67810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 100804324–0489–01] 

RIN 0648–BA01 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 

2011–2012 Biennial Specifications and 

Management Measures; Amendment 

16–5; and Amendment 23 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed action would 

establish the 2011–2012 harvest 

specifications and management 

measures for groundfish taken in the 

U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off 

the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 

California consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and 

the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (PCGFMP). This 

action revises the collection of 

management measures in the groundfish 

fishery regulations that are intended to 

keep the total catch of each groundfish 

species or species complex within the 

harvest specifications. This action also 

includes regulations to implement 

Amendments 16–5 and 23 to the 

PCGFMP. Amendment 16–5 would 

revise existing rebuilding plans, create a 

new rebuilding plan for Petrale sole, 

which was declared overfished on 

February 9, 2010, and revise status 

determination criteria and a harvest 

control rule for flatfish. This action is 

consistent with and partially 

implements Amendment 23 to the 

PCGFMP. Amendment 23 would make 

the PCGFMP consistent with the revised 

National Standard 1 Guidelines (74 FR 

3178, January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., local time on 

December 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the RIN number 0648– 

BA01, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Becky 

Renko. 

• Mail: William Stelle, Administrator, 

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand 

Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA 98115– 

0070, Attn: Becky Renko. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Information relevant to this proposed 

rule, which includes a draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS), 

a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) are available for public review 

during business hours at the office of 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council), at 7700 NE. Ambassador 

Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503– 

820–2280. Copies of additional reports 

referred to in this document may also be 

obtained from the Council. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Renko, phone: 206–526–6110, 

fax: 206–526–6736, or e-mail: 

becky.renko@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This rule is accessible via the Internet 

at the Office of the Federal Register 

Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/ 

su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background 

information and documents are 

available at the NMFS Northwest Region 

Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 

Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-FisheryManagement/index.cfm and at the 

Council’s Web site at http:// 

www.pcouncil.org. 

Background 

The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery 

is managed under the PCGFMP. The 

PCGFMP was prepared by the Council, 

approved on July 30, 1984, and was 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations at 

50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, 

implement the provisions of the 

PCGFMP. 

The amount of each Pacific Coast 

groundfish species or species complex 

that is available for harvest in a specific 

year is referred to as a harvest 

specification. The PCGFMP requires the 

harvest specifications and management 

measures for groundfish to be set at least 

biennially. This proposed rule, which 

proposes the Council’s preferred 

alternative, would set 2011–2012 

harvest specifications and management 

measures for the 90-plus groundfish 

species or species complexes managed 

under the PCGFMP. The groundfish 

fishery regulations include a collection 

of management measures intended to 

keep the total catch of each groundfish 

species or species complex within the 

harvest specifications. The management 

measures would be revised by this 

action. 

The following groundfish species 

have been declared as overfished and 

are currently being managed under 

rebuilding plans: Bocaccio south of 

40°10′ north latitude; canary rockfish; 

cowcod south of 40°10′ north latitude; 

darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean 

Perch (POP), widow rockfish, and 

yelloweye rockfish. This action also 

updates the existing overfished species 

rebuilding plans. 

Petrale sole was declared overfished 

on February 9, 2010. The proposed 

action adds a new rebuilding plan for 

petrale sole under Amendment 16–5 to 

the PCGFMP. In addition, also under 

Amendment 16–5, the proposed action 

modifies status determination criteria in 

the PCGFMP for flatfish and adds to the 

PCGFMP a new precautionary harvest 

control rule for flatfish. 

On January 16, 2009, NMFS adopted 

revisions to its guidelines implementing 

Magnuson-Stevens Act National 

Standard 1 (74 FR 3178) to prevent and 

end overfishing and rebuild fisheries. 

The proposed action would implement 

a new fishery specification framework 

under Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP 

including: Overfishing limits (OFLs), an 

acceptable biological catch (ABC) that 

incorporates a scientific uncertainty 

buffer in specifications, annual catch 

limits (ACLs), and annual catch targets 

(ACTs). These new specifications are 

designed to better account for scientific 

and management uncertainty and to 

prevent overfishing. Amendment 23 

also removes dusky and dwarf-red 

rockfish from the list of species in the 

groundfish fisheries. 

On April 29, 2010, the District Court 

for the Northern District of California 

ruled that the 2009–2010 harvest 

specifications for three overfished 

species (cowcod, darkblotched, and 

yelloweye) violated the MSA and 

ordered that NMFS apply its 2008 

harvest levels for these species in 2010. 

(Natural Resources Defense Council v. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67811 

Locke (N.D. Cal., 2010) here after refered 

to as NRDC v. Locke.) On July 8, 2010, 

NMFS revised the harvest specifications 

for yelloweye rockfish, cowcod and 

darkbloched rockfish to be consistent 

with the court order (75 FR 38030). The 

court further ordered NMFS to publish 

new specifications within one year of its 

ruling. 

This proposed rule is based on the 

Council’s final decisions on the 2011 

and 2012 biennial specifications and 

management measures, and on 

Amendment 23 and Amendment 16–5 

at its June 2010 meeting. The supporting 

rationale described in this proposed rule 

is based on the DEIS prepared by the 

Council and other documents developed 

as part of the Council’s decision 

process. NMFS has not made its final 

determination regarding its approval of 

the two amendments or whether the 

proposed specifications are consistent 

with the PCGFMP, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law, 

including the April 29, 2010 Court 

Order on Remedy in NRDC v. Locke. 

Specification and Management 

Measure Development Process 

The process for setting the 2011 and 

2012 biennial harvest specifications 

began in 2009 with the preparation of 

stock assessments. A stock assessment is 

the scientific and statistical process 

where the status of a fish population or 

subpopulation (stock) is assessed in 

terms of population size, reproductive 

status, fishing mortality, and 

sustainability. In the terms of the 

PCGFMP, stock assessments generally 

provide: (1) An estimate of the current 

biomass (reproductive potential); (2) an 

FMSY or proxy (a default harvest rate for 

the fishing mortality rate that is 

expected to achieve the maximum 

sustainable yield), translated into 

exploitation rate; (3) an estimate of the 

biomass that produces the maximum 

sustainable yield (BMSY); and, (4) a 

precision estimate (e.g., confidence 

interval) for current biomass estimate. 

Each stock assessment is prepared by a 

stock assessment scientist then 

reviewed by the Council’s stock 

assessment review panel (STAR—The 

STAR panel is a key part of a process 

designed to review the technical merits 

of stock assessments and is responsible 

for determining if a stock assessment 

document is sufficiently complete) and 

the Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC). 

In each biennial period, the Council 

and NMFS consider a number of full 

stock assessments, where each stock 

assessment model is critically examined 

and possibly updated. They also use 

stock assessment updates to update an 

existing assessment by incorporating the 

most recent data. A stock assessment 

update must carry forward the 

fundamental structure from the model 

that was previously reviewed and 

endorsed by a STAR panel. Stock 

assessment updates are prepared for 

stocks that have been determined to 

have a stable model approach to data 

analysis and modeling. 

For overfished stocks a rebuilding 

analysis is also prepared. The rebuilding 

analysis is used to project the status of 

the overfished resource into the future 

under a variety of alternative harvest 

strategies to determine the probability of 

recovering to BMSY (or its proxy) within 

a specified time-frame. Minimum 

requirements for rebuilding analyses for 

routine situations have been established 

by the SSC and are applied with 

computer package developed by Dr 

Andre ́ Punt (University of Washington). 

The SSC encourages analysts to explore 

alternative calculations and projections 

that may more accurately capture 

uncertainties in stock rebuilding and 

which may better represent stockspecific concerns. In the event of a 

discrepancy between the calculations 

resulting from Dr Andre ́ Punt’s program, 

the SSC groundfish subcommittee will 

review the issue and recommend which 

results to use. The SSC also encourages 

explicit consideration of uncertainty in 

projections of stock rebuilding, 

including comparisons of alternative 

states of nature using decision tables to 

quantify the impact of model 

uncertainty. The rebuilding analyses 

include: An estimation of B0 (the 

unfished biomass and hence BMSY or its 

proxy); the selection of a method to 

generate future recruitment; the 

specification of the mean generation 

time; a calculation of the minimum 

possible rebuilding time (TMIN); and, the 

identification and analysis of alternative 

harvest strategies and rebuilding times. 

At the Council’s June, September and 

November 2009 meetings, new stock 

assessments, stock assessment updates 

and rebuilding analyses were made 

available to the Council as was an SSC 

report on whether the SSC considered 

the documents to be the ‘‘best available 

science’’ suitable for use in setting 

biennial harvest specifications. The 

Council considered the information 

brought forward from its advisory 

bodies and public comment before 

approving the new stock assessments, 

stock assessment updates and 

rebuilding analyses for setting the 2011 

and 2012 biennial harvest 

specifications. 

The biennial harvest specifications 

and management measures are 

developed over the course of three 

Council meetings. At its November 2009 

meeting the Council recommended an 

initial range of harvest specifications 

and management measures based on the 

new stock assessments, new rebuilding 

analyses, recommendations of its 

advisory bodies, and public comment. 

Using the Council’s initial harvest 

specifications and management measure 

recommendations, the Council’s 

advisory bodies developed initial 

alternatives for a draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

A holistic or integrated approach was 

taken in the development of alternatives 

in the Draft EIS for this action. The 

newly adopted rebuilding analyses were 

used to develop a range of alternatives 

driven by the annual catch limits (ACLs) 

for overfished species. The interrelated 

nature of the Pacific Coast groundfish 

stocks makes the consideration of 

holistic alternatives necessary. The 

degree of interaction between overfished 

species and other stocks is such that 

‘‘rebuilding as quickly as possible while 

taking into account the needs of fishing 

communities’’ is not possible based 

solely on a species-by species approach. 

At its April 2010, meeting, the 

Council made recommendations on 

overfishing limits (OFLs) for all 

groundfish stocks and stock complexes. 

At this same meeting, the Council made 

recommendations on preferred 2011 and 

2012 acceptable biological catches 

(ABCs) that incorporate scientific 

uncertainty buffers for all groundfish 

stocks and stock complexes, and 

preferred 2011 and 2012 ACLs for all 

non-overfished groundfish stocks and 

stock complexes. A preliminary analysis 

of the holistic alternatives relative to the 

biological and socio-economic 

environment and consistent with the 

requirements of NEPA was further 

developed and made available to the 

public, the Council, and the Council’s 

advisory bodies prior to the June 2010 

meeting. Additional information that 

further refined the analysis was 

provided at the Council’s June meeting. 

At its June 2010 meeting, the Council 

considered the holistic alternatives, the 

analysis, reports provides by its 

advisory bodies and public comment 

before making final recommendations 

on the groundfish harvest specifications, 

rebuilding plan revisions for overfished 

groundfish species, and groundfish 

fishery management measures. 

The alternative actions considered by 

the Council were consistent with the 

harvest specification framework 

proposed under Amendment 23 to the 

PCGFMP, which contemplates setting 

an OFL, an ABC that incorporates a 

scientific uncertainty buffer, and an 

ACL for each groundfish stock and stock 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

complex. A final decision regarding 

approval of Amendment 23 is expected 

by January 1, 2011. The alternative 

actions considered by the Council were 

also consistent with Amendments 20 

and 21 to the PCGFMP which were 

approved August 9, 2010 and which are 

expected to be fully implemented by 

January 1, 2011. The components of 

these PCGFMP amendments and the 

relationship of each to the biennial 

harvest specifications are further 

discussed below. 

