since 2002. The updated community vulnerability
analysis did not rate any fishing communities off the Southern U.S.
west coast as vulnerable. Historic mortality data for cowcod (which are
admittedly subject to high levels of uncertainty) indicate that actual
total catch has varied between as low as .32 mt in 2003, 2.18 mt in
2004, 1.27 mt in 2005, and 1.18 mt in 2006. Therefore, it is reasonable
to assume that a catch level of 3 mt for cowcod, which is projected to
rebuild the species by 2068, would promote the conservation goals of
the MSA and could be reasonably accommodated by affected fisheries and
fishing communities. NMFS should adopt a target rebuilding date for
cowcod that results in catch levels no higher than 3 mt per year.
Response: NMFS fully considered all public comment and other
relevant information, and has determined that modifying the proposed
rule to implement a shorter rebuilding period will not cause severe
short-term economic consequences to communities. Therefore, a shorter
rebuilding period for cowcod is more consistent with the requirements
of the MSA. This final rule implements a rebuilding plan for cowcod
with a TTARGET of 2068, which corresponds to an SPR of 82.7
percent and an ACL of 3 mt. The TTARGET of 2068 implemented
by this rule is only 8 years longer than TF=0. In contrast,
the proposed rule included a cowcod rebuilding plan with a
TTARGET of 2071, which corresponds to an SPR of 79 percent
and an ACL of 4 mt. The TTARGET of 2071 in the proposed rule
was eleven years longer than TF=0.
The commentor is incorrect in stating that the cowcod population
may be in decline. The cowcod stock shows a slow but increasing trend
in stock biomass. Table ES-6 of the 2009 stock assessment presents a
summary of recent trends in cowcod exploitation and stock levels from
the base case model. The commenter is correct that the depletion level
projected by the 2009 stock assessment is 4.5 percent, however, the
2009 stock assessment, which is the best available scientific
information, revises the 2007 stock assessment results and indicates
that the 2007 biomass was at 4 percent not 4.6 percent as the commenter
indicated. Therefore, the best available scientific information
available at this time indicates that Cowcod depletion rate is
improving and the cowcod population is rebuilding.
Comment 12: The rebuilding plan for yelloweye is inconsistent with
the MSA. NMFS' conclusion that rebuilding progress on yelloweye has
been ``moderate'' is too optimistic. The 2009 rebuilding analysis
indicates that yelloweye rebuilding is three years behind schedule
under the status quo harvest rate. This is three years beyond the
target year of 2084, which was invalidated in NRDC v. Locke. There is a
wide range of possible harvest limits in the 37 year time span between
TF=0 and the proposed target year of 2084 that would rebuild
yelloweye more quickly and still allow for bycatch. NMFS should adopt a
target rebuilding date for yelloweye that results in catch levels
between 14-17 mt per year.
Response: NMFS fully considered all public comment and other
relevant information, and has determined that modifying the proposed
rule to implement a shorter rebuilding period will not cause severe
short-term economic consequences to communities. Therefore, a shorter
rebuilding period for yelloweye rockfish is more consistent with the
requirements of the MSA. The range of alternatives considered in the
EIS for yelloweye was reasonable as further explained in the response
to comments in the FEIS. This final rule implements a rebuilding plan
for yelloweye rockfish with a TTARGET of 2074, which
corresponds to an SPR of 76 percent and an ACL of 17 mt. The
TTARGET of 2074 implemented by this rule is 10 years before
the current TTARGET and 27 years longer than TF=0. In
contrast, the proposed rule included a yelloweye rockfish rebuilding
plan with a TTARGET of 2084, which corresponds to an SPR of
72.8 percent and an ACL of 20 mt. The TTARGET of 2084 in the
proposed rule was 37 years longer than TF=0. As discussed below, NMFS
determined that an ACL lower than 17 mt would have a disastrous short-
term effect on fishing communities.
NMFS disagrees with the commenter regarding the rebuilding progress
of yelloweye rockfish. The 2009 stock assessment shows that yelloweye
rockfish stock has shown an increasing trend in stock biomass during
the rebuilding period, increasing from the estimated depletion level of
16.3 percent of the unfished biomass in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2009.
The median year of recovery in the absence of fishing (TF=0) was
calculated by setting fishing mortality to zero in 2011, and is equal
to 2047. The value for TMIN, the median year for rebuilding
to the target level in the absence of fishing since the year of
declaration (2000) is 2044 (revised downward slightly from 2046 in the
2007 analysis). Because TMIN is only three years shorter
than TF=0 in 2011, it indicates that harvest rates during
this eight-year period have been low enough to have had little effect
on the stocks rebuilding trajectory.
Although TTARGETS corresponding to ACLs lower than 17 mt
were considered, the impacts on the fisheries and communities were
significantly greater. Small changes to yelloweye rockfish ACLs can
have disproportionately large effects on the ability of fishers to
harvest healthy stocks of groundfish, both when considered as part of
the integrated approach, and when considered in isolation. For the
recreational fisheries, a yelloweye ACL lower than 17 mt would result
in northern California recreational seasons that are even shorter than
the already extremely limited lengths (e.g., three months in the
Mendocino Management Area). This would include a one and a half month
season in the Mendocino Management Area if the ACL were at 14 mt.
Imposing further restrictions due to a lower ACL would cause the
greatest negative economic impacts to communities north of Point Arena,
particularly Fort Bragg and Shelter Cove. Under a 14 mt ACL the loss to
California communities is equivalent to 170,000 fishing trips with an
estimated revenue of 20 million dollars in expenditures associated with
these trips (March 2011, Agenda Item H.2.c, CDFG Letter). Those
dependent
[[Page 27516]]
on the recreational fishery for their incomes would be the most
affected, though the coastal community as a whole would suffer from the
loss of expenditures by anglers. In the Oregon recreational fishery, an
ACL (ACT) less than 17 mt would require shallower depth restrictions,
decreased bag limits or full fishery closure, on the part of the state
to prevent adjusted harvest guidelines from being exceeded. This would
likely cause severe economic impacts to coastal Oregon communities,
particularly Garibaldi and Gold Beach, which rely heavily on the
recreational bottomfish and halibut fisheries. With an ACL under 17 mt,
the Washington recreational management measures may need to be more
restrictive. More restrictive management measures would negatively
impact local communities that are dependent on sport fishing.
Washington's recreational yelloweye impacts are also tied very closely
to the halibut fishery. The affected communities are mostly remote
areas that rely on the economic benefits created by recreational
harvest opportunities.
In the commercial fisheries, yelloweye rockfish bycatch is also a
concern for fixed gear longline vessels targeting sablefish north of
40[deg]10'. The nearshore fishery in many communities serves primarily
specialty ``live-fish'' markets. For example, the Brookings port group
(southern Oregon) provides more live-fish landings than any other port
group along the U.S. west coast. Because the fish buyers are different
for this fishery than those for other commercial fisheries, severely
restricting the fishery could influence the primary live-fish buyers in
some of these specialized ports to leave, which could put an end to
live-fish deliveries for these specialized fishing communities. Many of
the affected ports lack the infrastructure to compensate for fish
buyers leaving the area. The TTARGET of 2074 and ACL of 17
mt implemented by this rule are projected to rebuild yelloweye rockfish
a full decade sooner than the previous rebuilding time period, while
avoiding severe short-term adverse economic impacts to fishing
communities.
Comment 13: NMFS received 5 comments in support of the Council's
final preferred yelloweye rockfish ACL of 20 mt and ACT of 17 mt. The
comments in support were from the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW),
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and two comments from the
public. These commenters also stated that setting a yelloweye ACL lower
than 17 mt would add risk to communities that were unjustified by the
conservation benefits associated with a lower ACL.
Response: For a detailed description of the basis for the final ACL
value of 17 mt implemented in this rule refer to the previous comment
above. The Council recommended a 20 mt ACL with an ACT of 17 mt for
yelloweye. The Council recommended using an ACT to address the
uncertainty in accurately monitoring recreational fishery catch
inseason, and increase the likelihood that the total catch would be
lower than the ACL. An ACL of 17 mt is specified in this rule. NMFS
chose not to specify an ACT for yelloweye. This final rule implements
an ACL for yelloweye that is 2.2 mt above the projected catch. The ACL
value is based on the high end estimates of projected set aside
amounts. Therefore NMFS believes that the 2.2 mt difference between the
ACL and the projected catch means that an ACT is not necessary for
yelloweye. Further, with the implementation of the Trawl
Rationalization program NMFS will have better inseason monitoring and
will be able to track catches relative to set aside allocations and
close fisheries or take other appropriate action if fisheries are
projected to attain their allocations. By specifying an ACL of 17 mt
rather than an ACT, it is predicted that rebuilding will occur in 2074,
ten years earlier than under the Council's FPA.
Comment 14: The rebuilding plan for canary rockfish is inconsistent
with the MSA. The rebuilding plan for canary rockfish is six years
behind schedule, according to the 2009 stock assessment. The new
assessment shows a biomass depletion percentage of 23.7 percent instead
of 32.4 percent seen just two years before. In addition, the cumulative
OY from 2000-2007 (years with reliable catch data since rebuilding
began) was exceeded by 14 percent. Rather than responding to new
information that a species is doing worse than expected by lowering
catch rates, NMFS again has indicated that it is willing to extend
target rebuilding dates in order to maintain status quo catch levels.
Therefore, maintenance of the status quo catch levels at the expense of
a longer rebuilding period for canary is inconsistent with the MSA's
mandate to rebuild in a period as short as possible. NMFS should adopt
a target rebuilding date for canary rockfish that results in catch
levels no higher than 44 mt per year.
Response: NFMS disagrees with the commenter. The TARGET
being implemented by this rule is within 3 years of the shortest time
possible (TF=0 = 2024). NMFS believes that the rebuilding
plan being adopted by this action is consistent with the MSA.
The latest assessment for canary rockfish demonstrates that the
stock has been rebuilding since 2000. The commenter mischaracterizes
the projected biomass depletion level from the 2009 stock assessment,
which is the best available scientific information, relative to biomass
depletion levels from the 2007 stock assessment. The reduction from
2007 is largely due to a revised historical catch time series for
California. The new data resulted in the entire rebuilding trajectory
(2000 forward) being slightly lower than previously projected. The
commenter indicated that canary rockfish rebuilding is six years behind
schedule. The change in our understanding of the rebuilding trajectory
should not be interpreted as rebuilding having slowed, as this is not
the case. Throughout the rebuilding period, the stock has continued to
progress towards rebuilding. The overall lowering of the rebuilding
trajectory throughout the entire rebuilding period means that it would
take more time to reach the B40% (biomass level of 40 percent, which is
used as a proxy for BMSY) than was understood in 2007. 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 (95
percent confidence bounds of 17-30 percent). This action maintains the
same SPR harvest rate that is in place under the No Action Alternative.
Maintaining the same SPR harvest rate results in an ACL for 2011 that
is lower than the than the 2010 OY because applying the same SPR
harvest rate responds to changes in our understanding of the status of
the stock. Because the rebuilding trajectory was modified, maintaining
the current target year had to be modified despite the fact that the
stock has continued to progress towards rebuilding.
As explained in the proposed rule and disclosed to the public in
stock assessment documents, 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
to 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, although catches were well below the
ABC. These catch estimates were
[[Page 27517]]
done in retrospect using data that were not available during the
season. Due to the methods used to derive the total mortality
estimates, the catches made in retrospect were higher than estimates
made during the season.
Canary rockfish are caught in all the major fishery sectors,
including: Research fisheries, Washington, Oregon and California
recreational fisheries, Tribal fisheries, limited entry non-whiting
trawl fisheries, limited entry whiting trawl fisheries, limited entry
fixed gear fisheries, open access directed groundfish fisheries, open
access directed fisheries with incidental groundfish catch (California
halibut, pink shrimp and salmon troll).
Due to the complexity and interconnectivity of the Pacific
groundfish fishery, the Council and NMFS follow an integrated or
holistic approach to rebuilding because it would not be appropriate to
develop rebuilding plans for each of the overfished species independent
from the rebuilding plans for the others. The rebuilding groundfish
species are correlated both biologically and economically. Changes to
the OYs for any of the overfished species affect the time to rebuild
for that species and the ability of fishermen to harvest other species
of groundfish. In addition, changes in OYs for groundfish species have
differing economic impacts on West Coast fishing communities. Setting a
rebuilding strategy for one species requires the rebuilding strategy
for the other rebuilding species be considered simultaneously.
Utilizing this approach, it is reasonable to assume that a 44 mt catch
level would have similar biological and socio-economic impacts as
considered under Alternative 1 in the FEIS. Alternative 1 considered a
TTARGET of 2025, which is one year longer than
TMIN and has an ACL of 49 mt in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012.
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. An ACL of 49
mt (Alternative 1) equates to a trawl allocation of 13.3 mt--62 percent
less then what is available in 2010. This will affect both the non-
whiting and whiting sectors negatively. The whiting sectors would
likely have lower bycatch caps which could preclude them from attaining
their whiting allocations. 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 retained, will count towards the individuals IFQ shares,
the risk of the fishery exceeding the ACL is reduced compared to 2010
and prior years. In the short term, fishers will need to learn how to
avoid canary rather than simply discarding them at-sea. Economic
benefits to the IFQ fishery are expected to result from cost reductions
and increased access to target species that arise from modifications in
fishing behavior (overfished species avoidance). Individual
accountability will put pressure on operators to fish in areas with
lower encounter rates of constraining overfished species, and the
ability to transfer catch privileges allows the fleet to consolidate to
fewer, but more profitable, vessels as the market directs quota in a
manner that is more economically efficient. Lower ACLs for canary
rockfish could result in trawl fishers perceiving target fisheries for
healthy stocks to be risky (high risk of exceeding the individual quota
pounds) and result in fishers limiting their fishing participation for
healthy target species; or if fishers hold quota pounds of constraining
overfished for sale to other fishers who incur overages, they would not
be able to develop new methods or strategies to avoid catching
overfished species. Reduced fishing time may result in fishers being
unable to develop new methods or strategies 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 section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP.
Comment 15: Economic indicators show improvements in the economic
health of the fishery, thus it should be possible to meet the MSA's
conservation priorities by establishing shorter rebuilding periods and
lower catch levels while accommodating the needs of fishing
communities. Historic revenue data indicate that average ex-vessel
revenues in the groundfish hook-and-line fishery have rebounded since
hitting a low of just over $13 million in 2002. Annual ex-vessel
revenues for the fishery averaged nearly $18 million between 2005-2009,
reaching a new high of $22.8 million in 2009, which is almost 50%
greater than average revenue in 1998 adjusted for inflation. After
overall groundfish fishery revenues hit a low of $63.9 million in 2002
(concurrent with the disaster declaration in the fishery), they
rebounded to significantly higher levels: After adjusting for
inflation, average revenues for the groundfish fishery between 2005 and
2009 were slightly over $85 million. In 2008, revenues in the fishery
exceeded $113 million dollars. Per-vessel revenues have rebounded as
well. Due in part to the reduction in the trawl fleet resulting from
the buyback program, per-vessel revenues are roughly 40% higher than
they were in 1998 after adjusted for inflation.