Decision Process 

To best inform the decision process, 

an analysis was prepared that contrasted 

the Council’s preliminary preferred 

alternative against the other alternatives 

relative to the Council’s stated goals and 

objectives for rebuilding. The Council’s 

goals and objectives for rebuilding plans 

are identified in section 4.5.3.1 of the 

PCGFMP: ‘‘The overall goals of 

rebuilding programs are to (1) achieve 

the population size and structure that 

will support the maximum sustainable 

yield within a specified time period that 

is as short as possible, taking into 

account the status and biology of the 

stock, the needs of fishing communities, 

and the interaction of the stock of fish 

within the marine ecosystem; (2) 

minimize, to the extent practicable, the 

adverse social and economic impacts 

associated with rebuilding, including 

adverse impacts on fishing 

communities; (3) fairly and equitably 

distribute both the conservation burdens 

(overfishing restrictions) and recovery 

benefits among commercial, 

recreational, and charter fishing sectors; 

(4) protect the quantity and quality of 

habitat necessary to support the stock at 

healthy levels in the future; and (5) 

promote widespread public awareness, 

understanding and support for the 

rebuilding program.’’ These overall goals 

are derived from and consistent with the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. The first goal mirrors MagnusonStevens Act National Standard 1 and the 

requirements for rebuilding overfished 

stocks found at Magnuson-Stevens Act 

section 304(e)(4)(A). The second goal, to 

minimize adverse impacts to fishing 

communities is required by MagnusonStevens Act National Standard 8. The 

third goal is required by MagnusonStevens Act section 304(e)(4)(B). The 

fourth and fifth goals represent 

additional policy preferences of the 

Council that recognize the importance 

of habitat protection to the rebuilding of 

some fish stocks and the desire for 

public outreach and education on the 

complexities—biological, economic, and 

social issue—involved with rebuilding 

overfished stocks. 

Each rebuilding analysis is based on 

parameters from the stock assessment 

and projects the future status of the 

stock based on the rebuilding 

alternatives being considered by the 

Council using Monte Carlo simulation 

techniques. There is considerable 

scientific uncertainty involved with 

these projections, which the rebuilding 

analysis expresses as the probability of 

the stock being rebuilt in any given year. 

The rebuilding analysis estimates the 

shortest time to rebuild, referred to as 

TMIN. TMIN is the time it takes to rebuild 

the stock, with a 50 percent probability, 

if all fishing caused mortality is ceased. 

The Council’s policy for rebuilding is 

established with a TTARGET. TTARGET is 

the year in which the Council expects 

the stock to rebuild with at least a 50 

percent probability under the chosen 

rebuilding strategy. A particular 

TTARGET is determined by the 

productivity of the stock, its current 

status (a.k.a, ‘‘status and biology’’), and 

the allowable harvest associated with a 

particular rebuilding strategy. The target 

abundance for rebuilding is the biomass 

level that produces maximum 

sustainable yield (BMSY). 

Section 304(e)(4) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides: That any fishery 

management plan, plan amendment, or 

proposed regulations for rebuilding an 

overfished fishery shall—‘‘(A) specify a 

time period for rebuilding the fishery 

that shall—(i) be as short as possible, 

taking into account the status and 

biology of any overfished stocks of fish, 

the needs of fishing communities, 

recommendations by international 

organizations in which the United 

States participates, and the interaction 

of the overfished stock of fish within the 

marine ecosystem; and (ii) not exceed 

10 years, except in cases where the 

biology of the stock of fish, other 

environmental conditions, or 

management measures under an 

international agreement in which the 

United States participates dictates 

otherwise’’. 

Because so many of the groundfish 

stocks are intermixed in different 

proportions, making adjustments to 

protect one stock may increase the 

impacts on other stocks. The Council’s 

integrated rebuilding strategy, when 

taking into account the biology of the 

stocks and the needs of the fishing 

communities, centers on pushing 

fishing effort off of the more sensitive 

rebuilding species and on to the less 

sensitive rebuilding species (i.e., off of 

species with longer rebuilding times 

and onto species able to rebuild more 

quickly). This concept was adopted in 

Amendment 16–4 to the PCGFMP as the 

best way of taking into account the 

biology of the stocks and the needs of 

fishing communities in a holistic 

fashion that simultaneously considers 

all rebuilding species and groundfish 

sectors. 

Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP 

provides the following general guidance 

on the needs of the fishing 

communities: ‘‘Fishing communities 

need a sustainable fishery that: Is safe, 

well-managed, and profitable; provides 

jobs and incomes; contributes to the 

local social fabric, culture, and image of 

the community; and helps market the 

community and its services and 

products.’’ 

The rockfish rebuilding plans are 

challenging as overfished rockfish 

indirectly affect fishing opportunities by 

constraining the harvest of target stocks; 

they affect multiple commercial and 

recreational fishery sectors; it is difficult 

to lessen fishing impacts on one 

rockfish species without affecting 

another; some rockfish populations are 

so slow growing that even small 

increases in the long-term harvest rate 

can delay rebuilding for a number of 

years. The Council has approached this 

challenging situation using a 

comprehensive approach to analyzing 

rebuilding alternatives and impacts to 

fishing communities. 

Because the rebuilding results in 

revenue losses in the short-term and 

often in the medium-term, the 

communities that bear the greatest 

short-term and medium-term revenue 

impact are those most dependent on 

groundfish and the least resilient. To 

avoid disastrous short-term 

consequences for fishing communities, 

harvest levels above the TMIN level were 

considered. The harvest specifications 

and management measures in the 

Council’s preliminary preferred and 

final preferred alternatives considered 

were generally similar to those in place 

at the start of 2010, with some increased 

opportunity to the California 

recreational and nearshore fixed gear 

fisheries south of 40°10’ north latitude. 

The remaining alternatives 

recommended for analysis by the 

Council were more restrictive, to 

provide a meaningful analysis of the 

shortest time possible to rebuild 

overfished stocks. 

In its recommendations for overfished 

species rebuilding plans and groundfish 

harvest specifications and management 

measures for 2011 and 2012, the 

Council was clear that it did not expect 

fishing community needs (described in 

Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP) could be 

met by the rebuilding plans and 

management measures being 

recommended. While the Council could 

not meet the needs of fishing 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67813 

communities, the Council took them 

into account as directed by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

recommended harvest specifications 

and management measures that could 

allow fishing businesses and 

communities to operate at a level that 

could provide for the continued 

existence of fishing businesses and 

communities. Opportunities for 

economic growth or profit would only 

be allowed if they were consistent with 

the adopted rebuilding policies. The 

Council expressed particular interest in 

seeing the success of new trawl fishery 

management measures (trawl 

rationalization) and the expected longterm benefits. The supporting draft EIS 

for this action assesses, through the 

analysis of integrated rebuilding 

alternatives, the needs of groundfish 

fishing communities, the dependence of 

fishing communities on overfished 

species, and the vulnerability of fishing 

communities to further near-term 

reductions in groundfish harvest. 

The Council and fisheries science are 

just beginning to consider approaches 

for transitioning to ecosystem based 

fisheries management. Models for 

assessing impacts on the marine 

environment are being developed. Given 

that this area of marine science is in 

development, the respective impact of 

the rebuilding alternatives on ecosystem 

structure and function cannot be 

described by science at this time. 

At the start of each biennial 

management cycle, NMFS and the 

Council establish fishery management 

measures that are expected to allow as 

much harvest of the healthy species 

ACLs as possible without exceeding 

allowable harvest levels for co-occurring 

overfished species. At the start of the 

biennial period, the management 

measures are based on the best scientific 

information available at the time. 

However, as catch data and new 

scientific information become available 

during the fishing year, NMFS and the 

Council’s knowledge may change. Catch 

data vary in quality and abundance both 

before and during the season, and catch 

of the most constraining overfished 

species may also occur in fisheries not 

managed under the PCGFMP. 

Managing a coastwide fishery to 

ensure that ACLs of overfished species 

are not exceeded is particularly difficult 

because of the low ACLs. If new 

information received during the season 

reveals that total catch is occurring at a 

faster pace than initially anticipated, 

management action would be needed to 

keep the harvest of healthy stocks and 

the incidental catch of overfished 

species at or below their specified ACLs. 

If these inseason adjustments to 

management measures are dramatic, 

such as an early closure of a fishery, 

then the effects of management actions 

on the fishing communities can be 

severe. To prevent major inseason 

changes in management measures, the 

2011–2012 overfished species ACLs 

account for management uncertainty in 

order to minimize the potential need for 

dramatic inseason measures. In other 

words, currently available scientific 

information is used to design 

management measures that are projected 

to result in overfished species harvest 

levels that are somewhat lower than 

their ACLs. In addition, for some 

overfished species (yelloweye rockfish 

and POP) annual catch targets (ACTs) 

have been proposed. ACTs provide an 

additional buffer to account for 

uncertainty and unexpected occurrences 

within the fishery. This additional 

measure helps prevent ACLs from being 

exceeded. Even with these safeguards, 

information that becomes available 

during the fishing year from activities 

within the fishery and from activities 

outside the fishery (i.e. research fishing 

mortality) may reveal that previously set 

management measures need to be 

revised inseason. If that is the case, 

management measures will be 

appropriately adjusted inseason. 

District Court Ruling in NRDC v. 

Locke 

NRDC challenged the 2009–2010 

groundfish harvest specifications (74 FR 

9,874, March 6, 2009), asserting that the 

harvest specifications for seven 

overfished species of Pacific groundfish: 

darkblotched rockfish, cowcod, 

yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, 

bocaccio, Pacific Ocean Perch, and 

widow rockfish violated the MagnusonStevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801–1891, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.A. 4321 et seq. 

The 2009–2010 harvest specifications 

revised the Amendment 16–4 rebuilding 

periods for four of the seven overfished 

species in accordance with the 

PCGFMP’s rebuilding framework. The 

Court upheld the integrated approach, 

but determined that the 2009–2010 

harvest specifications for darkblotched 

rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye 

rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act by failing to rebuild the species in 

as short a time as possible and ordered 

the agency to develop, within one year 

of the Order, revised rebuilding plans 

for those species that are consistent with 

the MSA. 

With respect to yelloweye rockfish, 

the court vacated the OY of 17 metric 

tons (mt) for 2009–2010 and established 

an OY of 14 mt for 2010, consistent with 

the ‘‘ramp down’’ strategy that the 

agency adopted in the 2007–2008 

specifications. The court likewise 

vacated the 2009–2010 cowcod OY of 4 

mt and the darkblotched rockfish OYs of 

285 mt and 291 mt for 2009 and 2010 

stating that they do not rebuild in time 

periods that are as short as possible. For 

these two species, the court established 

OY levels consistent with the most 

recent levels in 2007–2008. 

On July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the 

harvest specifications for yelloweye 

rockfish, cowcod and darkblotched 

rockfish to be consistent with the court 

order (75 FR 38030) and projected 

impacts to darkblotched rockfish in 

2010 are being actively managed to 

prevent exceeding 290 mt. 

The court also agreed with NRDC’s 

argument that NMFS’ decisions 

regarding the rebuilding plans were 

arbitrary and capricious because the 

agency relied on economic data from 

1998, before any of the species at issue 

in the case were declared overfished, 

and did not use 2002 data that was 

available to it. The court ruled that the 

1998 data was not the best available 

scientific information, and distorted 

current revenue losses by comparing 

them to revenues resulting from fishing 

losses before fishing was constrained to 

rebuild overfished species. The use of 

the 1998 data, the court opined, 

‘‘weight[ed] the Agency’s analysis in 

favor of short-term economic interests 

and against conservation, in violation of 

the MSA.’’ NMFS used a different 

approach in this biennial cycle. 

PCGFMP Amendment 23 

On January 16, 2009, NMFS 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register to implement new 

requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act by amending the 

National Standard Guidelines (50 CFR 

600.310) for National Standard 1. 

National Standard guidelines aid in the 

development and review of fishery 

management plans (plans), plan 

amendments, and regulations prepared 

by the regional Fishery Management 

Councils and the Secretary of 

Commerce. National Standard 1 

establishes the relationship between 

conservation and management 

measures, preventing overfishing, and 

achieving OY from each stock, stock 

complex or fishery. The National 

Standard 1 guidelines also address the 

classification of stocks within a fishery 

management plan, and the new 

requirement in the MSRA that fishery 

management plans include annual catch 

limits (ACLs) to prevent overfishing. 

Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP is 

intended to modify the harvest 

specification framework in the PCGFMP 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to be consistent with the revised 

National Standard 1 guidelines. An 

approval decision on Amendment 23 is 

expected prior to January 1, 2011. 

Therefore, the harvest specifications 

being considered for 2011 and 2012 are 

consistent with the provisions of 

Amendment 23. 

To better account for scientific and 

management uncertainty and to prevent 

overfishing, the revised National 

Standard 1 guidelines introduced new 

fishery management concepts including: 

OFL, ACL, ACT, and accountability 

measures (AMs), and defined the term 

ABC. The concept of OY remains in the 

PCGFMP as revisions to National 

Standard 1 did not alter the definition 

of OY. 

Under the Amendment 23 framework 

the OFL is an estimate of the maximum 

amount of annual catch of a stock or 

stock complex from all sources 

(includes landed and discarded catch) 

that does not result in overfishing. 

Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or 

stock complex is subjected to a rate or 

level of fishing mortality that 

jeopardizes the stock’s capacity to 

produce MSY (an estimate of the largest 

long-term average annual catch or yield 

that can be taken from each stock under 

prevailing ecological and environmental 

conditions) on a continuing basis. This 

level is also referred to as the maximum 

fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) in 

the PCGFMP. The OFL is comparable to 

the ABC specification used in the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 

1999 through 2010. 

The term ABC is redefined under 

proposed Amendment 23 as an annual 

catch specification that is the stock or 

stock complex’s OFL reduced by an 

amount associated with scientific 

uncertainty. Proposed Amendment 23 

revises the descriptions of species 

categories used in the development of 

the ABC. The first category (category 1) 

includes those species where relatively 

data-rich quantitative stock assessment 

can be conducted on the basis of catchat-age, catch-at-length or other data. 

OFLs and overfished/rebuilding 

thresholds can generally be calculated 

for these species. The second category 

(category 2) includes species for which 

some biological indicators are available, 

including a relatively data-poor 

quantitative assessment or nonquantitative assessments. The third 

category (category 3) includes minor 

species which are caught and where the 

only available information is on the 

landed biomass. 

For species that have had relatively 

data-rich quantitative stock assessments 

prepared (category 1 stocks), the 

Council chose to determine ABC based 

on the SSC-recommended framework 

for estimating the relative risk of 

overfishing the stock (referred to as the 

P* approach). The SSC quantified the 

scientific uncertainty in the estimate of 

OFL (s) and presented a range of 

probabilities of overfishing (P*). Each 

P* value links to a corresponding 

fraction that is used to reduce the OFL 

and to derive an ABC. As the P* value 

is reduced, the probability of the ABC 

being greater than the ‘‘true’’ OFL 

becomes lower. The Council then 

determines its preferred level of risk 

aversion by selecting an appropriate P* 

value. Amendment 23 provides that the 

P*-Sigma approach for quantifying 

scientific uncertainty will be the default 

approach for category 1 species unless 

an SSC-recommended method is 

adopted by the Council during the 

biennial specification process. 

For stocks with data-poor stock 

assessments or no stock assessments 

(category 2 and 3 stocks), proposed 

Amendment 23 recognizes that there is 

greater scientific uncertainty in the 

estimate of OFL. Therefore, the 

scientific uncertainty buffer is generally 

greater than that recommended for 

stocks with quantitative stock 

assessments. It may be determined using 

straight percentage reductions (25% for 

category 2 or 50% for category 3) or 

using the P* approach with larger sigma 

values. The Council adopted an upper 

limit on P* for all three categories of 

0.45. For category 2 and 3 species, 

Amendment 23 provides that either the 

P*-Sigma approach or the straight 

percentage reduction from OFL will be 

used unless the Council adopts an SSCrecommended approach during the 

biennial specification process. 

The ACL is a harvest specification set 

equal to or below the ABC threshold 

which considers conservation 

objectives, socio-economic concerns, 

management uncertainty and other 

factors. All sources of fishing-related 

mortality including landings, discard 

mortality, and catches in exempted 

fishing permit activities are counted 

against the ACL. In addition, research 

fishing catches are counted against the 

ACL. Sector-specific ACLs may be 

specified, particularly in cases where a 

sector has a formal, long-term allocation 

of the harvestable surplus of a stock or 

stock complex. The new ACL values are 

comparable to the OY specification used 

in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery 

from 1999 through 2010. 

The ACTs are management targets set 

below the ACL to address management 

uncertainty. The term ‘‘catch’’ includes 

fish that are retained for any purpose, as 

well as mortality of fish that are 

discarded. Therefore, for fisheries where 

estimates are not available in a timely 

enough manner to manage retained and 

discarded catch (bycatch) inseason, 

targets may be specified. In addition, a 

sector-specific ACT may serve as a 

harvest guideline for a sector or used 

strategically in a rebuilding plan to 

attempt to reduce mortality of an 

overfished stock more than the 

rebuilding plan limits prescribe. These 

targets account for landings and bycatch 

estimates such that the total of landings 

and bycatch will not exceed the stock or 

stock complex’s ACL. Since the annual 

catch target is a target and not a limit 

it can be used in lieu of harvest 

guidelines or strategically to accomplish 

other management objectives. Sectorspecific annual catch targets can also be 

specified to accomplish management 

objectives. 

The AMs are management controls 

that prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs from 

being exceeded, where possible, and 

correct or mitigate overages if they 

occur. If a stock or stock complex’s 

catch exceeds its ACL, AMs will be 

invoked as specified in the PCGFMP. If 

ACLs are exceeded more often than 1 in 

4 years, then AMs, such as catch 

monitoring and inseason adjustments to 

fisheries, need to improve or additional 

AMs may need to be implemented. The 

development of harvest specifications 

for 2011–2012 is discussed later in the 

preamble to this proposed rule, while 

the harvest specifications are provided 

in Tables 1a through 2d. 

Amendment 23 adds an additional 

species category identified as ecosystem 

component (EC) species. These species 

are not ‘‘in the fishery’’ and therefore not 

actively managed. EC species are not 

targeted in any fishery and are not 

generally retained for sale or personal 

use. EC species are not determined to be 

subject to overfishing, approaching an 

overfished condition, or overfished, nor 

are they likely to become subject to 

overfishing or overfished in the absence 

of conservation and management 

measures. Amendment 23 does not 

propose that any species currently in 

the PCGFMP be designated as an EC 

species. Amendment 23 removes dusky 

rockfish and red-dwarf rockfish from the 

PCGFMP as there are no recorded 

landings of these species in the 

groundfish fishery. 

PCGFMP Amendments 20 and 21 

Amendment 20 established a program 

to ‘‘rationalize’’ the groundfish limited 

entry trawl fishery. Rationalization of a 

fishery is designed to create a 

sustainable level of fishing from both 

the resources conservation and 

economic perspective through the use of 

harvest shares and cooperatives. The 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67815 

program being implemented under 

Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP uses 

quota shares, or catch allocation, to 

allow individuals to harvest specific 

amounts of groundfish. The trawl 

rationalization program is intended to 

increase net economic benefits, create 

individual economic stability, provide 

full utilization of the trawl sector 

allocation, consider environmental 

impacts, and achieve individual 

accountability of catch (retained and 

discarded). NMFS approved 

Amendment 20 on August 9, 2010, and 

expects to fully implement it prior to 

January 1, 2011, so the harvest 

specifications and management 

measures being considered for 2011 and 

2012 are consistent with the provisions 

of Amendment 20. 

For the purposes of Amendment 20, 

the limited entry trawl fishery has been 

divided into three distinct sectors 

(shoreside, mothership, and catcher/ 

processor). An individual fishing quota 

(IFQ) program is created for the 

shoreside sector and harvester 

cooperatives are created for the catcher/ 

processor and mothership sectors. 

Formal allocations (to and among the 

trawl sectors) necessary to support the 

trawl rationalization program have been 

adopted under Amendment 21 to the 

PCGFMP. 

Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP 

modifies the PCGFMP framework by 

specifying formal, long term allocations 

for the following species: Lingcod, 

Pacific cod, sablefish south of 36° north 

latitude, Pacific ocean perch (POP), 

widow rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 

splitnose rockfish, yellowtail rockfish 

north of 40°10′ north latitude, 

shortspine thornyhead (north and south 

of 34°27′ north latitude), longspine 

thornyhead north of 34°27′ north 

latitude, darkblotched rockfish, minor 

slope rockfish (north and south of 40°10′ 

north latitude), Dover sole, English sole, 

petrale sole, arrowtooth flounder, starry 

flounder, and other flatfish. Because 

Amendment 21 has been approved, the 

harvest specifications being considered 

for 2011 and 2012 are consistent with 

the provisions of Amendment 21. Long 

term, formal allocations are expected to 

provide more stability to the trawl 

fishery sectors by reducing the risk of 

the trawl sector being closed as a result 

of a non-trawl or recreational fishery 

exceeding an allocation or harvest 

guideline. 

Species that are not formally allocated 

under Amendment 21 will continue to 

be addressed through short-term 

allocations that are to be decided 

through the biennial harvest 

specifications and management measure 

process. IFQ species with trawl and 

non-trawl allocations established 

through the biennial harvest 

specifications include the following 

species: canary rockfish, bocaccio, 

cowcod, yelloweye rockfish, and minor 

shelf rockfish north and south. In 

addition to allocations specified under 

the Amendment 21 provisions for 2011 

and 2012, trawl and non-trawl 

allocations are being specified through 

the biennial harvest specifications for 

the following: minor nearshore rockfish 

north and south, and longnose skate. 

Species being managed under trip limits 

and without trawl and non-trawl 

allocations are: Shortbelly rockfish, 

longspine thornyhead south of 34°27′ 

north latitude, black rockfish 

(Washington-Oregon), California 

scorpionfish, cabezon (California only), 

kelp greenling, and the ‘‘other fish’’ 

complex. 

Amendment 21 also provides for the 

use of fishery set-asides. Fishery setasides are not formal allocations but 

rather amounts that are not available to 

the other fisheries during the fishing 

year. Set-asides for the catcher/ 

processor and mothership sectors of the 

at-sea Pacific whiting fishery are 

deducted from the limited entry trawl 

fishery allocation. Set-asides for the 

Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal harvest, 

and exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are 

deducted from the ACL. Set-aside 

amounts could change through the 

biennial harvest specifications and 

management measures process. The setaside amounts will be specified in the 

footnotes to Tables 1a through 2b of this 

subpart. 

In addition to a new groundfish 

allocation framework, Amendment 21 

would establish Pacific Halibut trawl 

mortality limits to restrict the incidental 

catch of Pacific halibut in limited entry 

trawl fisheries. The trawl mortality limit 

may be adjusted downward or upward 

through the biennial harvest 

specifications and management 

measures process. Trawl individual 

bycatch quota (IBQ) for halibut will be 

issued for the Shorebased IFQ Program 

north of 40°10′ north latitude. A portion 

of the overall trawl mortality limit (10 

mt) is a set-aside for the at-sea whiting 

fisheries (catcher/processor and 

mothership) and the Shorebased IFQ 

Program south of 40°10′ north latitude, 

where halibut IBQ is not required. The 

set-aside amount of Pacific halibut to 

accommodate the incidental catch in the 

trawl fishery south of 40°10′ north 

latitude and in the at-sea whiting fishery 

may be adjusted in the biennial harvest 

specifications and management 

measures process. The use of a trawl 

mortality limit for Pacific halibut in 

Area 2A trawl fisheries is consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

mandate to minimize bycatch, while 

providing increased benefits to Area 2A 

fishers targeting Pacific halibut. 