Response: NMFS does not believe that restricting harvests to
maintain revenues at or below historically low levels takes into
account the needs of fishing communities. Communities may still be
``surviving'' but they are not thriving, and many fishing communities
remain vulnerable to short-term adverse economic impacts associated
with rebuilding periods shorter than those adopted by this rule. Small
increases in revenues of some sectors will help prevent some of the
more vulnerable communities from even further losses. Except for the
open access sectors, all other sectors show a decline under NMFS'
preferred alternative compared to the No-Action Alternative: Non-
whiting trawl (-1.6%), limited entry fixed gear (-10.4%); and Tribal (-
1.9%--including Tribal shoreside whiting). To provide different
perspectives, revenues are analyzed at several levels. First, the total
level groundfish of revenues, including those from non-whiting
groundfish, shoreside whiting, and at-sea whiting, are provided to give
the perspective of the total fishery. Second, groundfish revenues
excluding estimates of at-sea whiting are analyzed to better focus the
analysis on impacts to coastal communities, as most at-sea whiting
revenues are associated with large Seattle-based companies. Finally,
shoreside non-whiting groundfish revenues are analyzed alone because
the shoreside non-whiting fishery is crucial to communities for its
ability to provide a year-round supply of fish and ``keep the lights
on'' so community processing facilities can take advantage of the
income provided from sporadic pulse fisheries such as whiting, salmon,
crab, and shrimp (Note that San Francisco is a ``coastal community''
that receives non-whiting groundfish).
[[Page 27518]]
According to the Regulatory Impact Review Analysis, the total
groundfish fishery is projected to reach a level of $91 million
compared to the No-Action Alternative of $82 million. All of this
increase is due to the increase in whiting harvests. Under the no-
action alternative, the whiting fishery (shoreside and at-sea) account
for $22 million in ex-vessel revenues. With the increase in the whiting
OY from 193,000 mt in 2010 to the 290,000 mt OY in 2011, whiting
revenues in 2011 are projected to be $33 million. For the shoreside
fisheries, including whiting, and coastal communities, shoreside ex-
vessel revenues are expected to increase by 2.6%. If whiting is
excluded, 2011 ex-vessel revenues flowing from shoreside fisheries to
coastal communities are expected to decrease by 3.3%. Most of this
decrease is associated with projected decreases in sablefish and
petrale sole harvests.
Relative to the needs of communities, the commenter indicates that
average (annual) ex-vessel revenues in the groundfish hook-and-line
fishery (includes limited entry fixed gear, open access fixed gear, and
Tribal fixed gear fisheries) have rebounded since hitting a low of just
over $13 million in 2002. In 2011 and 2012 the sablefish ACL will
decline from the 2010 level of approximately 7,700 mt to approximately
6,800 mt. Therefore, the annual ex-vessel revenues in the groundfish
hook-and-line fishery are projected to decline. Revenues from hook and
line gear fishing are just one source of revenue to a community. The
major source of groundfish revenues to communities are those from
trawlers. Over the years, hook and line revenues have been a growing
source of revenue in light of declines in other groundfish fisheries,
including trawl fisheries. During the 1998 to 2009 period, the
commercial revenue from trawl gear (includes commercial and Tribal, at
sea and shoreside trawlers) has varied from a low of $46 million (2009)
to a high of $91 million (2008). In 1998, total groundfish revenues
flowing to communities from all gear types was about $80 million, in
2002 $63 million, and in 2009, $74 million. The hook and line share of
total revenues has increased from 18% in 1998, to 21% in 2002, and 31%
in 2009, the lowest year for trawl revenues.
In light of conservation, management, and economic issues
associated with overcapacity, three capacity reduction programs have
been instituted since 2000. In 2001, Amendment 14 to the FMP added a
fixed gear permit stacking program which has resulted in the
consolidation of currently 164 sablefish endorsed permits on about 90
vessels. In 2003, a trawl vessel buyback program was implemented,
resulting in the retirement of 91 vessels and associated groundfish
limited entry permits in order to stabilize what had been declining
per-vessel revenues and to reduce bycatch by the remaining vessels.
Industry is currently paying back the $36 million loan associated with
this program. In early 2011, implementation of a catch share program
under Amendment 20 to the FMP began, changing management of portions of
the trawl fishery from 2-month cumulative trip limits to individual
fishing quota (IFQ) management. In addition to improving the
profitability of the fishery while reducing capacity, the IFQ program
is expected to reduce bycatch because of the increase in observer
coverage to 100%, and placement of catch monitors at landing locations
(typically at processing plants), and the use of electronic reporting
will lead to better catch accounting and overall quota management of
the fishery. Fishermen and processors are paying for these observers
and catch monitors (although for the first three years these costs are
being partially subsidized by NMFS based on available appropriations).
The Council and NMFS are now developing a cost-recovery program where
up to 3 percent of the trawl revenues may be assessed on the industry
to partially recover the costs of administering the program.
All of these capacity reduction programs have yielded increased
average revenues per vessel. However, even if average revenues per
vessel or total revenues have increased, total industry and sector
profit levels are likely to be declining especially in light of
increases in fuel prices. For the Trawl Rationalization Program
analysis, a shorebased non-whiting model was constructed based on the
2004 fishery. In 2004, the shorebased non-whiting trawl fishery
generated about $21 million in groundfish ex-vessel revenues. But
according to cost estimates, this fishery was at best breaking even or
perhaps suffering a loss of up to $2 million. Since 2004, shorebased
non-whiting trawl fisheries have increased their revenues to about $30
million in 2009 and estimated $27 million in 2010. The increase in
shorebased revenues have come from increased landings of flatfish and
sablefish and significant increases in sablefish ex-vessel prices.
Sablefish now accounts for almost 40 percent of the trawl fleet's
revenues.
Increases in revenues must be considered together with significant
increases in fuel costs. Fuel costs now account for approximately 30 to
40 percent of the vessels' revenues. The average 2005-2009 revenues
were about $27 million, or 29 percent greater than 2004. The average
2005-2009 fuel price was about $2.81 per gallon, 70% greater than that
of 2004. Therefore, it appears that the profitability of the 2009
fishery may not be that much improved over that of 2004. In July of
2009, in Newport Oregon fuel prices were about $2.20 a gallon, in July
of 2010, $2.50 a gallon and as of April 2011, about $3.75 per gallon.
While NMFS preferred alternative does result in projected shoreside
revenue increases over status quo, these are increases from
historically low levels of revenue. Healthy communities require
profitable sectors. Profits concern revenues and costs. NMFS and the
Council have received public comment that low levels of revenue since
1999 have resulted in numerous negative impacts to community
infrastructure. Many communities have lost important infrastructure
such as ice houses, fuel docks, and processing facilities during the
last decade. Continued low levels of revenue will likely result in
further losses of infrastructure. Although it is difficult to predict,
at some point the losses of infrastructure and fishing opportunity
result in a ``tipping point'' in which a community shifts from a
fishing community to a non-fishing community. In addition, with
decreased revenues, fishermen are not making needed repairs or
improvements to fishing gear, resulting in potential safety issues and
potentially reducing innovation in the fleet to reduce bycatch or
impacts to habitat.
Several other non-groundfish factors also affect fishing
communities. From a fisheries perspective, for the period from 2006 to
2010, except for 2007, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a
disaster under the MSA exists for a major portion of the coastal salmon
fishery. From a macro-economic perspective, in 2009 and 2010,
communities have been affected by the overall downturn in the economy
and now in 2011 and beyond will be affected by the further consequences
of the economy.
Comment 16: NMFS should reject changes to the reference points and
25-5 control rule for petrale sole and other assessed flatfish species,
as the proposed changes are not adequately precautionary, fail to
account for the ecological services rendered by these species, and are
premature without a comprehensive management strategy evaluation.
[[Page 27519]]
Response: The specifications for flatfish in the proposed rule and
in this final rule are based on a new proxy for Fmsy (F30%) recommended
by the SSC and adopted by the Council. NMFS believes that the new
flatfish proxy is based on the best available science and is consistent
with the NS1 guidelines and the MSA. Following the 2009 scientific peer
review of the petrale sole assessment by the Council's stock assessment
review panel (STAR panel), the STAR panel prepared a report which
recommended that the SSC review the estimates of FMSY produced by the
petrale sole assessment and investigate alternatives to the proxies of
F40%. The SSCs groundfish sub-committee further considered the proxies
produced by the petrale sole assessment and recommended that a proxy
for FMSY of F30% be established for all west coast flatfish (PFMC E.2.c
Supplemental SSC Report September 2009; Agenda Item E.2.c Supplemental
SSC PowerPoint, September 2009). The full SSC endorsed the groundfish
subcommittee's recommendation to establish a new proxy of F30% for FMSY
for flatfish (PFMC G.2.b Supplemental SSC Report, November 2009). This
value was 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 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.
The SSC also recommended and the Council adopted a new Bmsy proxy
for flatfish--B25%. This recommendation was developed through the same
process and with the same considerations described above (PFMC E.2.c
Supplemental SSC Report September 2009). The commenters point to SSC
comments recommending a more comprehensive analysis of the control rule
proxies. However, this long-term recommendation did not change the
SSC's ultimate recommendation that the new proxies be used for the
2011-2012 specifications cycle. The SSC's recommendations are the best
available science at this time.
The SSC noted that the overfished threshold, or MSST, and default
precautionary reduction policy, are policy decisions for the Council.
However, the SSC suggested the options that the Council ultimately
chose for both of these policy choices. The Council chose to set the
MSST to 50 percent of B25% (B12.5%), based on advice of the SSC that
this was the ``lowest value recommended by the NS1 guidelines.'' (PFMC
G.2.b, Supplemental SSC Report, November 2009). The 25-5 harvest
control rule is intended to be the flatfish corollary to the 40-10
harvest control rule used for other groundfish species. The SSC's
groundfish subcommittee suggested the 25-5 rule provided the same
benefits as the 40-10 harvest control rule, but took into account the
higher productivity of flatfish as compared to rockfish. (PFMC E.4.b,
Supplemental SSC Report 2, March 2010).
The commenters suggest that these changes to the reference points
and precautionary reduction policy for flatfish are not supported by
sufficient analysis of their environmental consequences. They
specifically identify the services rendered by flatfish in the
California Current marine ecosystem. Ecosystem impacts of the
integrated alternatives are described in the FEIS in section 4.1.5.
However, available data and models limit NMFS' ability to assess the
impacts of the alternatives in detail. The SSCs groundfish subcommittee
recognized the need for a management strategy evaluation on harvest
control rule proxies (PFMC E.2.c, Supplemental SSC report, September
2009) however, at this time an evaluation has not yet been conducted.
Comment 17: The rebuilding plans in the proposed rule implicitly
adopt a Council-designed paradigm to set catch levels for overfished
species that are inconsistent with the mandates of the MSA to rebuild
overfished species ``as quickly as possible'' and with the Ninth
Circuit's directive on how to do that while ``taking into account the
needs of fishing communities.'' NMFS and the Council appear to have
substituted this legal directive with a rebuilding paradigm that
continues to favor long-term economic yields at the expense of
rebuilding as quickly as possible. The white paper submitted to NMFS at
the September 2010 Council meeting articulates a rebuilding policy that
prioritizes the economic goal of long-term cumulative yield over
conservation, a view that is inconsistent with the MSA.
Response: The rebuilding plans implemented by this final rule are
designed to rebuild overfished or depleted species as quickly as
possible while taking into account the statutory factors of the MSA.
Although NMFS considered all relevant factors, NMFS did not rely upon
the white paper or any other rebuilding paradigm that prioritizes the
economic goal of long-term cumulative yields over conservation as a
basis for its final decision.
Comment 18: The rebuilding plan for petrale sole is inconsistent
with the MSA. The 2011-2012 specifications allow for catch levels that
exceed the 25-5 control rule and do not result in the quickest
rebuilding time for this species.
Response: NMFS disagrees with commenters' assertion that the
rebuilding plan for petrale sole is inconsistent with the MSA. All of
the alternatives considered in the FEIS rebuild the stock within 10
years, as required by the MSA when the stock is biologically capable of
doing so. The rebuilding plan adopted in this final rule is estimated
to rebuild the stock by 2016, which is only 2 years longer than the
estimated minimum time to rebuild (which in this case is equal to
TF=0). The Council's rebuilding strategy is to set the ACL
equal to the ABC in 2011 and apply the 25-5 harvest control rule
starting in 2012. This rebuilding strategy results in a rebuilding time
period that is as short as possible while taking into consideration the
important role of petrale sole in the groundfish fishery and the
relatively high productivity of the stock.
Petrale sole is one of the primary target stocks in the non-whiting
trawl fishery and is predominantly caught by that sector. No other
sector currently targets petrale sole, although other sectors do
incidentally catch petrale sole in relatively small amounts. For this
reason, the Council chose to rebuild the petrale sole stock by
constraining fishing opportunities for the non-whiting trawl sector.
Specifications in this final rule rebuild the stock in as short a time
as possible.
Comment 19: The harvest specifications for POP and widow rockfish
appear inconsistent with the MSA mandate to rebuild overfished species
in as short of a time as possible. NMFS chose to maintain the status
quo harvest rate and catch limits for POP despite POP rebuilding being
behind schedule according to the 2009 stock assessment. In addition,
although widow rockfish appears close to being rebuilt, previous
assessments predicted the stock would be rebuilt by 2009, indicating
the stock is also behind schedule. Nonetheless, the proposed SPR
harvest rate for widow rockfish is substantially increased.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters. The
TTARGET for widow is 2010; the commenters incorrectly state
that the species was to be rebuilt in
[[Page 27520]]
2009. Because of the delay in final catch impacts data, which will
enable NMFS to declare the stock not overfished, the change in widow
rockfish to a healthy stock can not officially occur until a later
date. This ensures that NMFS uses the best available science in making
its final determination that a stock is no longer overfished. This
final rule implements an ACL of 600 mt, which is a modest increase from
the No Action OY of 509 but is unlikely to result in targeting of the
stock.
For POP, the ACL alternatives analyzed in the FEIS were based on
the new stock assessment. Our current understanding of POP stock status
and productivity shows that TF=0 is longer than the current
TTARGET. Therefore, all the ACL alternatives analyzed in the
FEIS contemplate a change in the median time to rebuild that is greater
than the current TTARGET. Because the current harvest policy
will not rebuild the species by TTARGET even in the absence
of fishing, the rebuilding plan is modified through this final rule.