Under Amendment 20, up to 10 

percent of unused IFQ quota pounds in 

a vessel’s account may be carried over 

for use in the next fishing year. 

Similarly, in order to cover an overage 

(landings that exceed the amount of 

quota pounds held in a vessel account) 

that is within 10 percent of the quota 

pounds that have been in the vessel 

account during the year, the vessel 

owner may use that amount from the 

quota pounds he will receive in the 

following fishing year to account for the 

overage in the current year. The 

rationale for the carryover as presented 

in the Amendment 20 EIS is to provide 

increased flexibility to fishery 

participants. During the biennial harvest 

specification and management process 

the Council discussed how the carryover provision works in relationship to 

the 2011–2012 harvest specifications, 

this provision is further discussed 

below. 

OFL Policy 

The OFL is the MSY harvest level 

associated with the current stock 

abundance. When setting the 2011 and 

2012 OFLs for category 1 species, the 

FMSY harvest rate or a proxy was applied 

to the estimated exploitable biomass. A 

policy of using a default harvest rate as 

a proxy for the fishing mortality rate 

that is expected to achieve the 

maximum sustainable yield is also 

referred to as the FMSY control rule or 

maximum fishing mortality threshold 

(MFMT) harvest rate. For category 2 

species, OFLs are typically set at a 

constant level and monitoring is 

necessary to determine if this level of 

catch is causing a slow decline in stock 

abundance. It is difficult to estimate 

overfished and overfishing thresholds 

for the category 2 species a priori, but 

indicators of long-term, potential 

overfishing can be identified. Average 

catches are generally used to determine 

the OFL for category 3 species. 

For 2011 and 2012, the Council 

maintained a policy of using a default 

harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing 

mortality rate that is expected to achieve 

the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). 

A proxy is used because there is 

insufficient information for most Pacific 

Coast groundfish stocks to establish a 

species-specific FMSY. In 2011 and 2012, 

the following default harvest rate 

proxies, based on the Council’s SSC 

recommendations, were used: F30% for 

flatfish, F40% for Pacific Whiting, F50%

for rockfish (including thornyheads), 

and F45% for other groundfish such as 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

sablefish and lingcod. The OFL for 

groundfish species with stock 

assessments are derived by multiplying 

the harvest rate proxy by the current 

estimated biomass. A rate of F40% is a 

more aggressive rate than F45% or F50%. 

The PCGFMP allows default harvest 

rate proxies to be modified as scientific 

knowledge improves for a particular 

species. A fishing mortality or harvest 

rate will mean different things for 

different stocks, depending on the 

productivity of a particular species. For 

fast growing species (those with 

individuals that mature quickly and 

produce many young that survive to an 

age where they are caught in the fishery) 

a higher fishing mortality rate may be 

used. Fishing mortality rate policies 

must account for several complicating 

factors, including the capacity of mature 

individuals to produce young over time 

and the optimal stock size necessary for 

the highest level of productivity within 

that stock. 

For flatfish, a new proxy of F30% is 

being used for the 2011–2012 

specifications. Following the 2009 

scientific peer review of the petrale sole 

assessment by the Council’s stock STAR 

panel, the STAR panel prepared a report 

which recommended that the SSC 

review the estimates of FMSY and BMSY

produced by the petrale sole assessment 

and investigate alternatives to the 

proxies of F40% and B40%. The SSCs 

groundfish sub-committee further 

considered the proxies produced by the 

petrale sole assessment and 

recommended that proxies of B25% for 

BMSY and F30% for FMSY be established 

for all west coast flatfish. 

The overfished threshold or minimum 

stock size threshold (MSST) is the 

estimated biomass level of the stock 

relative to its unfished biomass (i.e., 

depletion level) below which the stock 

is considered overfished. The current 

default proxy MSST for all the actively 

managed groundfish stocks and stock 

complexes, other than the assessed 

flatfish species, is 25 percent of the 

unfished biomass (B25%), which is 62.5 

percent of the BMSY target of B40%. The 

default proxy MSST for the assessed 

flatfish species is being revised from 

B25% to B12.5% which is 50 percent of the 

BMSY target of B25%. 

The full SSC endorsed the groundfish 

subcommittee’s recommendation to 

establish new proxies of B25% for BMSY

and F30% for FMSY for flatfish. The 

values were based on a number of 

considerations, including evaluation of 

information on flatfish productivity 

(steepness) for assessed west coast 

flatfish, published meta-analyses of 

other flatfish stocks, and 

recommendations on appropriate 

proxies for FMSY and BMSY in the 

scientific literature. The SSC however 

did not endorse the use of a speciesspecific estimate of BMSY and FMSY for 

petrale sole because of high variability 

in the estimates between repeat 

assessments for other stocks and the 

sensitivity of the estimates to 

assumptions concerning stock structure. 

For the 2011–2012 biennial 

specification process, two new 

methodologies were evaluated for 

determining OFL from data-poor stocks 

(unassessed category 2 species and 

category 3 species). In January 2010, the 

SSC Groundfish Subcommittee and 

Groundfish Management Team (GMT) 

examined yield estimates from the 

Depletion-Corrected Average Catch 

(DCAC) and the Depletion-Based Stock 

Reduction Analysis (DB–SRA) for 31 

groundfish stock assessments. The 

DCAC and DB–SRA were developed by 

stock assessment scientists from the 

Northwest Fishery Science Center 

(NWFSC) and the Southwest Fishery 

Science Center. The DCAC provides an 

estimate of sustainable yield (the OFL) 

for data-poor stocks of uncertain status. 

DCAC adjusts historical average catch to 

account for one-time ‘‘windfall’’ catches 

that are the result of stock depletion, 

producing an estimate of yield that was 

likely to be sustainable over the same 

time period. Advantages of the DCAC 

approach to determining sustainable 

yield for data-poor stocks include: (1) 

Minimal data requirements, (2) 

biologically-based adjustment to catchbased yield proxies with transparent 

assumptions about relative changes in 

abundance, and (3) simplicity in 

computing. The DB–SRA extends the 

DCAC by (1) restoring the temporal link 

between production and biomass and 

(2) evaluating and integrating alternative 

hypotheses regarding changes in 

abundance during the historical catch 

period. This method combines DCAC’s 

distributional assumptions regarding 

life history characteristics and stock 

status with the dynamic models and 

simulation approach of stochastic stock 

reduction analysis. The SSC Groundfish 

Subcommittee endorsed application of 

DCAC and DB–SRA to derive the OFL 

for unassessed groundfish stocks. 

Although the Council would like further 

analysis, the Council did recognize that 

the DB–SRA and the DCAC methods 

used by the GMT were the best available 

scientific information for determining 

OFLs for category 2 and 3 stocks. 

Proposed OFLs for 2011 and 2012 

For the 2011 and 2012 biennial 

specification process, 8 stock 

assessments and 4 stock assessment 

updates were prepared. Full stock 

assessments, those that consider the 

appropriateness of the assessment 

model and that revise the model as 

necessary, were prepared for the 

following stocks: Bocaccio, widow 

rockfish, lingcod, cabezon, yelloweye 

rockfish, petrale sole, splitnose rockfish 

and greenstriped rockfish. Stock 

assessment updates, those that run new 

data through an existing model without 

changing the model, were prepared for: 

Canary rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched 

rockfish, and POP. Each new stock 

assessment includes a base model and 

two alternative models. The alternative 

models are developed from the base 

model by bracketing the dominant 

dimension of uncertainty (e.g., stockrecruitment steepness or R0, natural 

mortality rate, survey catchability, 

recent year-class strength, weights on 

conflicting CPUE series, etc.) and are 

intended to be a means of expressing 

uncertainty within the model for 

decision makers by showing the contrast 

in management implications. Once a 

base model has been bracketed on either 

side by alternative model scenarios, 

capturing the overall degree of 

uncertainty in the assessment, a 2-way 

decision table analysis (states-of-nature 

versus management action) is used to 

present the repercussions of 

uncertainty. As noted above, the SSC 

makes recommendations to the Council 

on the appropriateness of using the 

different stock assessments for 

management purposes, after which the 

Council considers adoption of the stock 

assessments, use of the stock assessment 

for the development of rebuilding 

analysis, and the OFLs resulting from 

the base model runs of the stock 

assessments. Tables 1a and 2a present 

the specifications for each stock while 

the footnotes to these tables describe 

how the proposed specifications were 

derived. 

For species that did not have new 

stock assessments or updates prepared, 

the Council considered an OFL derived 

from the most recent stock assessment 

or update, the results of rudimentary 

stock assessments, or the historical 

landings data approved by the Council 

for use in setting harvest specifications. 

Detailed information on how the OFLs 

for species without any new stock 

assessments were derived are provided 

in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 

2a. The stock assessment cycle and the 

process for adoption of final OFLs for 

Pacific whiting are detailed below. 

Species that are not overfished and for 

which new stock assessments or stock 

assessment updates were prepared and 

recommended for use in setting harvest 

specifications by the Council include: 

Lingcod, greenstriped rockfish, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67817 

splitnose rockfish, Cabezon. Specific 

information on the OFLs for species 

associated with these new stock 

assessments and assessment updates are 

provided in the footnotes to Table 1a 

and Table 2a. 

For the overfished species, new 

assessments were prepared for bocaccio, 

petrale sole, widow rockfish, yelloweye 

rockfish and stock assessment updates 

were prepared for canary rockfish, 

cowcod, darkblotched, POP. The 

following stock assessment summaries 

pertain to the new stock assessments or 

stock assessment updates for stocks that 

have been declared overfished. 

Bocaccio (Sebastes Paucispinis) 

A new stock assessment was prepared 

for the bocaccio stock between the U.S.- 

Mexico border and Cape Blanco, OR, 

using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. 

Changes in the model from the prior 

assessment include: A northern 

expansion of the modeled area from 

Cape Mendocino, CA, to Cape Blanco, 

OR; and the extension of the catch 

history from 1950 to 1892. Assessment 

scientists have treated bocaccio as 

independent stocks north and south of 

Cape Mendocino. The southern stock, 

which has been declared overfished, 

occurs south of Cape Mendocino. 

Although the range extends 

considerably further north, there is 

some evidence that there are two 

demographic clusters of bocaccio. The 

northern stock is found north of 48° 

north latitude in northern Washington 

and Canada, with a relative rarity of 

bocaccio (particularly smaller fish) in 

the region between Cape Mendocino 

and the Columbia River mouth. 

Since the early 2000s, the bocaccio 

spawning output has been increasing 

steadily. Spawning output in 2009 was 

estimated at 2,209,900 mt (∼95 percent 

confidence: 1,546,440—2,873,360 mt). 

Bocaccio depletion was estimated to be 

28.12 percent (0.18—0.37 percent) of its 

unfished biomass in 2009. There are 

clear signs that the stock is rebuilding 

at a relatively rapid rate. Recovery may 

be taking place more rapidly in the 

south, and recovery in the central/ 

northern California region may be 

dependent on an influx of fish from the 

southern area. 

Model uncertainty regarding natural 

mortality rates and estimates of 

selectivity for the NMFS triennial trawl 

survey continue to be problematic. 

Since 2001, large scale area closures 

have affected the spatial distribution of 

fishing mortality and truncated several 

abundance indices (recreational CPUE 

indices), confounding the interpretation 

of survey indices as well as fishery 

dependent and independent length 

frequency data. Data from relatively 

recent, short-term surveys do not yet 

appear to be informative with respect to 

trends in abundance, although they are 

informative with respect to cohort 

strength. 