The SSC did recommend modifying the rebuilding plan out of the
necessity to extend the current TTARGET based on our changed
understanding of stock status and productivity. For the FPA, the
Council proposed changing TTARGET from 2017 to 2020 while
maintaining the F86.4 percent SPR harvest rate. Although the same SPR
harvest rate is being maintained for POP, the new TTARGET of
2020 is only two years longer than TF=0. In addition,
maintaining the same SPR harvest rate results in an ACL for 2011 that
is lower than the former 2010 OY because applying the same SPR harvest
rate responds to changes in our understanding of the status of the
stock. The Council also recommended specifying an ACT of 157 mt for POP
in 2011 and 2012 under the FPA to further reduce fishing-related
mortality. This revised rebuilding time is based on the best available
science and rebuilds the stock in as short a time as possible. This
rule implements an ACL and an ACT for POP. The ACT is discussed in
detail in Comment 5 above.
Comment 20: The leeway NMFS has to extend TTARGET beyond
TMIN is limited to the amount of fish necessary to prevent
severe short-term hardship to fishing communities. Therefore, any
TTARGET longer than TMIN must be specifically
demonstrated as necessary to prevent this hardship. The rebuilding
plans continue to place undue reliance on TMAX. The Ninth
Circuit decision in NRDC v. NMFS makes it clear that rebuilding plans
can no longer be based on TMAX but instead must be oriented
around TMIN in order to comply with the mandate to rebuild
as quickly as possible.
Response: NMFS notes that the MSA requires that overfished stocks
be rebuilt as quickly as possible, taking into account the status and
biology of the overfished stock, the needs of fishing communities and
the interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine
ecosystem. NMFS believes that TMIN is the starting point,
and that it is important to assess the impacts on fishing communities
of TMIN (or TF=0), and alternative levels above
that amount in order to determine the appropriate rebuilding time
period. The FMP, as amended by Amendment 16-4, is clear that the time
to rebuild may be adjusted upward from TMIN (the minimum
time in which an overfished stock can rebuild to its target biomass)
under certain circumstances, and as such, TMIN is the
starting point for considering appropriate time periods for rebuilding.
See FMP section 4.5.2. Procedures for Calculating Rebuilding
Parameters. TTARGET is established based on the factors
specified in MSA section 304(e)(4) with TMIN and
TMAX serving as a starting point and reference point,
respectively. The use of TMAX as one rebuilding reference
point is consistent with the NS1 Guidelines. However, the rebuilding
plans implemented by the final rule are not ``based on''
TMAX.
Bycatch Accounting, CCAs, Processing at Sea, EFP and Other Comments
Comment 21: The PFMC requested the yellowtail rockfish set aside
for exempted fishing permit (EFP) activities be 10 mt for 2011, rather
than the proposed 2 mt. This is because the EFP was approved in 2010,
but all of the catch of yellowtail rockfish would occur in 2011.
Response: NMFS has made the appropriate changes to the EFP set
aside amounts and addresses this issue in the Changes from the proposed
rule section of this rule.
Comment 22: Bycatch accounting methods are insufficient to meet the
MSA mandate to prevent overfishing, and 2011-2012 specifications and
management measures do not include new measures to make bycatch
accounting more timely and more accurate.
Response: The commenter does not specify additional management
measures that might make bycatch accounting methods more timely and
accurate, therefore it is difficult to respond to this comment. In the
trawl fishery, new management measures being implemented as part of the
trawl catch shares program are expected to improve bycatch accounting
and include increased observation and monitoring as follows: One
observer on every IFQ vessel and mothership catcher vessel; two
observers on every at-sea processing vessel 125 ft and over; one
observer on at-sea processing vessels under 125 ft; catch monitors at
all IFQ first receivers; full catch accounting of retained and
discarded catch; and real-time catch reporting through observer reports
and electronic fish tickets. Together these monitoring measures are
expected to result in significant improvements to the timeliness and
accuracy of catch accounting in the trawl fisheries.
IFQs are expected to constrain the total catch mortality to a level
within the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and real time
reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce management
uncertainty relative to inseason catch accounting in the trawl fishery.
Under an IFQ program there is a greater likelihood that the trawl
fishery will stay within the trawl allocations. Given the full catch
accounting under trawl IFQ program and that all catch, discarded and
retained counts towards the individuals' IFQ shares, the risk of the
fishery exceeding an ACL is further reduced compared to 2010 and prior
years. Management of the bottom trawl fishery under the IFQ program is
expected to reduce bycatch. This is because the pace of the fishery
under IFQ is expected to slow such that fishers have time to use
innovative techniques to avoid non-target species or reduce bycatch by
increasing the utilization of non-target species.
Bycatch accounting in the non-trawl fisheries has significantly
improved since implementation of the West Coast Groundfish Observer
Program (WCGOP) in 2003. Total catch is modeled using the best
available WGCOP data (see model descriptions in Appendix A of the
FEIS). Unlike the trawl fisheries where every vessel in the fleet will
be monitored in 2011 and 2012, vessels in the non-trawl fisheries are
sub-sampled meaning that observers collect data from a portion of the
vessels in the various non-trawl fisheries. The data collected by
observers, in combination with data from state landing receipts (fish
tickets), is used together to estimate bycatch. Although the
availability of data to inform the understanding of discards in the
non-trawl fisheries has significantly improved since 2003; neither the
WCGOP observer data on catch discarded at sea nor the landed catch data
reported on fish ticket data submitted to the states are available in
realtime. The WCGOP for the non-trawl fisheries is a developing program
that is
[[Page 27521]]
continually being refined. Even as a developing program, NMFS believes
that the bycatch accounting methods meet the MSA requirements.
Comment 23: NMFS received 13 letters from private citizens and
fishing associations in support of provisions for allowing fishing
within the CCA out to 30 fm and allowing the retention of shelf
rockfish within the CCA. Many of the comments indicated that the
analysis submitted by CDFG represented the best available science and
indicates that when the CCAs were first established more area was
closed than is necessary, as evidenced by the California commercial
passenger fishing vessels (CPFV or California recreational charter)
data showing one cowcod caught in 20-30 fm in the last 10 years. CDFG
also supported these changes in its comment letter.
Response: Because cowcod are significantly depleted and the stock's
productivity is extremely low, an extremely low incidental harvest rate
is necessary to achieve rebuilding progress. Tenets of the cowcod
rebuilding plan are to prohibit harvest in all fisheries and to close
the primary habitats where cowcod are known to occur. Closure of the
CCAs in the southern California Bight in 2001 effectively reduced
harvest to very low levels; a strategy anticipated to work well for
reducing adult cowcod mortality given their sedentary nature. Using the
CCA closures to reduce fishing pressure in significant portions of
known cowcod habitat addresses management uncertainty by reducing the
likelihood that a management mistake would compromise rebuilding, even
under data-poor management conditions. The FMP states that as new
information become available on cowcod behavior and fisheries
interactions with cowcod, the boundaries or related regulations
concerning the current CCAs may change, and additional CCAs may be
established by regulation. Recent submersible surveys have provided
some information on cowcod distribution and indicate that juvenile
cowcod occur over a wide range of habitat types, at depths between 28
and 180 fathoms and typically avoid soft sediment substrate, favoring
hard substrate such as cobble and boulder fields or rock ridges (Love
and Yoklavich, 2008). However, Love and Yaklovich (2008) also indicated
that characterizing nursery habitat is important when evaluating
survival and recruitment strength of juvenile cowcod and the subsequent
persistence of local cowcod populations and that careful delineation of
essential nursery habitats for young cowcod is especially critical when
considering effective management strategies. There is little data
currently available to understand fishery interactions and the
distribution of cowcod as the stock rebuilds.
While the CDFG analysis indicated that modifying the depth
restriction in the CCA is not projected to result in increased catch of
adult cowcod, changes in the encounters of juvenile cowcod are unknown
(recreational data does not currently report maturity status). The main
conservation considerations pertain to how the proposed changes to
depth restrictions will change fishing effort distribution such that
changes in effort would result in increased encounters with cowcod
(adult and juvenile) such that there is a risk of exceeding the ACL, or
rebuilding being delayed (i.e., reproductive potential affected by
disturbing or losing nursery habitat). The CDFG analysis indicated that
an increase in the depth restriction from 20 fm to 30 fm or 40 fm may
not result in a significant increase in bycatch of adult (greater than
45 cm) cowcod in recreational fishery or appreciably increase the risk
of the ACL being exceeded. However, NMFS believes that the uncertainty
with the cowcod stock assessment and the general lack of information on
fishery interactions warrant precaution. Because limited data are
available and given the potential disturbance and loss of nursery areas
that could have long-lasting effects on rebuilding, NMFS believes that
new information on cowcod behavior and fishery interaction must be
analyzed and considered in cooperation with the NMFS scientists and SSC
prior to making changes in the existing CCAs. In addition, NMFS
believes that the risks to the stock and further management measures to
improve catch accounting relative to changes in the CCAs must be
considered. This final rule does not include changes to the No Action
CCA boundaries or retention allowances.
Comment 24: NMFS received a comment from a member of the public who
participates in the limited entry trawl fishery requesting that the
current regulations prohibiting processing at sea be changed to allow
the commenter an exemption. This exemption was supported by ODFW in one
of its comment letters on this action.
Response: NMFS understands the considerable expense of modifying a
fishing vessel to process at sea, however, this issue was not
considered within the EIS for the 2011-2012 management measures.
Because modification of the regulations could result in changes in
fishing practices, it is not appropriate to modify the regulations
without an analysis that specifically considers the effects of allowing
the expansion of processing at sea. Further, regulations prohibiting
processing at sea were approved by the Council during its development
of the Trawl Rationalization program. NMFS suggests that the commenter
consider submitting a request for consideration by the Council for the
2013-2014 biennial management cycle.
Comment 26: There were several inaccuracies in the preamble of the
proposed rule noted by CDFG and ODFW in their comment letters. They
pertained to sector allocations in the preamble.
Response: NMFS has corrected these errors for the final rule.
Comment 27: NMFS received letters that did not contain statements
that require a response but instead contained information that provided
NMFS with more background information regarding the impacts of the
alternatives considered.
Response: NMFS considered all the relevant information and comments
received during the comment period and took that information into
account when making its final decision.
Comment 28: NMFS should conduct stock assessments and set stock-
specific catch limits for china, quillback and rougheye rockfish, which
appear to be subject to overfishing according to recent analyses.
Response: The selection of species for stock assessment purposes is
conducted through the Council's planning of the 2013-2014 Harvest
Specifications. This process will begin at the September 2011 Council
meeting. Comments regarding species that should have stock assessments
are most appropriately submitted at that time.
Comment 29: NMFS received one comment from WDFW in support of NMFS
decision not to remove dusky and dwarf red rockfish from the FMP at
this time.
Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter and has disapproved the
portion of Amendment 23 that would have removed dusky and dwarf red
rockfish from the FMP.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
The November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67850) proposed rule contained
incorrect amendatory instructions for the proposed changes to the
harvest specification tables. The biennial harvest specifications,
including OFLs, ACLs, HGs, allocations etc. are published in 50 CFR
part 660, subpart C in tables 1a through 2d. Instruction 14a contained
amendatory instructions
[[Page 27522]]
that described the proposed changes, incorrectly, as ``Tables 1a
through 1c, subpart C, are proposed to be revised * * *.'' The
instruction was incorrect and incomplete. This final rule includes all
eight of the harvest specification tables, including: Table 1a, Table
1b, Table 1c, Table 1d, Table 2a, Table 2b, Table 2c and Table 2d to
subpart C. The tables that are revised in this final rule are unchanged
from the tables that published in the proposed rule, unless otherwise
noted in the Changes from the Proposed Rule section. This final rule
also adds Table 1.e., to subpart C, as depicted in the proposed rule.
In Sec. 660.131 NMFS proposed to revise the term ``end'' and
replace it with the term ``closed'' as a housekeeping measure. The
proposed rule contained a mistake in the amendatory language, and
listed the paragraphs to be revised as Sec. 660.131(b)(4)(ii). The
paragraph that was intended to be amended is actually Sec.
660.131(b)(3)(ii). This final rule corrects that mistake in the
amendatory language and makes the changes that were proposed, but in
the correct paragraph.
CDFG informed NMFS that there was a mistake in a Council motion and
the new boundary line that approximates the 40 fm depth contour inside
the CCAs (around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank,
and Cortes Bank) should not have been recommended to NMFS for
implementation. CDFG requested that the latitude and longitude
coordinates that were part of the proposed changes at Sec. 660.71
paragraphs (s) through (v) be removed from the final rule, as they were
not intended to be used for management of groundfish fisheries that
occur within the CCA. Therefore, NMFS has removed the proposed
additions at Sec. 660.71 paragraphs (s) through (v), so that boundary
lines approximating the 40 fm depth contour around Santa Barbara
Island, San Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank will not be
defined in regulations at this time.
The November 3, 2010 proposed rule included changes for consistency
with the new annual catch limit (ACL) framework that was added to the
PCGFMP under Amendment 23. In Sec. 660.140, two paragraphs were
proposed to be revised to either replace or augment the term ``OY''
with the new terminology that has been added to the PCGFMP and in other
sections of the groundfish regulations. The paragraphs at Sec. 660.140
were revised in a December 15, 2010 final rule (75 FR 78344) that
implemented the final program components for the IFQ fishery. This
final rule modifies the revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1), as they
appear in the codified regulations, by adding language that is
consistent with what was in the proposed rule to reflect the new ACL
and ACT terminology.
The proposed rule included a 499 mt set-aside deduction from the
proposed 2011 yellowtail rockfish ACL of 4,364 mt. This resulted in a
proposed harvest guideline of 3,865 mt for 2011. The Council sent a
letter to NMFS on December 1, 2010 recommending that NMFS increase the
set-aside for EFP catch from 2 mt to 10 mt to allow the Oregon
Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) to prosecute their EFP in 2011. The
Oregon RFA will be fishing under an EFP to catch underutilized
yellowtail rockfish while keeping bycatch of overfished species low. A
2 mt set aside for EFPs in 2011 was initially recommended when the
Oregon RFA project was anticipated to be concluded before the start of
2011. However, issuance of the EFP by NMFS later in 2010 than was
anticipated resulted in a continuation in EFP activities into 2011.
Therefore, NMFS is increasing the set-aside for yellowtail rockfish
from 499 mt to 507 mt to allow the Oregon RFA EFP for yellowtail
rockfish to be prosecuted in 2011. The slightly lower 2011 fishery
harvest guideline of 3,857 mt for yellowtail rockfish is shown in Table
1.a and Table 1.b, to subpart C.