At the September 2009 Council 

meeting, the SSC endorsed the use of 

the 2009 bocaccio assessment for status 

determination and management in the 

Council process. The SSC supported the 

extension of the assessment area as 

biologically appropriate given the 

current understanding of stock 

structure, but also recognized that the 

boundary extension raises issues with 

respect to area management. 

Approximately 6 percent of the 

coastwide bocaccio catch has occurred 

historically between Cape Mendocino 

and Cape Blanco while only 1 percent 

has been taken from the California/ 

Oregon border to Cape Blanco. The SSC 

indicated that there was no conservation 

issue north of the 40°10′ north latitude 

management boundary at Cape 

Mendocino, based on these low 

bocaccio catches in the area. Therefore, 

the SSC did not recommend changing 

the area where bocaccio are designated 

as overfished. The SSC indicated that 

management should be based on a prorata allocation using the historical catch 

distribution north and south of 40°10′ 

north latitude. The bocaccio OFL of 737 

mt for 2011 and 732 mt for 2012 was 

based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 

F50% as applied to the estimated 

exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock 

assessment. For setting harvest 

specifications, six percent of the 

assessed biomass was estimated to occur 

north of 40°10′ north latitude. The 

projected OFLs from the assessment 

were adjusted accordingly. 

Canary Rockfish (Sebastes Pinniger) 

A stock assessment update was 

prepared for the coastwide canary 

rockfish stock using the Stock Synthesis 

3.03a model. Consistent with the Terms 

of Reference for Groundfish Stock 

Assessments, fishery and survey data 

were updated through 2008. Data 

updates for earlier years were also made 

with most of the updates being minor, 

with the exception of historical catch 

estimates (< 1981) that were 

substantially revised by NMFS and 

CDFG scientists. The historical catch 

revisions resulted in a 24 percent 

reduction in the total estimated canary 

rockfish catch from 1916 to 2006, with 

most of this reduction occurring prior to 

1968. The new data resulted in a 

rebuilding trajectory that was overall 

lower than previous projections. 

Although the stock has continued to 

progress towards the rebuilding 

threshold (B40%), the overall lowering of 

the trajectory means that it would take 

more time to reach the B40%. The new 

assessment estimated the 2007 

depletion level for canary rockfish to 

have been 21.7 percent (below the 

estimate of 32.4 percent for 2007 from 

the 2007 assessment with 95 percent 

confidence bounds of 24–41 percent) 

and the 2009 depletion level to have 

been 23.7 percent with 95 percent 

confidence bounds of 17–30 percent). 

The SSC indicated that the broad 

confidence interval on the depletion 

level was due to a high degree of 

uncertainty in the parameter estimates, 

especially steepness. The change in the 

depletion level is largely due to the 

revised historical catch time-series for 

California. At the Council’s September 

meeting, the SSC indicated that revised 

catches reflected the best available data, 

and were consistent with the Terms of 

Reference for Stock Assessment 

Documents. 

The assessment update estimated the 

unfished spawning stock biomass to be 

25,993 mt (down from the 2007 estimate 

of 32,561 mt). After a period of above 

average recruitments, recent year-class 

strengths (1997–2008) have generally 

been low, with only 4 of the 12 years 

(1999, 2001, 2006, and 2007) estimated 

to have produced larger recruitments. 

Because of the limited number of years 

they have been observed, the strengths 

of the 2006–2007 year classes are 

subject to greater uncertainty. As the 

larger recruitments from the late 1980s 

and early 1990s move through the 

population, the rate of recovery to BMSY

in future projections is estimated to 

slow. Because the species has a patchy 

distribution it is difficult to sample well 

with the bottom trawl gear used in the 

trawl survey. 

The base case assessment model 

explicitly captures parameter 

uncertainty in the asymptotic 

confidence intervals for key parameters 

and management quantities. Uncertainty 

around the base model results is 

considered through integration of 

rebuilding trajectories over two alternate 

states of nature corresponding to lower 

and higher stock-recruitment steepness, 

the parameter largely governing 

productivity and recent rebuilding 

trajectory. At the Council’s September 

meeting the SCC indicated that the 

canary rockfish stock assessment update 

represented the ‘‘best available science,’’ 

and was suitable to use for Council 

management decisions. The canary 

rockfish OFL of 614 mt for 2011 and 622 

mt for 2012 was based on the FMSY

harvest rate proxy of F50% as applied to 

the estimated exploitable biomass from 

the 2009 stock assessment update. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Cowcod (Sebastes Levis) 

A stock assessment update was 

prepared for cowcod in the Southern 

California Bight (U.S. waters south of 

Point Conception—34°27′ north 

latitude) using an age-structured 

production model (Stock Synthesis 2 

model). The assumption of an isolated 

stock is untested, and no information is 

available regarding stock structure or 

dispersal across the assumed stock 

boundaries. No new data sources were 

available for this update assessment. 

Cowcod is a long lived species with 

a mean generation time estimated at 38 

years. Relative depletion was estimated 

at 4.5 percent in 2009 for the base 

model. The cowcod stock shows a 

slowly increasing trend in stock 

biomass, but given that no new data are 

available, this result is little more than 

a stock projection. Cowcod remain on a 

multi-decadal rebuilding timeline. 

Management actions since 2001, that 

include large scale area closures 

specifically to reduce fishery 

interactions with cowcod, have 

truncated data used in the assessment. 

Due to uncertainty in total mortality 

since no-retention regulations took 

effect, recreational and commercial 

mortalities have been assumed to be 

0.25 metric tons per year, per fishery. A 

major source of uncertainty in the 

assessment was the assumed value of 

the steepness parameter in the spawnerrecruit relationship. In addition, the 

percentage of cowcod in total rockfish 

landings in years prior to the 1980s is 

not well understood. At the Council’s 

June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated 

that the updated assessment for cowcod 

represented the ‘‘best available science,’’ 

and was suitable as the basis for Council 

management decisions. The 2011 and 

2012 cowcod OFL contribution for the 

Conception area (south of 36°00′ north 

latitude) was determined from the 2009 

stock assessment update with an FMSY 

proxy harvest rate of F50% applied to 

the estimated exploitable biomass for 

the assessed portion of the stock in the 

Conception area. The OFLs for the 

Monterey area were determined using a 

DB–SRA approach. The OFLs for the 

Conception and the Monterey areas 

were summed to determine an OFL 

specification of 13 mt for 2011 and 2012 

for the entire stock south of 40°10′ north 

latitude. 

Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes 

Crameri) 

In 2009, a stock assessment update 

was prepared for darkblotched rockfish 

the U.S. Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka 

and Monterey areas using the Stock 

Synthesis 3.03a model. During the 

previous assessment cycle, The SSC 

indicated that changes to the 

darkblotched rockfish stock assessment 

model in 2007 (same model used for 

2009 update) represented a substantial 

advancement over previous stock 

assessments. 

The fishing mortality rate on 

darkblotched rockfish has been greatly 

reduced, and darkblotched rockfish 

appear to be rebuilding gradually, 

relatively consistent with previous 

rebuilding projections. The point 

estimate for the depletion of the 

spawning output at the start of 2009 is 

27.5 percent. In 2009, the biomass (1+ 

age fish) is estimated at 12,836 mt, as 

compared to 5,862 mt in 2000. The 

recruitment pattern for darkblotched 

rockfish is highly variable between 

years. Recruitment levels between the 

1980’s and 1990’s were generally poor 

when compared with average historical 

recruitment levels, with the exceptions 

being the 1999 and 2000 year-classes 

which appear to be two of the four 

largest years since 1975. The estimated 

increase in stock size is driven primarily 

by the assumption that darkblotched 

productivity is analogous to that of 

other similar species, and not on survey 

and fishery data indicating an upward 

trend. 

A number of sources of uncertainty 

were explicitly included in the 

assessment. Allowance was made for 

uncertainty in natural mortality and the 

parameters of the stock recruitment 

relationship. Sources of uncertainty not 

included in the current model, 

included: The degree of connection 

between the stocks of darkblotched 

rockfish off British Columbia and those 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); 

the effect of climatic variables on 

recruitment, growth and survival of 

darkblotched rockfish; and gender based 

differences in survival. At the Council’s 

June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated 

that the updated assessment for 

darkblotched rockfish represented the 

‘‘best available science,’’ and was 

suitable as the basis for Council 

management decisions. The 

darkblotched rockfish OFL of 508 mt for 

2011 and 497 mt for 2012 was based on 

the FMSY harvest rate proxy of F50% as 

applied to the estimated exploitable 

biomass from the 2009 stock assessment 

update. 

Petrale Sole (Eopsetta Jordani) 

A new coastwide stock assessment 

was prepared for petrale sole using the 

Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. There is 

currently no genetic evidence suggesting 

distinct biological stocks of petrale sole 

off the U.S. coast. Given the lack of clear 

information regarding the status of 

distinct biological populations, the 

assessment treats the U.S. petrale sole 

resource from the Mexican border to the 

Canadian border as a single coastwide 

stock. 

Petrale sole were lightly exploited 

during the early 1900s. By the 1950s, 

the petrale sole fishery was well 

developed and showing clear signs of 

depletion and declines in catches and 

biomass. The base model indicates that 

the spawning biomass has been below 

B25% continuously since 1953. The 

petrale sole spawning stock biomass is 

estimated to have increased slightly 

from the late 1990s, peaking in 2005, in 

response to above average recruitment. 

However, this increasing trend has 

reversed since the 2005 assessment and 

the stock has been declining, most likely 

due to strong year classes having passed 

through the fishery. The estimated 

relative depletion level for 2009 is 11.6 

percent. Unfished spawning stock 

biomass was estimated to be 25,334 mt. 

The base case assessment model 

includes within model uncertainty 

(assessment parameter uncertainty) from 

a variety of sources, but it likely 

underestimates the uncertainty in recent 

trend and current stock status. For this 

reason, in addition to asymptotic 

confidence intervals, results from 

models that reflect alternate states of 

nature regarding the estimate of 2009 

spawning biomass are presented as a 

decision table within the stock 

assessment document. 

At the Council’s June 2009 meeting, 

the SSC reviewed the new petrale sole 

assessment and, based on a number of 

concerns, was unable to endorse the 

assessment at that time. While the 

petrale sole assessment appeared to be 

technically sound and thoroughly 

reviewed by the STAR panel, the SSC 

was concerned that certain assessment 

results were so extreme that the overall 

plausibility of the assessment was called 

into question. Attention focused 

primarily on the estimated catchability 

of the NWFSC survey, the estimate of 

stock-recruit steepness (0.95), and 

confounding of estimated model 

parameters. The Council’s STAR Panel 

recommended that the estimates of FMSY

and BMSY produced by the petrale sole 

assessment be investigated as 

alternatives to the currently used 

proxies for F40% and B40%. The SSC 

developed a list of analytical requests 

for the Council’s petrale sole Stock 

Assessment Team to address. The SSC’s 

groundfish subcommittee and the 

Council’s Stock Assessment Team 

reviewed the model and proxies of F40%

and B40%. After further consideration by 

the SSC’s groundfish subcommittee, the 

full SSC endorsed the petrale sole stock 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67819 

assessment model approved by the 

Council’s STAR panel, and 

recommended that proxies of B25% for 

BMSY and F30% for FMSY be established 

for all flatfish not only petrale sole. 

The SSC agreed that the base petrale 

sole model represents the best available 

scientific information, and endorsed its 

use for status determination and 

management in the Council process. 

The SSC concluded that there is no 

basis for rejecting the assessment based 

on the estimated catchability coefficient 

(q) for NWFSC trawl survey. However 

the SSC encouraged further 

investigation of the catchability 

coefficient of the survey by 

experimental evaluation of trawl 

performance, quantification of trawlable 

and untrawlable habitat off the west 

coast, or by synthesis of available 

information and expert knowledge 

through development of an informative 

prior, as had been anticipated from the 

2008 survey catchability workshop. The 

SSC also endorsed further evaluation of 

fishery CPUE data in the next petrale 

sole assessment. The petrale sole OFL of 

1,021 mt for 2011 and 1,279 mt for 2012 

was based on the FMSY harvest rate 

proxy of F30% as applied to the 

estimated exploitable biomass from the 

2009 stock assessment. 

POP (Sebastes Alutus) 

A stock assessment update was 

prepared for POP in the combined U.S. 

Vancouver and Columbia areas using 

the same forward projection agestructured model used in the previous 

stock assessment. Consistent with the 

Terms of Reference for Groundfish 

Stock Assessments, fishery, survey, and 

observer data were updated to include 

the years since the last assessment. Only 

minor updates to the data from earlier 

years were made. 

There were no significant changes in 

the view of stock status between the 

2007 and 2009 assessment updates. The 

estimate of depletion of the spawning 

biomass at the start of 2009 is estimated 

to be 28.6 percent. The POP biomass 

shows an increasing trend. Poor 

recruitment has been seen in recent 

years, compared with the 1950s and 

1960s, although the 1999 year class 

appears to be larger than any other since 

the 1960’s. The 2000 year class also 

appears to be relatively large; however, 

this may be due to some small amount 

of overall bias in ageing. 

A number of sources of uncertainty 

are explicitly included in this 

assessment such as uncertainty in 

natural mortality, the parameters of the 

stock-recruitment relationship, and the 

survey catch ability coefficients. There 

are also other sources of uncertainty that 

are not included in the current model. 

These include the degree of connection 

between the U.S. and Canadian stocks; 

the effect of climatic variables on 

recruitment, growth and survival; 

gender differences in growth and 

survival; and the relationship between 

individual spawner biomass and 

effective spawning output and age and 

maturity. 

At the Council’s June 2009 meeting 

the SSC indicated that the updated 

assessment for POP represented the 

‘‘best available science,’’ and would be 

suitable as the basis for Council 

management decisions. The POP OFL of 

1,026 mt for 2011 and 1,007 mt for 2012 

was based on the FMSY harvest rate 

proxy of F50% as applied to the 

estimated exploitable biomass from the 

2009 stock assessment update. 

Widow Rockfish (Sebastes Entomelas) 

A new coastwide stock assessment 

was prepared for widow rockfish in the 

U.S Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka, 

Monterey, and Conception areas. The 

2009 assessment differed from the 

previous assessment in several respects: 

The assessment used the Stock 

Synthesis 3 model rather than an agebased population model; the catch 

history was revised and extended back 

to 1916; catch, age structure, and survey 

data were updated through 2008; and 

data from the NWFSC trawl survey were 

included in the assessment. 

The widow rockfish spawning 

biomass steadily declined from 1980 to 

2003, when widow rockfish was 

targeted in a major commercial fishery. 

Since 2003, spawning biomass has 

shown an increasing trend. For 2009 

spawning biomass is estimated at 15,625 

mt (∼95 percent confidence: 5,984– 

25,266 mt). Depletion in 2009 is 

estimated at 38.5 percent (14.2–62.9 

percent) of unfished biomass. Because 

the biomass is below B40% it remains 

under a rebuilding plan. 

Uncertainty in estimation of widow 

rockfish recruitment remains high. The 

highest known widow rockfish 

recruitment occurred in 1970. When 

compared to the long-term average, 

recruitment was relatively low in the 

early 1990s and since 2001. The 2007 

stock assessment update indicated that 

the 2000 recruitment was relatively 

strong; however, the new stock 

assessment did not confirm a strong 

2000 recruitment. In general, estimates 

of recruitment for the most recent years 

are uncertain, and can have a 

considerable impact on the outcomes of 

rebuilding projections. 

The SSC endorsed the use of the 2009 

widow rockfish stock assessment for 

status determination and management 

in the Council process. The widow 

rockfish OFLs of 5,097 mt for 2011 and 

4,923 mt for 2012 were based on the 

FMSY harvest rate proxy of F50% as 

applied to the estimated exploitable 

biomass from the 2009 stock 

assessment. 

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes 

Ruberrimus) 

A new coastwide stock assessment 

was prepared for yelloweye rockfish in 

2009 using the Stock Synthesis 3.03b 

model. The 2009 assessment differed 

from previous assessments in terms of 

assumed population structure and the 

data used to fit the model. The 2009 

assessment was based on three regions 

(California, Oregon and Washington) 

under the assumptions that: Adults are 

sedentary; density-dependence is a 

function of coastwide egg production; 

and the proportion of recruits settling in 

each area is constant over time. This 

spatial structure is consistent with our 

understanding of the behavior of 

yelloweye rockfish, and reflects a 

compromise between a coastwide 

assessment and separate assessments for 

each state. 

Even with a large number of changes 

to data inputs, the results from the 2009 

yelloweye rockfish assessment are 

consistent with those from the 2006 and 

2007 assessments. All of these 

assessments suggest that yelloweye 

rockfish experienced a substantial 

decline in abundance between 1980 and 

2000, with increased catches. Large 

reductions in harvest have been in place 

since 2000. The best estimate of 

depletion in 2009 from the current 

assessment is 20.3 percent of unfished 

biomass (states of nature: 17.3–23.5 

percent). This represents an increase 

from the 2007 updated assessment, 

which estimated depletion in 2007 to be 

16.4 percent. 

In contrast to the 2006 and 2007 

assessments, the 2009 assessment makes 

use of data from the NWFSC and 

triennial trawl surveys as well as data 

on discarded yelloweye rockfish 

collected by observers in the Oregon 

recreational charter fishery. However, 

the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) survey data remain 

the most important index in the 

assessment, although IPHC survey data 

are only available for Washington and 

Oregon and not California, where the 

largest potential biomass of yelloweye 

rockfish is estimated to occur. 

Data for yelloweye rockfish are sparse 

and relatively uninformative, especially 

regarding current trends. Yelloweye 

rockfish catches are very uncertain due 

to the relatively small contribution to 

rockfish market categories and the 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

relatively large scale of recreational 

removals. In addition, since 2001, 

management restrictions have required 

nearly all yelloweye rockfish caught by 

recreational and commercial fishers to 

be discarded at sea. Currently available 

fishery-independent indices of 

abundance are imprecise and not highly 

informative. It is unclear whether 

increased rates of recovery (or lack 

thereof) will be detectable without more 

precise survey methods applied over 

broad portions of the coast. Fishery data 

are also unlikely to produce conclusive 

information about the stock for the 

foreseeable future, due to retention 

prohibitions and active avoidance of 

yelloweye rockfish among all fleets. 

Considerable uncertainty regarding the 

time-series of historical catches was 

identified as a key source of uncertainty 

in the stock assessment. 

At the Council’s September 2009 

meeting, the SSC cautioned against 

using the stock assessment estimates of 

trends in abundance by region as the 

sole basis for the spatial allocation 

because the trend in abundance at the 

coastwide level was much more robust 

than at the regional level. The SSC 

emphasized the value of collecting 

biological data, such as age-length and 

maturation information, for yelloweye 

rockfish during the IPHC surveys. 

The SSC endorsed the approach used 

to quantify uncertainty, which forms the 

basis for the yelloweye rockfish 

rebuilding analysis and they endorsed 

the use of the 2009 yelloweye rockfish 

assessment as the best available science 

for status determination and 

management in the Council process. 

The yelloweye rockfish OFL of 48 mt for 

2011 and 2012 was based on the FMSY

harvest rate proxy of F50% as applied to 

the estimated exploitable biomass from 

the 2009 stock assessment. 

ABC Policy 

The proposed ABCs are consistent 

with the harvest specification 

framework proposed for Amendment 23 

to the PCGFMP. Under Amendment 23, 

the term ABC is redefined to be an 

annual catch specification that is the 

stock or stock complex’s OFL reduced 

by an amount associated with scientific 

uncertainty. Under the revised 

Magnuson-Stevens Act National 

Standard 1 guidelines, scientific advice 

that is relatively uncertain will result in 

ABCs that are relatively lower, all other 

things being equal, i.e., a precautionary 

reduction in catch will occur due purely 

to scientific uncertainty. The ABC is the 

catch level that ACLs may not exceed. 

As explained in more detail below, the 

SSC recommended a two-step approach 

referred to as the P* approach initially 

for stocks with relatively data-rich stock 

assessments and ultimately for other 

stocks. In this approach, the SSC 

determines the amount of scientific 

uncertainty in a stock assessment, 

referred to as sigma. Then the Council 

determines the level of risk aversion to 

use, which is designated as the P*. The 

scientists then apply the P* value to the 

sigma value to determine the amount by 

which the OFL is reduced to establish 

the ABC. 

In January 2009, the SSC’s Groundfish 

and Coastal Pelagic Species 

Subcommittees met to discuss the new 

Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization 

requirements, including the 

development of a methodology for 

estimating scientific uncertainty in 

stock assessments. At this meeting, two 

types of uncertainty in biomass 

estimation were considered. The first 

was ‘‘within’’ assessment variability, 

which is presented in each stock 

assessment or stock assessment update 

and represented by the coefficient of 

variation for the terminal year biomass 

estimate. The second type of uncertainty 

is ‘‘among’’ assessment variation, 

resulting from a wide variety of factors, 

many of which represent a significant 

model or structural uncertainty. Reasons 

for ‘‘among’’ assessment variations in 

stock size estimation, includes 

differences in: The modeling software; 

the makeup of the analytical team doing 

the assessment; the composition of the 

review panel; changes in data 

availability; altered ‘‘priors’’ for the 

parameters; and changes in overall 

model structure. The SSC evaluated 

three methods of quantifying these types 

of scientific uncertainty, but also 

recognized that numerous other 

unaccounted for factors exist for which 

there is currently no method for 

meaningful analysis, including for 

example, the effects of climate and/or 

ecosystem interactions on the 

estimation of an OFL. 

The general methodology used by the 

SSC subcommittees to assess amongassessment uncertainty was to compare 

previous stock assessments and stock 

assessment updates, and consider the 

logarithms of the ratios of the biomass 

estimates for each pair of assessments 

and their reciprocals using the last 20 

years from an assessment. This provides 

a distribution of stock size differences in 

log-space and, if this variation is 

averaged over species, provides a 

general view of total biomass variation 

(represented as sigma—s) that emerges 

among repeat assessments of stocks, 

while embracing a wide range of factors 

that affect variability in results. During 

their consideration of Amendment 23 to 

the PCGFMP, in March 2010, the SSC 

recommended the use of this 

methodology, but recognized that it was 

only the first step in the process of 

developing methods for estimating 

uncertainty in OFL, in part, because it 

only considers uncertainty in biomass 

and likely underestimates total variance. 

Going forward, the SSC indicated that it 

will be important to consider other 

sources of uncertainty, such as FMSY. 

While biomass is most likely the 

dominant source of uncertainty, it is 

anticipated that other factors will need 

to be considered in the future. 

The SSC recommended the biomass 

variance statistic of sigma=0.36, from 

the analysis of stock assessments and 

stock assessment updates from 17 data 

rich stocks (meta-analysis). To set ABCs, 

the Council recommended using an 

approach where the SSC determines a 

value of sigma and the GMT uses the 

recommended formulation to translate 

sigma to a range of P* values (the 

probability of overfishing). Each P* is 

then mapped to its corresponding buffer 

fraction. The Council then determines 

the preferred level of risk aversion by 

selecting an appropriate P* value. 