This final rule also refines the fishery harvest guidelines that
are shown in Table 1a and Table 1b, subpart C, for POP and petrale
sole. The calculation and deductions from the ACL are unchanged, but
the fishery harvest guideline is modified to show one decimal place. As
a result, the fishery harvest guideline in these tables for petrale
sole is 910.6 mt instead of 911 mt, and the fishery harvest guideline
for POP is 144.2 mt instead of 144 mt.
Footnote ``n/'' to Table 1a, subpart C was corrected so that the
coastwide OFL of 1,802 mt for starry flounder was correctly referenced
to be for the year 2011 and not for 2010. Changes to footnote ``o/'' to
Table 1a, subpart C and footnote ``o/'' to Table 2a, subpart C were
added to clarify that all species within the ``other flatfish'' complex
are all category 3 stocks and that the 2011 ACL and 2012 ACL are both
equivalent to the 2010 OY for that species complex. Clarifying text is
added to footnote ``hh/'' of Table 1a, subpart C to state that the 2011
ACL is equivalent to the 2010 OY for longnose skate. Edits are also
made to footnote ``ii/'' of Table 1a, subpart C and to footnote ``ii/''
of Table 2a, subpart C, to clarify that the ABC for the ``other fish''
complex is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40)
because all of the stocks in the complex are category 3 species.
Clarifying text is also added to footnote ``ii/'' of Table 1a, subpart
C and to footnote ``ii/'' of Table 2a, subpart C, to state that 2011
ACL and 2012 ACL are both equivalent to the 2010 OY for the ``other
fish'' complex, and that the fishery HG is equal to the ACL. Clarifying
language is added in footnotes ``b/'' through ``e/'' to Table 1b,
subpart C, such that the descriptions of the allocations to the three
sectors of the whiting fisheries are clearly articulated and contain
cross-references to pertinent shorebased IFQ fishery regulations at
Sec. 660.140, subpart D.
Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C, are corrected to specify that
there is a formal allocation of Pacific whiting to the at-sea whiting
fishery. References are added to Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C, to
the pertinent regulations in Table 1b, subpart C and Table 2b, subpart
C, respectively.
This rule publishes boundaries for the non-trawl commercial
fisheries as well as cumulative limits for the limited entry fixed gear
and opens access fisheries. Table 2 (North) and 2 (South), to subpart E
and Table 3 (North) and 3 (South), to subpart F in this final rule are
identical to those tables that published in the proposed rule, except
for the trip limits for sablefish. Since the trip limits for sablefish
that were published in the proposed rule were developed, the most
recent fishery information indicates that changes to sablefish trip
limits are warranted. On March 1, 2011, NMFS reduced sablefish trip
limits in the open access fishery coastwide and increased or
restructured trip limits for sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear
fishery coastwide, through the remainder of the year. This action was
consistent with the Council's recommendations from its November 2010
meeting, and was based on the most recently available fishery
information. At its March 2011 meeting, the Council considered the most
recent fishery information and recommended a reduction in the bi-
monthly cumulative limits for sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear
fishery in the area north of 36[deg] N. latitude. The recommended
reduction was in response to an error in the calculation of sablefish
landings discovered over the winter. The error affected the landings
estimates that the Council has been using for establishing the
cumulative limits in the limited entry sablefish daily trip limit
fishery. This resulted in cumulative limits in this fishery that were
too high, because catch of sablefish was being underestimated.
Therefore, NMFS is reducing the bi-monthly cumulative limits for
sablefish in the limited entry
[[Page 27523]]
fixed gear fishery in the area north of 36[deg] N. latitude. in this
rule.
There are many instances throughout 50 CFR part 660, subparts C
through G where the tables in the regulations at 50 CFR part 660,
subpart C that contain the biennial harvest specifications are referred
to as ``tables 1a through 2d''. Generally, Tables 1a through 1d,
subpart C, would contain harvest specifications for the first year of
the biennium. In this case, those tables would contain the 2011 harvest
specifications. Generally, Table 2a through 2d, subpart C, would
contain the harvest specifications for the second year of the biennium
and beyond. In this case those tables would contain the 2012 and beyond
harvest specifications. Two of the harvest specification tables that
published in the proposed rule collapsed each year's harvest
specifications into a single table. By doing this, it left no content
for the 2012 tables, at Table 2c and 2d, to subpart C. This created an
inconsistency with the cross-references that are systemic throughout
the groundfish regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G. To
maintain the integrity of the cross-references, and to maintain the
split of annual harvest specifications into two sets of tables (one set
for the first year of the biennium, and one set for the second year of
the biennium, and beyond) this final rule removes the 2012 harvest
specifications from Table 1c and Table 1d, subpart C, and re-publishes
those 2012 harvest specifications, unchanged, in Tables 2c and 2d,
subpart C.
As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, this final rule
does not implement a single value for harvest specifications for
Pacific whiting, but describes a range of harvest levels that were
considered for 2011 and 2012. In Tables 1a and 1b, and Tables 2a and
2b, subpart C, the proposed rule announced Pacific whiting harvest
specifications as ``TBA'' or ``to be announced''. To clarify that the
range of harvest specifications is what are implemented in this final
rule, ``TBA'' has been removed from these tables and has been replaced
with a reference to the range of harvest specifications.
In the preamble of the proposed rule, NMFS described how two
options for the trawl RCA and trawl trip limits were proposed. One
option was proposed in the event that rationalization was delayed and
the fishery was managed with trip limits (proposed Table 1a (North) and
Table 1a (South) to subpart D). The other option was proposed for the
rationalized fishery (proposed Table 1b (North) and Table 1b (South) to
subpart D). Due to the delay in final implementation of the biennial
specifications and management measures, the tables that included the
RCA boundaries and trip limits during 2010 would remain in place until
superseded. So, on December 30, 2010 Table 1b (North) and Table 1b
(South) to subpart D from the proposed rule were redesignated as Table
1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart D and were implemented in an
emergency rule. NMFS implemented these tables (Table 1b (North) and
Table 1b (South) to subpart D from the proposed rule) so that fishing
in the rationalized groundfish fishery could begin in January 2011
under appropriate RCA structures and with appropriate landing
allowances for non-IFQ species that are set forth in those tables. This
final rule supersedes the tables set forth in that December 30, 2010
emergency rule with very similar tables, which will be in effect for
2011 and beyond (see Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart D).
This rule publishes Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart
D, which has identical trawl RCA boundaries and landing allowances for
non-IFQ species as Table 1b (North) and Table 1b (South) to subpart D
that published in the proposed rule. However, a grammatical correction
is made to the introductory text of each table to clarify that these
tables describe the RCA boundaries that apply to vessels that are using
groundfish trawl gear. A further clarification is also made to both
tables by adding language to the introductory text to cite regulations
regarding gear switching and which RCA applies to vessels operating
under gear switching provisions at Sec. 660.140, subpart D. Technical
corrections to the numbering of footnotes to these tables are also
made.
Related to the redesignation of Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South)
to subpart D, regulatory text at Sec. 660.60(g) and (h)(1) do not need
to be revised as proposed. This is because the current regulatory text
correctly references Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart D.
This rule keeps those tables with their current designations, and
therefore the proposed changes to cross-references at Sec. 660.60(g)
and (h)(1) are no longer necessary.
The Tribal sablefish allocations for the area north of 36[deg] N.
latitude. that were proposed for 2011 and 2012 were 552 mt and 535 mt
per year, respectively (Sec. 660.50(f)(2)(ii)). These were calculated
by taking 10 percent of the ACL, for 2011 and 2012, respectively, for
the area North of 36[deg] N. latitude. and then reducing that amount by
1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality. The December 30, 2010
emergency rule (75 FR 82296) implemented an interim sablefish Tribal
allocation of 543 mt. That amount was calculated by taking 10 percent
of the 2011 ACL for the area North of 36[deg] N. latitude. and then
reducing that amount by 1.6 percent for estimated discard mortality.
The 1.6 percent was the amount deducted for discard mortality in
regulations for 2010, and therefore that is what was used in the
emergency rule. This final rule implements the Tribal allocations that
were announced in the November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67850) proposed rule, and
were calculated using the proposed 1.5 percent deduction for discard
mortality. This final rule also makes a grammatical correction by
adding the acronym ``ACL'' in the description that was in the proposed
rule. This grammatical correction is needed so that the allocation is
correctly described as 10 percent of the Monterey through Vancouver
area ACL.
The proposed changes to Sec. 660.140(c)(1) removed the term
``OYs'' and replaced it with ``ACLs or ACTs'' and made additional
clarifying changes to surrounding text. The proposed clarifications to
surrounding text were confusing. Therefore, the final rule simply
removes the term ``OYs'' and replaces it with ``ACLs or ACTs'' with no
further changes to the existing regulatory text at Sec. 660.140(c)(1).
The December 30, 2010 emergency rule (75 FR 82296) implemented
interim changes to Sec. Sec. 660.60 and 660.130 to remove obsolete
language about trip limits in the trawl fishery because that emergency
rule removed trip limits for IFQ species. This final rule makes the
removal of trip limits for IFQ species permanent, consistent with the
proposed rule (see above regarding Table 1 (North) and Table 1
(South)). This final rule makes additional regulatory changes to what
was in the proposed rule, which are a natural extension of the removal
of trip limits in the proposed rule. This final rule keeps the obsolete
language out of the regulations at Sec. Sec. 660.60 and 660.130,
consistent with the emergency rule. NMFS acknowledges that some
obsolete language regarding trip limits, crossover provisions, and
varying trip limits based on the gear type that is used will remain in
regulations. NMFS intends to issue a follow-up rulemaking that will
remove or revise outdated language.
The December 30, 2010 emergency rule (75 FR 82296) implemented
interim shorebased trawl allocations for the start of the 2011 trawl
fishery at Sec. 660.140. The interim allocations allowed quota pounds
for IFQ species to be available at the start of the 2011 fishery, but
[[Page 27524]]
before the final 2011 harvest specifications were implemented. This
final rule adds new regulations, from what was in the proposed rule.
The new regulations implement the allocation structure that is
articulated in Sec. 660.55 and are, therefore, a natural extension of
the trawl allocations that published in the proposed rule. This final
rule updates the initial shorebased trawl allocations that published in
the emergency rule, with the final 2011 shorebased trawl allocations.
The final shorebased trawl allocations are increasing for the following
species: sablefish south of 36[deg] N. latitude.; splitnose rockfish
south of 40[deg]10' N. latitude.; Dover sole; english sole; arrowtooth
flounder; starry flounder; petrale sole; cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N.
latitude.; yelloweye rockfish; POP and widow rockfish. Specifically,
the yelloweye rockfish shorebased trawl allocation is increasing from
0.3 mt to 0.6 mt consistent with the Council's recommendations
associated with a 17 mt harvest level, and the cowcod shorebased trawl
allocation is increasing from 1.3 mt to 1.8 mt consistent with the
Council's recommendations regarding the trawl and non-trawl allocations
for cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N. latitude.
This final rule publishes 2011 harvest specifications for
overfished groundfish species in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c and 1e that are
identical to the proposed harvest specifications for all of the
groundfish species except cowcod and yelloweye rockfish. Therefore, the
cowcod and yelloweye rockfish ACLs in Table 1a to subpart C are lower
in this final rule than those from the proposed rule. Footnotes z/for
cowcod and bb/for yelloweye rockfish to Table 1a and have also been
modified for consistency with the changes in Table 1a. Also, the cowcod
fishery HG in Table 1b has been modified for consistency with the
changes in Table 1a.
NMFS is implementing changes to the overfished species rebuilding
plans. However, final 2012 ACLs, ACTs, and fishery HGs in for the
overfished species will be contingent upon potential changes to the FMP
with regard to the rebuilding plans for the overfished species.
Therefore, the proposed 2012 harvest specifications for overfished
species are not implemented in this final rule. ACLs, ACTs and fishery
HGs for overfished species, in Table 2a and Table 2b, subpart C, are
equal to the 2011 values.
NMFS is implementing changes to the status determination criteria
and harvest control rules for flatfish. However, final 2012 OFLs, ABCs,
ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs, for flatfish species will be contingent
upon potential changes to the FMP with regard to status determination
criteria and harvest control rules for flatfish. Therefore, the
proposed 2012 harvest specifications for flatfish are not implemented
in this final rule. Assessed flatfish, OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and
fishery HGs, in Table 2a and Table 2b, subpart C, are equal to the 2011
values.
NMFS is disapproving the Council-recommended changes to depth
restrictions and groundfish retention regulations for vessels fishing
within the CCAs. Therefore, this final rule does not implement the
proposed changes to recreational fishing restrictions that modified the
depth restrictions within the CCAs or that allowed retention of shelf
rockfish within the fishing areas that are open in the CCAs.
Regulations at Sec. 660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)(5) and (c)(3)(i)(B) keep the
depth restrictions and species retention regulations within the CCAs
for the California recreational fishery the same as those that were in
place in 2009 and 2010: Fishing for minor nearshore rockfish, cabezon,
kelp greenling, lingcod, California scorpionfish and ``other flatfish''
is permitted within the CCAs, shoreward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth
contour when the season for those species is open south of 34[deg]27'
N. latitude. Also, as part of NMFS' disapproval of changes to the depth
restrictions for vessels fishing within the CCAs, the latitude and
longitude points that were proposed to define the 30 fm depth contour
inside the CCAs (around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island,
Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank) are not included in this final rule.
Therefore, NMFS has removed the proposed additions at Sec. 660.71,
paragraphs (k) through (n), so that boundary lines approximating the 30
fm depth contour around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island,
Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank will not be defined in regulations at this
time.
NMFS is disapproving the Council's recommendation to remove dusky
rockfish (Sebastes ciliatus) and dwarf-red rockfish (Sebastes rufianus)
from the FMP as discussed above in the response to Comment 29. As a
result of this disapproval, this final rule does not implement the
proposed changes to the definition of ``Groundfish'' in paragraphs (7),
(7)(ii)(A) and (7)(ii)(B) to Sec. 660.11, subpart C.
Classification
The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, determined that FMP
Amendment 23 and the 2011 groundfish harvest specifications and
management measures, which this final rule implements, are necessary
for the conservation and management of the pacific coast groundfish
fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
As described in the preamble to the December 30, 2010 emergency
rule and as discussed above in Background, there was not adequate time,
given the complexity of the rulemaking and associated documentation and
other work, to have this final rule effective by January 1, 2011.
Therefore, most of the 2010 specifications and management measures
remained in place for the January-April cumulative limit periods,
except that an emergency rule made interim changes to allow the start
of the rationalized trawl fishery and routine adjustments to fishery
management measures, within the scope of the 2009-2010 regulations,
were made. At the time NMFS anticipated that this final rule would
implement the 2011-2012 biennial specifications and management measures
beginning on April 29, 2011. NMFS is under court order to establish
rebuilding plans by April 29, 2011 for the overfished species. The
2011-2012 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures are
intended to rebuild overfished stocks as quickly as possible, taking
into account the appropriate factors. NMFS utilizes the most recently
available fishery information, scientific information, and stock
assessments, to implement specifications and management measures
biennially. Generally these management measures are implemented on
January 1 of odd numbered years. The 2011-2012 specifications and
management measures were developed using the most recently available
information and therefore reflect the current status of the stock being
managed.
NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become
effective on May 11, 2011. Leaving the 2010 harvest specifications and
management measures in place could cause harm to some stocks because
those management measures are not based on the most current scientific
information, or they could cause drastic management changes later in
the year to prevent exceeding some lower 2011 harvest specifications
once they are implemented. For example, the cowcod rockfish ACL is
lower in 2011 than it was in 2010 and is taken in commercial and
recreational fisheries north of Cape Mendocino, California. Therefore,
if higher than anticipated catch of cowcod occurs, changes to
management
[[Page 27525]]
measures that could reduce incidental catch of cowcod could be delayed
because of the higher harvest level that is in place. This could
increase the risk of exceeding the lower 2011 ACL or causing more
severe closures later in the year for fisheries that take cowcod
incidentally. Also, for some species, leaving 2010 harvest
specifications in place could unnecessarily delay fishing opportunities
until later in the year, as this final rule will increase the catch
limits for several species for 2011. Thus, a delay in effectiveness
could ultimately cause economic harm to the fishing industry and
associated fishing communities. These reasons constitute good cause
under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to establish an
effective date less than 30 days after date of publication.
NMFS prepared a final environmental impact statement for Amendments
16-5 and 23 and the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management
measures. A notice of availability was published on March 11, 2011 (76
FR 13401). FMP amendment 23 was approved on December 23, 2010. NMFS
issued a ROD identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the ROD is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The
FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised
by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to
those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a
summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), follows:
Amendment 23 and the biennial harvest specifications and management
measures are intended to respond to court orders in NRDC v. Locke and
to implement a groundfish management scheme for the 2011-2012
groundfish fisheries. During the comment period on the proposed rule,
NMFS received 35 letters of comment, but none of the comments received
addressed the IRFA, although one letter directly or indirectly
addressed the economic effects of the rule, as discussed above in the
response to Comment 10, Comment 12 Comment 15 and Comment 17. The FRFA
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 FEIS, the following summary is based on
the Council's RIR/IRFA with the focus on the NMFS preferred alternative
that will be implemented by this action. In terms of expected harvests,
ex-vessel values, and recreational trips, there are no differences
between the Council's FPA and the NMFS preferred alternative, relative
to the IRFA/FRFA.
The overall economic impact of NMFS' 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. The combined total ex-vessel revenues associated with the
NMFS preferred alternative including at sea whiting is $90 million,
compared with the No-Action level of $82 million. On a coastwide basis,
excluding at-sea whiting, commercial ex-vessel revenues for the non-
Tribal and Tribal groundfish sectors are estimated to be approximately
$70 million per year under NMFS' preferred alternative compared with
approximately $68 million under No Action, and the number of
recreational bottom fish trips is estimated to be 646 thousand under
NMFS' preferred alternative compared with 609 thousand under No Action.
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. The major changes to major
commercial species target species are associated with Pacific whiting,
Dover Sole, petrale sole and sablefish. Compared to the No-Action
Alternative, Pacific whiting harvests are expected to increase by 50
percent and Dover sole by 25 percent while sablefish harvests are
expected to decrease by 10 percent and petrale sole harvests by 23
percent. With the exception of the Pacific whiting and nearshore open
access sectors, all other non-Tribal commercial fisheries sectors are
expected to achieve lower levels of ex-vessel revenues than under No
Action. The limited entry fixed gear sector shows the greatest
projected decline (-10 percent) in revenue as a result of the sablefish
ACL decrease. The Pacific whiting fishery at-sea sector (including
Tribal) revenues are expected to increase by 51 percent and the
shoreside whiting trawl (excluding Tribal) revenues are expected to
increase by 33 percent. Ex-vessel revenues in both the non-whiting
trawl (excluding Tribal) and the Tribal shoreside fisheries (trawl and
fixed, including whiting) are both expected to decrease by about 2
percent.
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 addition 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 NMFS 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 NMFS 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 fixed gear sablefish sector will generate lower revenue under
NMFS' 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 NMFS' preferred alternative, the nearshore groundfish fishery
is
[[Page 27526]]
expected to have a moderate increase in ex-vessel revenues compared
with No Action due to increased targeting opportunities for black
rockfish (between 42[deg] north latitude and 40[deg]10' north latitude)
and cabezon south (south of 42[deg] 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.
Excluding whiting, the NMFS 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--a 3 percent
decrease. However, effects on buyers and processors along the coast
will vary depending on location. In addition, NMFS' 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 NMFS preferred alternative is slightly higher compared to No
Action, but somewhat less than in 2009. However, an increase in angler
effort under NMFS 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 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 ex-vessel 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 FRFA analysis includes a discussion of small businesses. This
final 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 FRFA estimates that implementation of NMFS preferred alternative
will affect about 2,600 small entities. These small entities are those
that are directly regulated by this final rule that is being
promulgated to support implementation of NMFS 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'' (e.g.
more than one permit registered to a single vessel) 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.''
NMFS preferred alternative represents 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'' NMFS was also simultaneously taking into account
the
[[Page 27527]]
``needs of small businesses'' as fishing communities rely on small
businesses as a source of economic activity and income. Therefore, it
may be useful to review whether the Council's three-meeting process for
selecting the FPA can be seen as means of trying to mitigate impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities. The FEIS 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 final action includes a new
rebuilding plan for this species along with the 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 2.4 of the FEIS describes six integrated alternatives including
No Action, the Council's FPA, the NMFS preferred alternative, and three
other alternatives (including the Council's Preliminary Preferred
Alternative, which is similar to the Council's FPA). NMFS finds that
the F=0 and Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2, while resulting in shorter
rebuilding times for most of the overfished species, lead to projected
major decreases in commercial revenues and recreational activity.
Allowing too many communities to suffer commercial or recreational
losses greater than 10 percent fails to take into account the needs of
fishing communities. Alternative 3, the Council FPA, and NMFS preferred
alternative all reduce the impacts to communities to less than 10
percent, but they differ in their impacts on rebuilding times.
Alternative 3 reduces rebuilding times from status quo for many of the
overfished species, but does not reduce the rebuilding time for
yelloweye rockfish, and results in only minor reductions for cowcod and
darkblotched and rockfish. The Council's FPA improves upon Alternative
3 by reducing the rebuilding time for darkblotched rockfish by two
years while maintaining Alternative 3's small positive increases in
commercial revenues and recreational activity. The NMFS preferred
alternative improves over the Council FPA by further reducing the
rebuilding times of cowcod and yelloweye by three years and ten years,
respectively. Comparison of the action alternatives with the No Action
alternative 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 NMFS adopted and has 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 ACLs for overfished species both to demonstrate if 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 Council's FPA 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 reviewed these
analyses, read and heard testimony from Council advisors, fishing
industry representatives, representatives from non-governmental
organizations, the general public, and considered legal obligations to
comply with a court order (NRDC v. Locke) before deciding NMFS'
preferred alternative in February 2011. The NMFS preferred management
measures are intended to stay within all the final recommended harvest
levels for groundfish species that were part of the NMFS preferred
alternative.
There are no additional projected reporting, record-keeping, and
other compliance requirements of this rule not already envisioned
within the scope of current requirements. References to collections-of-
information made in this action are intended to properly cite those
collections in Federal regulations, and not to alter their effect in
any way.
No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this action.
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 FMP 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 Basin, upper Willamette River,
central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central
California, northern California, southern California). These biological
opinions concluded that implementation of the FMP 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.
Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450 fish.
The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the whiting fishery have
generally improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation.
Although these
[[Page 27528]]
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 FMP 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
was listed as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006).
The southern DPS of Pacific eulachon was listed as threatened on March
18, 2010, under the ESA (75 FR 13012). NMFS has reinitiated
consultation on the fishery, including impacts on green sturgeon,
eulachon, marine mammals, and turtles. After reviewing the available
information, NMFS has concluded that, consistent with Sections 7(a)(2)
and 7(d) of the ESA, the action would not jeopardize any listed
species, would not adversely modify any designated critical habitat,
and would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or
implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials
from the area covered by the FMP. 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 FMP establish a procedure by
which the Tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the
FMP 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
660.50(d)(2) 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 final rule have
been developed following these procedures.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian Fisheries.
Dated: April 28, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended
as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and
16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
Subpart C--West Coast Groundfish Fisheries
0
2. In Sec. 660.11,
0
a. Add definitions of ``Acceptable Biological Catch'', ``Annual Catch
Limit'', ``Annual Catch Target'', and ``Overfishing limit'' in
alphabetical order.
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Fishery harvest guideline''.
0
c. In the definition for ``Groundfish'', revise paragraph (9).
0
d. In the definition of ``North-South management area'' redesignate
paragraphs (2)(xvii) through (xxii) as (2)(xviii) through (xxiii).
0
e. In 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 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 * * *
(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[min] 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.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 660.12 revise paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.12 General groundfish prohibitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 27529]]
(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.
* * * * *
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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.
(c) Cowcod. The target year for rebuilding the cowcod stock south
of 40[deg]10' N. latitude to BMSY is 2068. The harvest
control rule to be used to rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual SPR
harvest rate of 82.7 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) 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.
(f) Petrale Sole. The target year for rebuilding the petrale sole
stock to BMSY is 2016. The harvest control rule is to set
the ACL equal to the ABC, which corresponds to an annual SPR harvest
rate of 31 percent in 2011.
(g) Widow rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the widow
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2010. The harvest control rule is
a constant catch of 600 mt, which corresponds to an annual SPR harvest
rate of 91.7 percent in 2011.
(h) Yelloweye rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the
yelloweye rockfish stock to BMSY is 2074. The harvest control rule to
be used to rebuild the yelloweye rockfish stock is an annual SPR
harvest rate of 76.0 percent.
0
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.) ACL. 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 months; and for
arrowtooth flounder 150,000 lbs (68,039 kg) per 2 months. 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 months
limit for the entire year. Trawl vessels are restricted to using small
footrope trawl gear.
* * * * *
0
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
[[Page 27530]]
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.
* * * * *
(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.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 660.60 paragraph (c)(1)(i) introductory text is 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.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 660.65 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.
0
10. Section 660.71 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (e)(78),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(79) through (e)(333) as (e)(78) through
(e)(332) respectively.
0
c. Revise paragraphs (k)(149) and (150), redesignate paragraphs
(k)(151) through (212) as (k)(153) through (214), add new paragraphs
(k)(151) and (152) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.71 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 10 fm (18 m)
through 40 fm (73 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
* * * * *
(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.;
* * * * *
0
11. Section 660.72 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(143) through (f)(144), and remove
paragraph (f)(198),
0
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),
0
c. Revise paragraphs (a)(121), newly designated (a)(193), (b), (f)(140)
through
[[Page 27531]]
(f)(142), and newly designated (j)(183) through (j)(185),
0
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.;
* * * * *
0
12. Section 660.73 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(118) through (a)(120), (a)(156), (d)(134),
(d)(180), (h)(157) and (h)(158),
0
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),
0
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.;
* * * * *
0
13. Section 660.74 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(159), (g)(136),
0
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),
0
c. Revise paragraphs (g)(133), (l)(84) and (l)(85),
0
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.;
* * * * *
0
14. Tables to Part 660, Subpart C are amended as follows:
0
a. Revise Tables 1a through 1d and 2a through 2c, Subpart C,
0
b. Add Table 1.e. and Table 2d, Subpart C, to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 27532]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
a/ACLs and HGs are specified as total catch values. Fishery
harvest guidelines (HGs) means the harvest guideline or quota after
subtracting from the ACL or ACT 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.
b/Lingcod north (Oregon and Washington). A new lingcod stock
assessment was prepared in 2009. The lingcod north biomass was
estimated to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The
OFL of 2,438 mt was calculated using an FMSY proxy of
F45%. The ABC of 2,330 mt was based on a 4 percent
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
[[Page 27533]]
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the stock is above
B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. ACL is
further reduced for the Tribal fishery (250 mt), incidental open
access fishery (16 mt) and research catch (5 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 2,059 mt.
c/Lingcod south (California). A new lingcod stock assessment was
prepared in 2009. The lingcod south biomass was estimated to be at
74 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 2,523 mt was
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The
ABC of 2,102 mt was based on a 17 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. An incidental open access set-aside of 7 mt is deducted
from the ACL, resulting in a fishery HG of 2,095 mt.
d/Pacific Cod. The 3,200 mt OFL is based on the maximum level of
historic landings. The ABC of 2,222 mt is a 31 percent reduction
from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as it's a category 3 species.