In cases where the P* approach is 

used, the upper limit of P* values 

considered will be 0.45. Since estimated 

OFLs are median estimates, there is a 50 

percent probability that the OFL is 

overestimated or underestimated. A P* 

of 0.5 equates to no additional reduction 

for scientific uncertainty. In other 

words, the ABC is set equal to the OFL. 

For the purposes of using the P* 

approach, the SSC assigned stocks to 

species categories. Using the P* 

approach, a scientific uncertainty buffer 

against overfishing can generally be 

determined for data rich species that 

have had quantitative stock assessments 

prepared (category 1 species). Since 

there is greater scientific uncertainty for 

category 2 and 3 stocks relative to 

category 1 stocks, the scientific 

uncertainty buffer is generally greater 

than that recommended for category 1 

stocks. The SSC indicated that ideally 

the approach recommended for setting 

ABCs for category 1 stocks should also 

be applied to category 2 and 3 stocks. 

However, there is presently no analysis 

available for determining the 

appropriate value of sigma (s) to 

represent scientific uncertainty for 

stocks in these categories, unlike the 

situation for category 1 stocks. In the 

absence of an analysis for category 2 and 

3 stocks, the SSC suggested two interim 

approaches for computing ABCs from 

OFLs: Use 25 percent and 50 percent 

reductions from the OFL for deciding 

the ABC for category 2 and 3 stocks 

(similar to status quo), respectively; or 

use the P* approach using the s values 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67821 

for category 2 and 3 stocks 

recommended by the SSC. The SSC 

noted that their approach allows the 

Council to express their views on 

overfishing risk aversion. With a P* 

approach for deciding the ABC for 

category 2 and 3 stocks, the SSC 

recommended setting the value of sigma 

(s) for category 2 and 3 stocks to 0.72 

and 1.44 respectively (i.e., two and four 

times the s for category 1 stocks). The 

difference between buffers determined 

using sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44 

corresponds fairly closely to the 

difference between the buffers 

previously used for category 2 and 3 

stocks (25 percent versus 50 percent) 

when P* is in the range 0.3 ∼ 0.35. 

Although, the specific values of 0.72 

and 1.44 are recommended by the SSC 

and considered to be the best available 

scientific information, the values are not 

based on a formal analysis of assessment 

outcomes and could change 

substantially when the SSC reviews 

additional analyses in future 

management cycles. 

The Council approved the SSCrecommended s values for each species 

category. For category 1 species the 

Council adopted a P* of 0.45, which 

combined with a sigma (s) value of 0.36, 

corresponds with a reduction of 4.4 

percent from the OFL when deriving the 

ABC. For healthy stocks, the P* of 0.45 

is more risk averse than the policy used 

in the previous biennial management 

cycle in which the OYs for most healthy 

stocks were set at 100 percent of the 

ABC. The Council adopted a general 

policy of using a P* of 0.4 for category 

2 and 3 stocks. The buffers determined 

using sigma (s) values of 0.72 and 1.44 

with a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 

16.7 percent, and 30.6 percent 

reductions, respectively. For the 

purpose of setting the ABCs in 2011 and 

2012 the following category 1 species 

had a P* of 0.45 applied to the OFL to 

determine the ABC: Bocaccio south of 

40°10′ north latitude, canary rockfish, 

darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean 

Perch, widow rockfish, yelloweye 

rockfish, petrale sole, lingcod north of 

42° N latitude (Oregon and 

Washington), Pacific whiting (U.S./ 

Canada), sablefish (coastwide), 

chilipepper rockfish (coastwide), 

splitnose rockfish south of 40°10′ north 

latitude, yellowtail rockfish north of 

40°10′ north latitude, shortspine 

thornyhead (coastwide), black Rockfish 

(Washington), black Rockfish (OregonCalifornia), California scorpionfish, 

cabezon (California), cabezon (Oregon), 

Dover sole, and English sole. For the 

purpose of setting the ABCs in 2011– 

2012, the following category 2 species 

had a P* of 0.40 and a sigma value of 

applied 0.72 applied to the OFL to 

determine the ABC: greenstriped 

rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, starry 

flounder, longspine thornyhead 

(coastwide), shortbelly rockfish, lingcod 

south of 42° north latitude (California), 

cowcod (Conception-Cowcod in the 

Monterey area are a category 3 stock) 

and longnose skate. For the purpose of 

setting the minor rockfish complex 

ABCs in 2011–2012, the ABCs for the 

sub-complexes are the sum of the 

component species ABCs. The SSC 

identified the appropriate species 

category for each component species: A 

sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks 

(splitnose north, chilipepper rockfish 

north, gopher rockfish north of Pt. 

Conception, and blackgill rockfish), 0.72 

for category 2 stocks (greenstriped 

rockfish, blue rockfish, and bank 

rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks. 

The P* value used to determine the 

ABCs for the component species in the 

minor rockfish complexes was 0.45. The 

resulting 2011 and 2012 ABCs for minor 

rockfish north are reduced by 11 percent 

from the OFL (nearshore-15 percent, 

shelf-11 percent, and slope-9 percent) 

and for the minor rockfish south are 

reduced by 13 percent (nearshore-14 

percent, shelf-16 percent, and slope-8 

percent). Like the minor rockfish 

complex ABCs, the ‘‘other flatfish’’ 

complex ABCs were derived from the 

sum of the component species, with all 

being category 3 species (s=1.44/ 

P*=0.4). For the ‘‘other fish’’ complex 

the ABC is a 24 percent reduction from 

the OFL s=1.44/P*=0.4)for category 3 

species. Tables 1a and 2a present the 

specifications for each stock while the 

footnotes to these tables describe how 

the proposed specifications were 

derived. 

Vulnerability to Overfishing and 

Organization of Stock Complexes 

The vulnerability of a stock to 

becoming overfished is defined in the 

National Standard 1 guidelines as a 

function of its productivity and its 

susceptibility to the fishery. The 

guidelines note that the ‘‘vulnerability’’ 

of fish stocks should be considered 

when: (1) Deciding if a stock considered 

to be ‘‘in the fishery’’ or if it is an 

ecosystem component stock; (2) 

considering the management of stocks 

managed within complexes and the 

need to re-structure the stock 

complexes; and (3) creating 

management control rules. The GMT 

and the NMFS Vulnerability Evaluation 

Work Group considered the 

productivity and susceptibility of each 

groundfish stock by providing 

productivity and susceptibility (PSA) 

scores for each stock. A score of 1 to 3 

was identified for a set of attributes 

related to productivity and 

susceptibility. Currently there are 10 

attributes for productivity that reflect 

stock life history and 12 attributes that 

reflect susceptibility to the impacts of 

fishing and management. Stocks with a 

low productivity score and a high 

susceptibility score were considered to 

be more vulnerable, while stocks with a 

high productivity score and low 

susceptibility score were considered to 

be less vulnerable. 

In the consideration of stock complex 

structure, a four step approach for 

defining the relationship between 

fisheries and appropriate stock 

complexes was developed using the 

PSA score: (1) Calculate PSA scores for 

each species in the PCGFMP; (2) 

identify the overlap in distributions of 

each species based on latitude and 

depth range; (3) assign each species to 

the various fisheries; and (4) overlay the 

groupings onto the PSA plot. The GMT 

provided the PSA vulnerability scores 

for all of the Pacific coast groundfish 

and completed a cluster analysis based 

on latitude and depth to identify spatial 

overlaps. The results of the preliminary 

cluster analysis indicate that there is a 

need to adjust the assignment of 

PCGFMP stocks to complexes. The GMT 

concluded they could not complete the 

necessary analyses and discussion to 

fully implement the changes to stock 

complexes suggested by the National 

Standard 1 guidelines on the timeline 

for implementing Amendment 23 or 

these specifications. 

The GMT explored using catch 

information to consider whether species 

that are not in the PCGFMP should be 

considered for inclusion as ‘‘in the 

fishery’’ or as ‘‘ecosystem component’’ 

species. By using NWFSC West Coast 

Observer Program mortality reports on 

the non-whiting trawl fishery in 2007 

and 2008, and a simple method for 

expanding total catch, the GMT was 

able to roughly compare the relative 

magnitude of total catch of PCGFMP 

species versus species not in the 

PCGFMP. Based on this preliminary 

analysis of total catch information, the 

potential vulnerability scores of these 

non-PCGFMP species may be 

indistinguishable from those scores of 

species currently in the PCGFMP. 

Therefore, further consideration may be 

warranted in the future to decide if any 

of these species should be included in 

the PCGFMP as ‘‘in the fishery’’ or as an 

‘‘ecosystem component’’ species. The 

GMT recommended revisiting the ‘‘in 

the fishery’’ classification following this 

biennial cycle, with consideration of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

changes to stock complexes in the 2013– 

2014 biennial cycle. 

OY Policies 

The concept of OY remains in the 

PCGFMP, however, OYs will no longer 

be used as the annual limit on catch; 

instead, ACLs will be used for this 

purpose. As revisions to the National 

Standard 1 guidelines did not alter the 

definition of OY, which is defined as 

‘‘the amount of fish that will provide the 

greatest overall benefit to the Nation, 

particularly with respect to food 

production and recreational 

opportunities and taking into account 

the protection of marine ecosystems; 

that is prescribed on the basis of the 

MSY from the fishery, as reduced by 

any relevant economic, social, or 

ecological factor; and, in the case of an 

overfished fishery, that provides for 

rebuilding to a level consistent with 

producing the MSY in such fishery,’’ 

that definition remains unchanged in 

the PCGFMP. OY may be expressed 

numerically (as a harvest guideline, 

quota, or other specification) or nonnumerically. Beginning with the 2011 

and 2012 harvest specifications, ACLs 

are intended to, over the long-term, 

meet the National Standard 1 guidelines 

of preventing overfishing while 

achieving, on a continuing basis, the 

optimum yield. 

ACL Policy 

ACLs are specified for each stock and 

stock complex that is ‘‘in the fishery’’ as 

specified under the proposed 

Amendment 23 framework. An ACL is 

a harvest specification set equal to or 

below the ABC to address conservation 

objectives, socioeconomic concerns, 

management uncertainty or other factors 

necessary to meet any management 

objectives. Sector-specific ACLs may be 

specified in cases where a sector has a 

formal, long-term allocation of the 

harvestable surplus of a stock or stock 

complex. All sources of fishing related 

mortality (tribal, commercial groundfish 

and non groundfish, recreational, and 

EFP) retained and discard mortality, 

plus research catch is accounted for 

within an ACL. In general, when 

recommending ACLs, the Council 

follows a risk-averse policy by 

recommending an ACL that is below 

ABC when there is a perception the 

stock is below its BMSY, or to 

accommodate management uncertainty, 

socioeconomic concerns, or other 

considerations. 

Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level 

that produces MSY (BMSY) is defined as 

the precautionary threshold. When the 

biomass for a category 1 stock or stock 

complex falls below the precautionary 

threshold, the harvest rate will be 

reduced to help the stock return to the 

BMSY level. If a stock biomass is larger 

than BMSY, the ACL may be set equal to 

or less than ABC. Because BMSY is a long 

term average, the true biomass could be 

below BMSY in some years and above 

BMSY in other years. Even in the absence 

of overfishing, a biomass may decline to 

levels below BMSY due to natural 

fluctuations. Decreasing harvest rates 

below the ABC level when a biomass is 

estimated to be below BMSY, is a harvest 

control rule designed to prevent a stock 

or stock complex from becoming 

overfished. 