The 1,600 mt ACL is the OFL reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary
adjustment. A set-aside of 400 mt is deducted from the ACL for the
Tribal fishery resulting in a fishery HG of 1,200 mt.
e/Pacific whiting. A range of ACLs were considered in the EIS
(96,968 mt-290,903 mt). A new stock assessment will be prepared
prior to the Council's March 2011 meeting. Final adoption of the
Pacific whiting specifications have been deferred until the
Council's March 2011 meeting.
f/Sablefish north. A coastwide sablefish stock assessment was
prepared in 2007. The coastwide sablefish biomass was estimated to
be at 38.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The coastwide
OFL of 8,808 mt was based on the 2007 stock assessment with a
FMSY proxy of F45%. The ABC of 8,418 mt is a 4
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a
category 1 species. The 40-10 harvest policy was applied to the ABC
to derive the coastwide ACL and then the ACL was apportioned north
and south of 36[deg] N. lat, using the average of annual swept area
biomass (2003-2008) from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, between the
northern and southern areas with 68 percent going to the area north
of 36[deg] N. lat. and 32 percent going to the area south of 36[deg]
N. lat. The northern portion of the ACL is 5,515 mt and is reduced
by 552 mt for the Tribal allocation (10 percent of the ACL north of
36[deg] N. lat.) The 552 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5
percent to account for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish
allocations are shown in Table 1c.
g/Sablefish South. That portion of the coastwide ACL apportioned
to the area south of 36[deg] N. lat. is 2,595 mt (32 percent). An
additional 50 percent reduction was made for uncertainty resulting
in an ACL of 1,298 mt. A set-aside of 34 mt is deducted from the ACL
for EFP catch (26 mt), the incidental open access fishery (6 mt) and
research catch (2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,264 mt.
h/Cabezon (Oregon). A new cabezon stock assessment was prepared
in 2009. The cabezon biomass in Oregon was estimated to be at 51
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 52 mt was
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The
ABC of 50 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal
to the ACL at 50 mt. Cabezon in waters off Oregon were removed from
the ``other fish'' complex, while cabezon of Washington will
continue to be managed within the ``other fish'' complex.
i/Cabezon (California). A new cabezon stock assessment was
prepared in 2009. The cabezon south biomass was estimated to be at
48 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 187 mt was
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The
ABC of 179 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal
to the ACL at 179 mt.
j/Dover sole. A 2005 Dover sole assessment estimated the stock
to be at 63 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of
44,400 mt is based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment with
an FMSY proxy of F30%. The ABC of 42,436 mt is
a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a
category 1 species. Because the stock is above B25%
coastwide, the ACL could be set equal to the ABC. However, the ACL
of 25,000 mt is set at a level below the ABC and higher than the
maximum historical landed catch. A set-aside of 1,590 mt is deducted
from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (1,497 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (55 mt) and research catch (38 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 23,410 mt.
k/English sole. A stock assessment update was prepared in 2007
based on the full assessment in 2005. The stock was estimated to be
at 116 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL of 20,675 mt
is based on the results of the 2007 assessment update with an
FMSY proxy of F30%. The ABC of 19,761 mt is a
4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a
category 1 species. Because the stock is above B25%, the
ACL was set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 100 mt is deducted from
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (91 mt), the incidental open access
fishery (4 mt) and research catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG
of 19,661 mt.
l/Petrale sole. A petrale sole stock assessment was prepared for
2009. In 2009 the petrale sole stock was estimated to be at 12
percent of its unfished biomass coastwide, resulting in the stock
being declared as overfished. The OFL of 1,021 mt is based on the
2009 assessment with a F30% FMSY proxy. The
ABC of 976 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL is set equal to the
ABC and corresponds to an SPR harvest rate of 31 percent. A set-
aside of 65.4 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery
(45.4 mt), the incidental open access fishery (1 mt), EFP catch (2
mt) and research catch (17 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 911 mt.
m/Arrowtooth flounder. The stock was last assessed in 2007 and
was estimated to be at 79 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007.
The OFL of 18,211 mt is based on the 2007 assessment with a
F30% FMSY proxy. The ABC of 15,174 mt is a 17
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a
category 2 species. Because the stock is above B25%, the
ACL is set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 2,078 mt is deducted
from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (30 mt), and research catch (7 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 13,096 mt.
n/Starry Flounder. The stock was assessed for the first time in
2005 and was estimated to be above 40 percent of its unfished
biomass in 2005. For 2011, the coastwide OFL of 1,802 mt is based on
the 2005 assessment with a FMSY proxy of F30%.
The ABC of 1,502 mt is a 17 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the
stock is above B25%, the ACL could have been set equal to
the ABC. As a precautionary measure, the ACL of 1,352 mt is a 25
percent reduction from the OFL, which is a 10 percent reduction from
the ABC. A set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal
fishery (2 mt), the incidental open access fishery (5 mt), resulting
in a fishery HG of 1,345 mt.
o/``Other flatfish'' are the unassessed flatfish species that do
not have individual OFLs/ABC/ACLs and include butter sole, curlfin
sole, flathead sole, Pacific sand dab, rex sole, rock sole, and sand
sole. The other flatfish OFL of 10,146 mt is based on the summed
contribution of the OFLs determined for the component stocks. The
ABC of 7,044 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as all species in this complex are category 3
species. The ACL of 4,884 mt is equivalent to the 2010 OY, because
there have been no significant changes in the status or management
of stocks within the complex. A set-aside of 198 mt is deducted from
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental open access
fishery (125 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery
HG of 4,686 mt.
p/POP. A POP stock assessment update was prepared in 2009, based
on the 2003 full assessment, and the stock was estimated to be at 29
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 1,026 mt for the
Vancouver and Columbia areas is based on the 2009 stock assessment
update with an F50% FMSY proxy. The ABC of 981
mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as
it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 180 mt is based on a
rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2020 and an SPR
harvest rate of 86.4 percent. An ACT of 157 mt is being established
to address management uncertainty and increase the likelihood that
total catch remains within the ACL. A set-aside of 12.8 mt is
deducted from the ACT for the Tribal fishery (10.9 mt), EFP catch
(0.1 mt) and research catch (1.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
144.2 mt.
q/Shortbelly rockfish. A non quantitative assessment was
conducted in 2007. The spawning stock biomass of shortbelly rockfish
was estimated at 67 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL
of 6,950 mt was recommended for the stock in 2011 with an ABC of
5,789 mt ([sigma]=0.72 with a P* of 0.40). The 50 mt ACL is slightly
higher than recent landings, but much lower than previous OYs in
recognition of the stock's importance as a forage species in the
California Current ecosystem. A set-aside of
[[Page 27534]]
1 mt for research catch results in a fishery HG of 49 mt.
r/Widow rockfish. The stock was assessed in 2009 and was
estimated to be at 39 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The
OFL of 5,097 mt is based on the 2009 stock assessment with an
F50% FMSY proxy. The ABC of 4,872 mt is a 4
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a
category 1 species. A constant catch strategy of 600 mt, which
corresponds to an SPR harvest rate of 91.7 percent, will be used to
rebuild the widow rockfish stock consistent with the rebuilding plan
and a TTARGET of 2010. A set-aside of 61 mt is deducted
from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (45 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (3.3 mt), EFP catch (11 mt) and research catch (1.6
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 539.1 mt.
s/Canary rockfish. A canary rockfish stock assessment update,
based on the full assessment in 2007, was completed in 2009 and the
stock was estimated to be at 23.7 percent of its unfished biomass
coastwide in 2009. The coastwide OFL of 614 mt is based on the new
assessment with a FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC
of 586 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 102 mt is based on
a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2027 and a SPR
harvest rate of 88.7 percent. A set-aside of 20 mt is deducted from
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (9.5 mt), the incidental open access
fishery (2 mt), EFP catch (1.3 mt) and research catch (7.2 mt)
resulting in a fishery HG of 82 mt. Recreational HGs are being
specified as follows: Washington recreational, 2.0; Oregon
recreational 7.0 mt; and California recreational 14.5 mt.
t/Chilipepper rockfish. The coastwide chilipepper stock was
assessed in 2007 and estimated to be at 71 percent of its unfished
biomass coastwide in 2006. Given that chilipepper rockfish are
predominantly a southern species, the stock is managed with stock-
specific harvest specifications south of 40[deg]10 N. lat. and
within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10 N. lat. South of
40[deg]10 N. lat., the OFL of 2,073 mt is based on the 2007
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC
of 1,981 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the biomass is
estimated to be above 40 percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL
was set equal to the ABC. The ACL is reduced by the incidental open
access fishery (5 mt), and research catch (9 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 1,966 mt.
u/Bocaccio. A bocaccio stock assessment was prepared in 2009
from Cape Mendocino to Cape Blanco (43[deg] N. lat.) Given that
bocaccio rockfish are predominantly a southern species, the stock is
managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of
40[deg]10 N. lat. and within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10
N. lat. The bocaccio stock was estimated to be at 28 percent of its
unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 737 mt is based on the 2009
stock assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50%.
The ABC of 704 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The 263 mt ACL
is based on a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2022
and a SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent. A set-aside of 13.4 mt is
deducted from the ACL for the incidental open access fishery (0.7
mt), EFP catch (11 mt) and research catch (1.7 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 249.6 mt.
v/Splitnose rockfish. A new coastwide assessment was prepared in
2009 that estimated the stock to be at 66 percent of its unfished
biomass in 2009. Splitnose in the north is managed under the minor
slope rockfish complex and south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. with species-
specific harvest specifications. South of 40[deg]10 N. lat. the OFL
of 1,529 mt is based on the 2009 assessment with an FMSY
proxy of F50%. The ABC of 1,461 mt is a 4 percent
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1
species. Because the unfished biomass is estimated to be above 40
percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. A
set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL for research catch,
resulting in a fishery HG of 1,454 mt.
w/Yellowtail rockfish. A yellowtail rockfish stock assessment
was last prepared in 2005 for the Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka
areas. Yellowtail rockfish was estimated to be at 55 percent of its
unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 4,566 mt is based on the 2005
stock assessment with the FMSY proxy of F50%.
The ABC of 4,364 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL was set
equal to the ABC, because the stock is above B40%. A set-
aside of 507 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (490
mt), the incidental open access fishery (3 mt), EFP catch (10 mt)
and research catch (4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 3,857 mt.
x/Shortspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 63 percent of
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 2,384 mt is based
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSY
proxy. The coastwide ABC of 2,279 mt is a 4 percent reduction from
the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. For the
portion of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., the ACL is
1,573 mt, 66 percent of the coastwide OFL. A set-aside of 45 mt is
deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (38 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (2 mt), and research catch (5 mt) resulting in a
fishery HG of 1,528 mt for the area north of 34[deg]27' N. lat. For
that portion of the stock south of 34[deg]27' N. lat. the ACL is 405
mt which is 34 percent of the coastwide OFL, reduced by 50 percent
as a precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 42 mt is deducted from
the ACL for the incidental open access fishery (41 mt), and research
catch (1 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 363 mt for the area south
of 34[deg]27' N. lat. The sum of the northern and southern area ACLs
(1,978 mt) is a 13 percent reduction from the coastwide ABC.
y/Longspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 71 percent of
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 3,577 mt is based
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50
FMSY proxy. The ABC of 2,981 mt is a 17 percent reduction
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species.
For the portion of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat.,
the ACL is 2,119 mt, and is 79 percent of the coastwide OFL for the
biomass found in that area reduced by an additional 25 percent as a
precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 44 mt is deducted from the
ACL for the Tribal fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access
fishery (1 mt), and research catch (13 mt) resulting in a fishery HG
of 2,075 mt. For that portion of the stock south of 34[deg]27' N.
lat. the ACL is 376 mt and is 21 percent of the coastwide ABC
reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of
3 mt is deducted from the ACL for the incidental open access fishery
(2 mt), and research catch (1 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 373
mt. The sum of the northern and southern area ACLs (2,495 mt) is a
16 percent reduction from the coastwide ABC.
z/Cowcod. A stock assessment update was prepared in 2009 and the
stock was estimated to be 5 percent (bounded between 4 and 21
percent) of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFLs for the Monterey
and Conception areas were summed to derive the south of 40[deg]10 N.
lat. OFL of 13 mt. The ABC for the area south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.
is 10 mt. The assessed portion of the stock in the Conception Area
was considered category 2, with a Conception Area contribution to
the ABC of 5 mt, which is a 17 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.35). The unassessed portion of the stock in the
Monterrey area was considered a category 3 stock, with a
contribution to the ABC of 5 mt, which is a 29 percent reduction
from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40). A single ACL of 3 mt is being
set for both areas combined. The ACL of 3 mt is based on a
rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2068 and an SPR
rate of 82.7 percent. The amount anticipated to be taken during
research activity is 0.1 mt and the amount expected to be taken
during EFP activity is 0.2 mt, which results in a fishery HG of 2.7
mt.
aa/Darkblotched rockfish. A stock assessment update was prepared
in 2009, based on the 2007 full assessment, and the stock was
estimated to be at 27.5 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The
OFL is projected to be 508 mt and is based on the 2009 stock
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50.
The ABC of 485 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 298
mt is based on a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of
2025 and an SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent. A set-aside of 18.7 mt
is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (0.1 mt), the
incidental open access fishery (15 mt), EFP catch (1.5 mt) and
research catch (2.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 279.3 mt.
bb/Yelloweye rockfish. The stock was assessed in 2009 and was
estimated to be at 20.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The
48 mt coastwide OFL was derived from the base model in the new stock
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50.
The ABC of 46 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The 17 mt ACL
is based on a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2074
and an SPR harvest rate of 76 percent. A set-aside of 5.9 mt is
deducted from the ACT for the Tribal fishery (2.3 mt), the
incidental open access fishery (0.2 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt) and
research catch (3.3 mt) resulting in a
[[Page 27535]]
fishery HG of 11.1 mt. Recreational HGs are being established as
follows: Washington recreational, 2.6; Oregon recreational 2.4 mt;
and California recreational 3.1 mt.
cc/California Scorpionfish was assessed in 2005 and was
estimated to be at 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The
OFL of 141 mt is based on the new assessment with a harvest rate
proxy of F50. The ABC of 135 mt is a 4 percent
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1
species. Because the stock is above B40, the ACL
is set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 2 mt is deducted from the
ACL for the incidental open access fishery, resulting in a fishery
HG of 133 mt.
dd/Black rockfish north (Washington). A stock assessment was
prepared for black rockfish north of 45[deg]56' N. lat. (Cape
Falcon, Oregon) in 2007. The biomass in the north was estimated to
be at 53 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL from the
assessed area is based on the 2007 assessment with a harvest rate
proxy of F50. The resulting OFL for the area
north of 46[deg]16' N. lat. (the Washington/Oregon Border) is 445 mt
and is 97 percent of the OFL from the assessed area. The ABC of 426
mt for the north of 46[deg] 16' N. Lat. is a 4 percent reduction
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species.
The ACL was set equal to the ABC, since the stock is above
B40. A set-aside of 14 mt for the Tribal fishery
results in a fishery HG of 412 mt.
ee/Black rockfish south (Oregon and California). A 2007 stock
assessment was prepared for black rockfish south of 45[deg]56' N.
lat. (Cape Falcon, Oregon) to the southern limit of the stock's
distribution in Central California in 2007. The biomass in this area
was estimated to be at 70 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007.
The OFL from the assessed area is based on the 2007 assessment with
a harvest rate proxy of F50. Three percent of the
OFL from the stock assessment prepared for black rockfish north of
45[deg]56' N. lat. is added to the OFL from the assessed area south
of 45[deg] 56' N. lat. The resulting OFL for the area south of
46[deg]16' N. lat. is 1,217 mt. The ABC of 1,163 mt is a 4 percent
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1
species. The ACL was set at 1,000 mt, which is a constant catch
strategy designed to keep the stock biomass above
B40. There are no set-asides thus the fishery HG
is equal to the ACL. The black rockfish ACL in the area south of
46[deg]16' N. lat., is subdivided with separate HGs being set for
the area north of 42[deg] N. lat. (580 mt/58 percent) and for the
area south of 42[deg] N. lat. (420 mt/42 percent).
ff/Minor rockfish north is comprised of three minor rockfish
sub-complexes: nearshore, shelf, and slope rockfish. The OFL of
3,767 mt is the sum of OFLs for nearshore (116 mt), shelf (2,188 mt)
and slope (1,462 mt) north sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is
the sum of the OFLs of the component species within the complex. The
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 blue rockfish in California) and 1.44 for category 3
stocks (all others) with a P* of 0.45. The resulting minor rockfish
north ABC, which is the summed contribution of the ABCs for the
contributing species in each sub-complex (nearshore, shelf, and
slope) is 3,363 mt. The ACL of 2,227 mt for the complex is the sum
of the sub-complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the
component stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC
contribution of each component stock. There are no set-asides for
the nearshore sub-complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL,
which is 99 mt. The set-aside for the shelf sub-complex is 43 mt--
Tribal fishery (9 mt), the incidental open access fishery (26 mt),
EFP catch (4 mt) and research catch (4 mt) resulting in a shelf
fishery HG of 925 mt. The set-aside for the slope sub-complex is 68
mt--Tribal fishery (36 mt), the incidental open access fishery (19
mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (11 mt), resulting in a
slope fishery HG of 1,092 mt.
gg/Minor rockfish south is comprised of three minor rockfish
sub-complexes: nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL of 4,302 mt is
the sum of OFLs for nearshore (1,156 mt), shelf (2,238 mt) and slope
(907 mt) south sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of the
OFLs of the component species within the complex. The ABCs for the
minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes are based on a sigma
value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher rockfish north of
34[deg]27' N. lat., blackgill), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (blue
rockfish in the assessed area, greenstriped rockfish, and bank
rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks (all others) with a P* of
0.45. The resulting minor rockfish south ABC, which is the summed
contribution of the ABCs for the contributing species in each sub-
complex, is 3,723 mt (1,001 mt nearshore, 1,885 mt shelf, and 836 mt
slope). The ACL of 2,341 mt for the complex is the sum of the sub-
complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the component
stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC contribution of
each component stock. There are no set-asides for the nearshore sub-
complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, which is 1,001 mt.
The set-aside for the shelf sub-complex is 13 mt for the incidental
open access fishery (9 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (2
mt), resulting in a shelf fishery HG of 701 mt. The set-aside for
the slope sub-complex is 27 mt for the incidental open access
fishery (17 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (8 mt),
resulting in a slope fishery HG of 599 mt.
hh/Longnose skate. A stock assessment was prepared in 2007 and
the stock was estimated to be at 66 percent of its unfished biomass.
The OFL of 3,128 mt is based on the 2007 stock assessment with an
FMSY proxy of F45. The ABC of 2,990 mt
is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's
a category 1 species. The ACL of 1,349 is equivalent to the 2010 OY
and represents a 50 percent increase in the average 2004-2006
mortality (landings and discard mortality). The set-aside for
longnose skate is 129 mt for the Tribal fishery (56 mt), incidental
open access fishery (65 mt), and research catch (8 mt), resulting in
a fishery HG of 1,220 mt.
ii/``Other fish'' contains all unassessed groundfish FMP species
that are neither rockfish (family Scorpaenidae) nor flatfish. These
species include big skate, California skate, leopard shark, soupfin
shark, spiny dogfish, finescale codling, Pacific rattail, ratfish,
cabezon off Washington, and kelp greenling. The OFL of 11,150 mt is
equivalent to the 2010 MSY harvest level minus the 50 mt
contribution made for cabezon off Oregon, which is a newly assessed
stock to be managed with stock-specific specifications. The ABC of
7,742 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/
P*=0.40) as all of the stocks in the ``other fish'' complex are
category 3 species. The ACL of 5,575 mt is equivalent to the 2010
OY, minus half of the OFL contribution for Cabezon off of Oregon (25
mt). The fishery HG is equal to the ACL.
[[Page 27536]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.001
\a\/ Allocations decided through the biennial specification
process.
\b\/ 30 mt of the total trawl allocation for POP is allocated to
the whiting fisheries, as follows: 12.6 mt for the shorebased IFQ
fishery, 7.2 mt for the mothership fishery, and 10.2 mt for the
catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here for the
whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to the
total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
\c\/ 14.1 mt of the total trawl allocation of canary rockfish is
allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 5.9 mt for the
shorebased IFQ fishery, 3.4 mt for the mothership fishery, and 4.8
mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here
for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to
the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
\d\/ 25 mt of the total trawl allocation for darkblotched
rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 10.5 mt
for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 6.0 mt for the mothership fishery,
and 8.5 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated
here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery
contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found
at 660.140 (d)(1)(ii)(D).
\e\/ 52 percent (255 mt) of the total trawl allocation for widow
rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 107.1 mt
for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 61.2 mt for the mothership fishery,
and 86.7 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage
calculated here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ
fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which
is found at 660.140 (d)(1)(ii)(D).
[[Page 27537]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.017
[[Page 27538]]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Table 1d. To Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
Asides 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species of species complex Set-aside (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod.................................. 6
Pacific Cod.............................. 5
Pacific Whiting.......................... Allocation \a\
Sablefish N. of 36[deg].................. 50
Sablefish S. of 36[deg].................. NA
PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH...................... Allocation \a\
WIDOW ROCKFISH........................... Allocation \a\
Chilipepper S. of 40[deg]10'............. NA
Splitnose S. of 40[deg]10'............... NA
Yellowtail N. of 40[deg]10'.............. 300
Shortspine Thornyhead N. of 34[deg]27'... 20
Shortspine Thornyhead S. of 34[deg]27'... NA
Longspine Thornyhead N. of 34[deg]27'.... 5
Longspine Thornyhead S. of 34[deg]27'.... NA
DARKBLOTCHED............................. Allocation \a\
Minor Slope RF N......................... 55
Minor Slope RF S......................... NA
Dover Sole............................... 5
English Sole............................. 5
Petrale Sole--coastwide.................. 5
Arrowtooth Flounder...................... 10
Starry Flounder.......................... 5
Other Flatfish........................... 20
CANARY ROCKFISH.......................... Allocation \a\
BOCACCIO................................. NA
COWCOD................................... NA
YELLOWEYE................................ 0
Black Rockfish........................... NA
Blue Rockfish (CA)....................... NA
Minor Nearshore RF N..................... NA
Minor Nearshore RF S..................... NA
Minor Shelf RF N......................... 35
Minor Shelf RF S......................... NA
California scorpionfish.................. NA
Cabezon (off CA only).................... NA
Other Fish............................... 520
Longnose Skate........................... 5
Pacific Halibut.......................... 10 \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a See Table 1.b., to Subpart C, for the at-sea whiting allocations for
these species.
b As stated in Sec. 660.55(m), the Pacific halibut set-aside is 10 mt,
to accommodate bycatch in the at-sea Pacific whiting fisheries and in
the shorebased trawl sector south of 40[deg]10' N lat. (estimated to
be approximately 5 mt each).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 27539]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.002
[[Page 27540]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.003
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
a/ ACLs and HGs are specified as total catch values. Fishery
harvest guideline (HG) means the harvest guideline or quota after
subtracting from the ACL of ACT 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.
b/ Lingcod north (Oregon and Washington). A new lingcod stock
assessment was prepared in 2009. The lingcod north biomass was
estimated to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The
OFL of 2,251 mt was calculated using an FMSY proxy of
F45%. The ABC of 2,151 mt was based on a 4 percent
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1
species. Because the stock is above B40% coastwide, the
ACL is set equal to the ABC. ACL is further reduced for the Tribal
fishery (250 mt), incidental open access fishery (16 mt) and
[[Page 27541]]
research catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,880 mt.
c/ Lingcod south (California). A new lingcod stock assessment
was prepared in 2009. The lingcod south biomass was estimated to be
at 74 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 2,597 mt
was calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%.
The ABC of 2,164 mt was based on a 17 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. An incidental open access set-aside of 7 mt is deducted
from the ACL, resulting in a fishery HG of 2,157 mt.
d/ Pacific Cod. The 3,200 mt OFL is based on the maximum level
of historic landings. The ABC of 2,222 mt is a 31 percent reduction
from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as it's a category 3 species.
The 1,600 mt ACL is the OFL reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary
adjustment. A set-aside of 400 mt is deducted from the ACL for the
Tribal fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 1,200 mt.
e/ Pacific whiting. A range of ACLs were considered in the EIS
(96,968 mt-290,903 mt). A new stock assessment will be prepared
prior to the Council's March 2012 meeting. Final adoption of the
Pacific whiting specifications have been deferred until the
Council's March 2012 meeting.
f/ Sablefish north. A coastwide sablefish stock assessment was
prepared in 2007. The coastwide sablefish biomass was estimated to
be at 38.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The coastwide
OFL of 8,623 mt was based on the 2007 stock assessment with a
FMSY proxy of F45%. The ABC of 8,242 mt is a 4
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a
category 1 species. The 40-10 harvest policy was applied to the ABC
to derive the coastwide ACL and then the ACL was apportioned north
and south of 36[deg] N. lat, using the average of annual swept area
biomass (2003-2008) from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, between the
northern and southern areas with 68 percent going to the area north
of 36[deg] N. lat. and 32 percent going to the area south of 36[deg]
N. lat. The northern portion of the ACL is 5,347 mt and is reduced
by 535 mt for the Tribal allocation (10 percent of the ACL north of
36[deg] N. lat.) The 535 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5
percent to account for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish
allocations are shown in Table 1c.
g/ Sablefish South. That portion of the coastwide ACL (32
percent) apportioned to the area south of 36[deg] N. lat. is 2,516
mt. An additional 50 percent reduction for uncertainty was made,
resulting in an ACL of 1,258 mt. A set-aside of 34 mt is deducted
from the ACL for EFP catch (26 mt), the incidental open access
fishery (6 mt) and research catch (2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG
of 1,224 mt.
h/ Cabezon (Oregon). A new cabezon stock assessment was prepared
in 2009. The cabezon biomass in Oregon was estimated to be at 51
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 50 mt was
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The
ABC of 48 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal
to the ACL at 48 mt. Cabezon in waters off Oregon were removed from
the ``other fish'' complex, while cabezon of Washington will
continue to be managed within the ``other fish'' complex.
i/ Cabezon (California)--A new cabezon stock assessment was
prepared in 2009. The cabezon south biomass was estimated to be at
48 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 176 mt was
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The
ABC of 168 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal
to the ACL at 168 mt.
j/ Dover sole. Final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs
for assessed flatfish species are contingent upon potential changes
to the flatfish status determination criteria and harvest control
rule.
k/ English sole. Final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and fishery
HGs for assessed flatfish species are contingent upon potential
changes to the flatfish status determination criteria and harvest
control rule.
l/ Petrale sole. Final 2012 petrale sole OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT and
fishery HG are contingent upon potential changes to the flatfish
status determination criteria and harvest control rule, and
potential changes to rebuilding plans.
n/ Starry Flounder. Final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and
fishery HGs, for assessed flatfish species are contingent upon
potential changes to the flatfish status determination criteria and
harvest control rule.
o/ ``Other flatfish'' are the unassessed flatfish species that
do not have individual OFLs/ABC/ACLs and include butter sole,
curlfin sole, flathead sole, Pacific sand dab, rex sole, rock sole,
and sand sole. The other flatfish OFL of 10,146 mt is based on the
summed contribution of the OFLs determined for the component stocks.
The ABC of 7,044 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as all species in this complex are category 3
species. The ACL of 4,884 mt is equivalent to the 2010 OY, because
there have been no significant changes in the status or management
of stocks within the complex. A set-aside of 198 mt is deducted from
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental open access
fishery (125 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery
HG of 4,686 mt.
p/ POP. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for overfished
species are contingent upon potential changes to rebuilding plans.
q/ Shortbelly rockfish. A non quantitative assessment was
conducted in 2007. The spawning stock biomass of shortbelly rockfish
was estimated at 67 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL
of 6,950 mt was recommended for the stock in 2011 with an ABC of
5,789 mt ([sigma]=0.72 with a P* of 0.40). The 50 mt ACL is slightly
higher than recent landings, but much lower than previous OYs in
recognition of the stock's importance as a forage species in the
California Current ecosystem. A set-aside of 1 mt for research
catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 49 mt.
r/ Widow rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for
overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to
rebuilding plans.
s/ Canary rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for
overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to
rebuilding plans.
t/ Chilipepper rockfish. The coastwide chilipepper stock was
assessed in 2007 and estimated to be at 71 percent of its unfished
biomass coastwide in 2006. Given that chilipepper rockfish are
predominantly a southern species, the stock is managed with stock-
specific harvest specifications south of 40[deg]10 N. lat. and
within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10 N. lat. South of
40[deg]10 N. lat., the OFL of 1,872 mt is based on the 2007
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC
of 1,789 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the biomass is
estimated to be above 40 percent the unfished biomass, the ACL was
set equal to the ABC. The ACL is reduced by the incidental open
access fishery (5 mt), and research catch (9 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 1,774 mt.
u/ Bocaccio. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for
overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to
rebuilding plans.
v/ Splitnose rockfish. A new coastwide assessment was prepared
in 2009 that estimated the stock to be at 66 percent of its unfished
biomass in 2009. Splitnose in the north is managed under the minor
slope rockfish complex and in the south (south of 40[deg]10' N.
lat.), with species-specific harvest specifications. The 1,610 mt
OFL south of 40[deg]10 N. lat. is based on the 2009 assessment with
an FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC of 1,538 mt is
a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a
category 1 species. Because the unfished biomass is estimated to be
above 40 percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. A set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL for research
catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 1,531 mt.
w/ Yellowtail rockfish. A yellowtail rockfish stock assessment
was last prepared in 2005 for the Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka areas.
Yellowtail rockfish was estimated to be at 55 percent of its
unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 4,573 mt is based on the 2005
stock assessment with the FMSY proxy of F50%.
The ABC of 4,371 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL was set
equal to the ABC, because the stock is above B40%. A set-
aside of 499 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (490
mt), the incidental open access fishery (3 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and
research catch (4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 3,872 mt.
x/ Shortspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 63 percent of
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 2,358 mt is based
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSY
proxy. The coastwide ABC of 2,254 mt is a 4 percent reduction from
the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. For the
portion of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., the ACL is
1,556 mt, 66 percent of the coastwide
[[Page 27542]]
OFL. A set-aside of 45 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal
fishery (38 mt), the incidental open access fishery (2 mt), and
research catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,511 mt for the
area north of 34[deg]27' N. lat. For that portion of the stock south
of north of 34[deg]27' N. lat. the ACL is 401 mt which is 34 percent
of the coastwide OFL for the portion of the biomass found south of
34[deg]27' N. lat reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary
adjustment. A set-aside of 42 mt is deducted from the ACL for the
incidental open access fishery (41 mt), and research catch (1 mt),
resulting in a fishery HG of 359 mt for the area south of 34[deg]27'
N. lat. The sum of the northern and southern area ACLs (1,957 mt) is
a 13 percent reduction from the coastwide ABC.
y/ Longspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 71 percent of
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 3,483 mt is based
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSY
proxy. The ABC of 2,902 mt is a 17 percent reduction from the OFL
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. For the portion
of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., the ACL is 2,064
mt, and is 79 percent of the coastwide OFL for the biomass in that
area. A set-aside of 44 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal
fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access fishery (1 mt), and
research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,020 mt. For
that portion of the stock south of 34[deg]27' N. lat. the ACL is 366
mt and is 21 percent of the coastwide OFL reduced by 50 percent as a
precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 3 mt is deducted from the
ACL for the incidental open access fishery (2 mt), and research
catch (1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 363 mt. The sum of the
northern and southern area ACLs (2,430 mt) is a 16 percent reduction
from the coastwide ABC.
z/ Cowcod. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for overfished
species are contingent upon potential changes to rebuilding plans.
aa/ Darkblotched rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs
for overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to
rebuilding plans.
bb/ Yelloweye rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs
for overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to
rebuilding plans.
cc/ California Scorpionfish south was assessed in 2005 and was
estimated to be at 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The
OFL of 132 mt is based on the new assessment with a harvest rate
proxy of F50%. The ABC of 126 mt is a 4 percent reduction
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species.
Because the stock is above B40%, the ACL is set equal to
the ABC. A set-aside of 2 mt is deducted from the ACL for the
incidental open access fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 124 mt.
dd/ Black rockfish north (Washington). A stock assessment was
prepared in 2007 for black rockfish north of 45[deg]56'N. lat. (Cape
Falcon, Oregon). The biomass in this area was estimated to be at 53
percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL from the assessed
area is based on the 2007 assessment with a harvest rate proxy of
F50%. The resulting OFL for the area north of 46[deg]16'
N. lat. (the Washington/Oregon border) is 435 mt, which is 97
percent of the OFL from the assessed area. The ABC of 415 mt for the
area north of 46[deg]16' N. lat. is a 4 percent reduction from the
OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL was
set equal to the ABC, since the stock is above B40%. A
set-aside of 14 mt for the Tribal fishery results in a fishery HG of
401 mt.
ee/ Black rockfish south (Oregon and California). A 2007 stock
assessment was prepared for black rockfish south of 45[deg]56' N.
lat. (Cape Falcon, Oregon) to the southern limit of the stock's
distribution in Central California. The biomass in the south was
estimated to be at 70 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The
OFL from the assessed area is based on the 2007 assessment with a
harvest rate proxy of F50%. Three percent of the OFL from
the stock assessment prepared for black rockfish north of 45[deg]56'
N. lat. is added to the OFL from the assessed area south of
45[deg]56'. The resulting OFL for the area south of 46[deg]16' N.
lat. is 1,169 mt. The ABC of 1,117 mt for the south is a 4 percent
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1
species. The ACL was set at 1,000 mt, which is a constant catch
strategy designed to keep the stock biomass above B40%.
The black rockfish ACL in the area south of 46[deg]16' N. lat., is
subdivided with separate HGs being set for the area north of 42[deg]
N. lat. (580 mt/58 percent) and for the area south of 42[deg] N.
lat. (420 mt/42 percent).
ff/ Minor rockfish north is comprised of three minor rockfish
sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL of 3,767 mt is
the sum of OFLs for nearshore (116 mt), shelf (2,197 mt) and slope
(1,507 mt) north sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of
the OFLs of the component species within the complex. The 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
blue rockfish in California) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks (all
others) with a P* of 0.45. The resulting minor rockfish north ABC,
which is the summed contribution of the ABCs for the contributing
species in each sub-complex (nearshore, shelf, and slope) is 3,414
mt. The ACL of 2,227 mt for the complex is the sum of the sub-
complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the component
stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC contribution of
each component stock. There are no set-asides for the nearshore sub-
complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, which is 99 mt.
The set-aside for the shelf sub-complex is 43 mt--Tribal fishery (9
mt), the incidental open access fishery (26 mt), EFP catch (4 mt)
and research catch (4 mt), resulting in a shelf fishery HG of 925
mt. The set-aside for the slope sub-complex is 68 mt--Tribal fishery
(36 mt), the incidental open access fishery (19 mt), EFP catch (2)
and research catch (11 mt), resulting in a slope fishery HG of 1,092
mt.
gg/ Minor rockfish south is comprised of three minor rockfish
sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL of 4,291 mt is
the sum of OFLs for nearshore (1,145 mt), shelf (2,243 mt) and slope
(903 mt) south sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of the
OFLs of the component species within the complex. The ABCs for the
minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes are based on a sigma
value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher rockfish north of Point
Conception, blackgill), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (blue rockfish in
the assessed area, greenstriped rockfish, and bank rockfish) and
1.44 for category 3 stocks (all others) with a P* of 0.45. The
resulting minor rockfish south ABC, which is the summed contribution
of the ABCs for the contributing species in each sub-complex, is
3,712 mt. The ACL of 2,341 mt for the complex is the sum of the sub-
complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the component
stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC contribution of
each component stock. There are no set-asides for the nearshore sub-
complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, which is 990 mt.
The set-asides for the shelf sub-complex is 13 mt for the incidental
open access fishery (9 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (2
mt), resulting in a shelf fishery HG of 701 mt. The set-asides for
the slope sub-complex is 27 mt for the incidental open access
fishery (17 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (8 mt),
resulting in a slope fishery HG of 599 mt.
hh/ Longnose skate. A stock assessment update was prepared in
2007 and the stock was estimated to be at 66 percent of its unfished
biomass. The OFL of 3,128 mt is based on the 2007 stock assessment
with an FMSY proxy of F45%. The ABC of 2,990
mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as
it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 1,349 is the 2010 OY and
represents a 50 percent increase in the average 2004-2006 catch
mortality (landings and discard mortality). The set-asides for
longnose skate is 129 mt for the Tribal fishery (56 mt), incidental
open access fishery (65 mt), and research catch (8 mt), resulting in
a fishery HG of 1,220 mt.
ii/ ``Other fish'' contains all unassessed groundfish FMP
species that are neither rockfish (family Scorpaenidae) nor
flatfish. These species include big skate, California skate, leopard
shark, soupfin shark, spiny dogfish, finescale codling, Pacific
rattail, ratfish, cabezon off Washington, and kelp greenling. The
OFL of 11,150 mt is the 2010 MSY harvest level minus the 50 mt
contribution made for cabezon off Oregon, which is a newly assessed
stock to be managed with stock-specific specifications. The ABC of
7,742 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/
P*=0.40) as all of the stocks in the ``other fish'' complex are
category 3 species. The ACL of 5,575 mt is equal to the 2010 OY,
minus half of the OFL contribution for Cabezon off of Oregon (25
mt). The fishery HG is equal to the ACL.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 27543]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.004
[[Page 27544]]
a/ Allocations decided through the biennial specification
process.
b/ /30 mt of the total trawl allocation for POP is allocated to
the whiting fisheries, as follows: 12.6 mt for the shorebased IFQ
fishery, 7.2 mt for the mothership fishery, and 10.2 mt for the
catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here for the
whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to the
total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
c/ 14.1 mt of the total trawl allocation of canary rockfish is
allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 5.9 mt for the
shorebased IFQ fishery, 3.4 mt for the mothership fishery, and 4.8
mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here
for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to
the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
d/ 25 mt of the total trawl allocation for darkblotched rockfish
is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 10.5 mt for the
shorebased IFQ fishery, 6.0 mt for the mothership fishery, and 8.5
mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here
for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to
the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
e/ 52 percent (255 mt) of the total trawl allocation for widow
rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 107.1 mt
for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 61.2 mt for the mothership fishery,
and 86.7 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage
calculated here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ
fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which
is found at 660.140 (d)(1)(ii)(D).
[[Page 27545]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.005
[[Page 27546]]
Table 2d. To Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
Asides, 2012 and beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species or species complex Set-aside (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod.................................. 6
Pacific Cod.............................. 5
Pacific Whiting.......................... Allocation a
Sablefish N. of 36[deg].................. 50
Sablefish S. of 36[deg].................. NA
PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH...................... Allocation a
WIDOW ROCKFISH........................... Allocation a
Chilipepper S. of 40[deg]10[min]......... NA
Splitnose S. of 40[deg]10[min]........... NA
Yellowtail N. of 40[deg]10[min].......... 300
Shortspine Thornyhead N. of 20
34[deg]27[min].
Shortspine Thornyhead S. of NA
34[deg]27[min].
Longspine Thornyhead N. of 34[deg]27[min] 5
Longspine Thornyhead S. of 34[deg]27[min] NA
DARKBLOTCHED............................. Allocation a
Minor Slope RF N......................... 55
Minor Slope RF S......................... NA
Dover Sole............................... 5
English Sole............................. 5
Petrale Sole--coastwide.................. 5
Arrowtooth Flounder...................... 10
Starry Flounder.......................... 5
Other Flatfish........................... 20
CANARY ROCKFISH.......................... Allocation a
BOCACCIO................................. NA
COWCOD................................... NA
YELLOWEYE................................ 0
Black Rockfish........................... NA
Blue Rockfish (CA)....................... NA
Minor Nearshore RF N..................... NA
Minor Nearshore RF S..................... NA
Minor Shelf RF N......................... 35
Minor Shelf RF S......................... NA
California scorpionfish.................. NA
Cabezon (off CA only).................... NA
Other Fish............................... 520
Longnose Skate........................... 5
Pacific Halibut.......................... 10 b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a/ See Table 2.b., to Subpart C, for the at-sea whiting allocations for
these species.
b As stated in Sec. 660.55(m), the Pacific halibut set-aside is 10 mt,
to accommodate bycatch in the at-sea Pacific whiting fisheries and in
the shorebased trawl sector south of 40[deg]10' N lat. (estimated to
be approximately 5 mt each).
* * * * *
Subpart D--West Coast Groundfish--Limited Entry Trawl Fisheries.
0
15. In Sec. 660.130 paragraph (d) introductory text 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.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec. 660.131, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.131 Pacific whiting fishery management measures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(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.
* * * * *
0
17. In Sec. 660.140, paragraphs (a)(3), (c)(1), and (d)(1)(ii)(D), are
revised as follows:
Sec. 660.140 Shorebased IFQ program.
(a) * * *
(3) 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. Groupings and area subdivisions for IFQ species are those
groupings and area subdivisions 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. The lists of individual
groundfish species included in the minor shelf complex north of
40[deg]10' N. lat., minor shelf complex south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.,
minor slope complex north 40[deg]10' N. lat., minor slope complex south
of 40[deg]10' N. lat., and in the other flatfish complex are specified
under the definition of ``groundfish'' at Sec. 660.11. The following
are the IFQ species:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For the 2011 trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the
following shorebased trawl allocations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorebased
trawl
IFQ Species Management area allocation
(mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod........................... .................... 1,863.30
Pacific cod....................... .................... 1,135.00
Pacific Whiting................... .................... 92,817.90
Sablefish......................... North of 36[deg] N. 2,546.34
lat..
Sablefish......................... South of 36[deg] N. 530.88
lat..
Dover sole........................ .................... 22,234.50
English sole...................... .................... 18,672.95
PETRALE SOLE...................... .................... 871.00
Arrowtooth flounder............... .................... 12,431.20
Starry flounder................... .................... 667.50
Other flatfish.................... .................... 4,197.40
PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH............... North of 40[deg]10' 119.36
N. lat..
WIDOW ROCKFISH.................... .................... 342.62
[[Page 27547]]
CANARY ROCKFISH................... .................... 25.90
Chilipepper rockfish.............. South of 40[deg]10' 1,475.25
N. lat..
BOCACCIO ROCKFISH................. South of 40[deg]10' 60.00
N. lat..
Splitnose rockfish................ South of 40[deg]10' 1,381.30
N. lat..
Yellowtail rockfish............... North of 40[deg]10' 3,094.16
N. lat..
Shortspine thornyhead............. North of 34[deg]27' 1,431.60
N. lat..
Shortspine thornyhead............. South of 34[deg]27' 50.00
N. lat..
Longspine thornyhead.............. North of 34[deg]27' 1,966.25
N. lat..
COWCOD............................ South of 40[deg]10' 1.80
N. lat..
DARKBLOTCHED ROCKFISH............. .................... 250.84
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH................ .................... 0.60
Minor shelf rockfish complex...... North of 40[deg]10' 522.00
N. lat..
Minor shelf rockfish complex...... South of 40[deg]10' 86.00
N. lat..
Minor slope rockfish complex...... North of 40[deg]10' 829.52
N. lat..
Minor slope rockfish complex...... South of 40[deg]10' 377.37
N. lat..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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, subpart C, or Sec. Sec. 660.140, 660.150,
or 660.160, subpart D.
* * * * *
0
20. Table 1 (North), Table 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D are revised
to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 27548]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.006
[[Page 27549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.007
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart E--West Coast Groundfish--Limited Entry Fixed Gear
Fisheries
0
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
[[Page 27550]]
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 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 fixed gear vessels may
transit through the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, at any time, with or
without groundfish on board.
* * * * *
0
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).
* * * * *
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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 27551]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.008
[[Page 27552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.009
[[Page 27553]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.010
[[Page 27554]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.011
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart F--West Coast Groundfish--Open Access Fisheries
0
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[min] 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
[[Page 27555]]
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 (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.
* * * * *
0
26. Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F are
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 27556]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.012
[[Page 27557]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.013
[[Page 27558]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.014
[[Page 27559]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.015
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Subpart G--West Coast Groundfish--Recreational Fisheries
0
27. In Sec. 660.360,
0
a. Remove paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(C), (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) as (c)(1)(iv), (c)(3)(i)(A)(6) as
(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(i)(D) through (J) as (c)(3)(i)(C) through (I),
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(6) as (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(A) and (B),
(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(i)(D) through (H), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
0
d. Revise paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(1)(i)(D), (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)(iii)(C), (c)(3)(iii)(D),
0
d. Add paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D)(3), (c)(1)(iii), to read as follows:
[[Page 27560]]
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 27561]]
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 and in paragraph (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 20 fm (37 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 20 fm (37 m) depth
contour when the season for those species is open south of 34[deg]27'
N. lat.: Minor nearshore 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: California state regulations also permit recreational
fishing for California sheephead, ocean whitefish, and all greenlings
of the genus Hexagrammos shoreward of the 20 fm (37 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.
(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: 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 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).
[[Page 27562]]
(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. (San Francisco 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. 2011-10799 Filed 5-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P