The PCGFMP defines ACL harvest 

policies for category 1 species. The 40– 

10 harvest control rule has been applied 

to stocks with a BMSY proxy of 40 

percent (B40%) since 2000. A new 

harvest control rule referred to as the 

25–5 harvest control rule is proposed for 

stocks with a BMSY proxy of 25 percent 

(B25%). Consistent with the SSC 

recommendations, the new harvest 

control rule would be used for setting 

ACLs for flatfish species not managed 

under overfished species rebuilding 

plans when the biomass estimated from 

the stock assessment indicates that the 

stock has fallen below B25%. The 25–5 

rule works exactly like the 40–10 rule 

except that the ACL adjustment begins 

when the stock’s depletion drops below 

B25% and at B5%, the ACL is set to zero. 

Like the 40–10 harvest control rule for 

stocks with an MSST proxy of B40%, the 

25–5 harvest control rule is designed to 

prevent stocks from becoming 

overfished. If a stock biomass is larger 

than the biomass needed to produce 

MSY (BMSY), the ACL may be set equal 

to or less than the ABC. 

Under these harvest policies, when a 

stock’s depletion level falls below BMSY

(or the proxy for BMSY), the stock is said 

to be in the ‘‘precautionary zone’’ or 

below the precautionary threshold. 

When a stock is below the precautionary 

threshold the harvest policies reduce 

the fishing mortality rate. The further 

the stock biomass is below the 

precautionary threshold, the greater the 

reduction in ACL relative to the ABC, 

until at B10% for a stock with a BMSY

proxy of B40% or B5% for a stock with a 

BMSY proxy of B25%, when the OY would 

be set at zero. These harvest policies 

foster a quicker return to the BMSY level 

and serve as an interim rebuilding 

policy for stock that are below the 

overfished threshold (Below MSST— 

below B25% for a stock with a BMSY

proxy of B40% or B12.5% for a stock with 

a BMSY proxy of B25%). 

The Council may recommend setting 

the ACL higher than what the default 

ACL harvest control rule specifies as 

long as the ACL: Does not exceed the 

ABC; complies with the requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and is 

consistent with the National Standard 

Guidelines. On a case-by-case basis, 

additional precautionary adjustments 

may be made to an ACL if necessary to 

address management uncertainty. The 

ACL serves as the basis for invoking 

AMs. If ACLs are exceeded more often 

than 1 in 4 years, then AMs, such as 

catch monitoring and inseason 

adjustments to fisheries, need to 

improve or additional AMs may need to 

be implemented. Additional AMs may 

include setting an ACT, which is a 

specified level of harvest below the 

ACL. The use of ACTs may be especially 

important for a stock subject to highly 

uncertain inseason catch monitoring. A 

sector-specific ACT may serve as a 

harvest guideline for a sector or may be 

used strategically in a rebuilding plan to 

attempt to reduce mortality of an 

overfished stock more than the 

rebuilding plan limits prescribe. 

For category 2 and 3 species with only 

rudimentary stock assessments, the 

Council has the discretion to adjust the 

ACLs for uncertainty on a case-by-case 

basis. In cases where there is a high 

degree of uncertainty about the 

condition of the stock or stocks, the ACL 

may be reduced accordingly. Most 

category 3 species are managed in a 

stock complex (such as other flatfish, 

minor rockfish, and other fish) where 

harvest specifications are set for the 

complex in its entirety. For stock 

complexes, the ACL will be less than or 

equal to the sum of the individual 

component ABCs. The ACL may be 

adjusted below the sum of component 

ABCs as appropriate. For what are now 

being referred to as category 2 and 3 

stocks, the Council’s policy prior to this 

specification cycle was to set the OY at 

75 percent of the ABC to account for 

stocks that have non-quantitative 

assessments and to set the OY at 50 

percent of the ABC where the ABC is 

based on historical data. The previous 

adjustments were intended to address 

both scientific and management 

uncertainty. Because the ABC values for 

2011 and 2012 are the OFLs reduced by 

scientific uncertainty, adjustment to the 

ACLs for additional uncertainty was 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

If a stock is declared overfished, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 

Council to develop a rebuilding plan 

within one year from the declaration 

date. The policies for setting ACLs for 

overfished species managed under 

rebuilding plans is described below in 

the section titled ‘‘Rebuilding Plan ACLs 

for Overfished Species’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67823 

As discussed above, the Council’s 

development of the 2011 and 2012 

biennial harvest specifications began at 

Council’s November 2009 meeting. 

Because Amendment 23 was under 

development while the ACL alternatives 

were being developed, some early ACLs 

under consideration by the Council 

were not consistent with Amendment 

23 and were removed after the ABCs 

were specified (i.e. ACLs that exceeded 

the ABC). Other viable ACLs though 

lower than the ABC’s developed under 

the Amendment 23 structure, are 

described in terms of pre-Amendment 

23 language. The harvest specifications 

recommended by the Council and 

which are being implemented by this 

action are consistent with Amendments 

23. 

ACLS for ‘‘Healthy’’ and ‘‘Precautionary 

Zone’’ Species and Species Complexes 

As stated above, the PCGFMP 

provides guidance on setting harvest 

specifications for category 1 stocks 

depending on the stock’s estimated 

biomass level. For the following species 

or species complexes where there was 

no new scientific information including 

stock assessments or a management 

guidance change in the harvest strategy, 

the Council only considered a single 

annual ACL for 2011 and 2012: Pacific 

cod; chilipepper rockfish, yellowtail 

rockfish, shortspine thornyhead north of 

34°27′ north latitude, black rockfish 

(Washington), black rockfish (Oregon/ 

California), longnose skate, other 

flatfish, and other fish. The Council 

recommended final adoption of the 

ABC/OYs values for these species at its 

June 2010 meeting. The information that 

serves as the basis for the ACLs for these 

species can be found in the footnotes to 

Table 1a and Table 2a. Because there 

were new policies applicable or new 

information available, the Council 

considered alternative ACLs for the 

following non-overfished species: 

lingcod north of 42° north latitude; 

lingcod south of 42° north latitude; 

sablefish; shortbelly rockfish; shortspine 

thornyhead south of 34°27′ north 

latitude; longspine thornyhead north of 

34°27′ north latitude; longspine 

thornyhead south of 34°27′ north 

latitude; California scorpionfish; 

cabezon (California); cabezon (Oregon); 

Dover sole; English sole; arrowtooth 

flounder; starry flounder; and minor 

rockfish complexes north and south of 

40°10′ north latitude. 

Pacific whiting is managed consistent 

with the U.S.-Canada agreement for 

Pacific whiting. ACLs for Pacific 

whiting are adopted on an annual basis 

after a stock assessment is completed 

just prior to the Council’s March 

meeting. Accordingly, the Council 

recommended a range of ACLs for 2011 

and 2012, and delayed adoption of final 

2011 and 2012 OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs 

until the March 2011 and 2012 

meetings, respectively. The DEIS for the 

2011 and 2012 management measures 

considers a range for Pacific whiting 

ACLs and the resulting impacts. 

Lingcod North and South 

A lingcod stock assessment was 

prepared in 2009. The stock assessment 

was conducted as two separate stock 

assessments, one for the northern 

portion and one for the southern portion 

of the stock. For lingcod off of 

Washington and Oregon (the northern 

portion of the coastwide stock) the 

biomass was estimated to be at 62 

percent of its unfished biomass, and for 

lingcod off of California (the southern 

portion) the biomass was estimated to 

be at 74 percent of its unfished biomass. 

Three ACL alternatives were considered 

for the north stock. Alternative 1, with 

an ACL of 1,219 mt in 2011 and 1,126 

mt in 2012 was based on the 2009 stock 

assessment base model with a 50 

percent reduction from the OFL (48 

percent reduction from the ABC) for 

assessment uncertainty and overfished 

species bycatch concerns. Alternative 2, 

with an ACL of 2,172 mt in 2011 and 

2,020 mt in 2012 was based on the low 

mortality model in the 2009 assessment. 

Alternative 3, with an ACL of 2,330 mt 

in 2011 and 2,151 mt in 2012, was based 

on the 2009 stock assessment base 

model with the ACL set equal to the 

ABC. Because lingcod is a healthy stock 

the Council recommended the ACL be 

set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3). 

For lingcod south, three ACLs were 

considered. Alternative 1, with an ACL 

of 1,262 mt in 2011 and 1,299 mt in 

2012, was based on the 2009 stock 

assessment base model with a 50 

percent reduction from the OFL for 

assessment uncertainty and overfished 

species bycatch concerns. Alternative 2, 

with an ACL of 1,421 mt in 2011 and 

1,531 mt in 2012, was based on the low 

mortality model in the 2009 assessment. 

Alternative 3, with an ACL of 2,102 mt 

in 2011 and 2,164 mt in 2012 was based 

on the 2009 stock assessment base 

model with the ACL set equal to the 

ABC. Because lingcod is a healthy stock, 

the Council recommended the ACL be 

set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3). 

The trawl rationalization program, as 

approved by NMFS in Amendments 20 

and 21, lists lingcod as an IFQ species 

with a coastwide area designation. 

Because these harvest specifications for 

lingcod are being recommended north 

and south of 42° north latitude as 

opposed to coastwide, NMFS 

anticipates that quota share for lingcod 

would need to be reallocated north and 

south of 42° N. lat. once the 2011–2012 

harvest specifications and management 

measures are implemented through a 

final rule. 

Sablefish 

Sablefish is one of the most important 

species to the trawl and limited entry 

fixed gear fisheries. Management 

uncertainty for sablefish and the risk of 

overharvesting is considered to be low. 

This is because of the increased 

monitoring of the trawl fisheries that 

will occur under rationalization and 

because the limited entry fixed gear 

sector tends to under harvest their 

allocation. Therefore, when 

recommending the sablefish ACLs, the 

Council focused primarily on 

conservation concerns and stock status. 

The 2007 coastwide sablefish stock 

assessment indicates the stock is at 36 

percent of its unfished biomass and is 

therefore considered to be in the 

precautionary zone. The strength of the 

stock is reliant upon the strong 1999 

and 2000 year classes, with the 

possibility of a strong incoming 2004 

year class as well. The 2010 OY was 

previously set by applying a 40–10 

harvest control rule to the coastwide 

ABC (in 2010 the ABC was equivalent 

to the OFL). The coastwide OY was then 

apportioned north and south of 36° 

north latitude, using the average 2003– 

2006 proportions of the swept-area 

biomass estimates of sablefish from the 

NWFSC shelf-slope trawl survey (72 

percent north; 28 percent south). The 

OY south of 36° north latitude was then 

reduced by 50 percent to account for 

greater assessment and survey 

uncertainty in that area. 

In determining the 2011–2012 ACLs 

for sablefish, the Council considered: (1) 

How to apply the 40–10 control rule 

since this stock is in the precautionary 

zone; (2) how to apportion the stock 

north and south of 36° north latitude; 

and (3) whether precautionary 

reductions were needed to the southern 

ACL to account for greater conservation 

concerns. Options were considered for 

applying the 40–10 harvest control rule 

directly to the OFL, resulting in 

coastwide ACLs of 8,485 in 2011 and 

8,227 in 2012, and making the 

adjustment to the ABC resulting in 

ACLs of 7,296 mt in 2011 and 6,896 mt 

in 2012. The Council recommended the 

more risk-averse adjustment of applying 

the 40–10 reduction to the ABC 

resulting in a coastwide ACL of 8,110 

mt for 2011 and 7,863 mt for 2012. 

Historically, the coastwide sablefish 

OY was apportioned north and south of 

36° North latitude by using historical 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

landings data (96.5 percent north and 

3.5 percent south). However, beginning 

with the 2009–2010 harvest 

specifications and management 

measures process, the swept area 

biomass from the 2003–2006 combined 

NWFSC shelf/slope surveys were used 

to apportion the coastwide OY (72 

percent north and 28 percent south). 

The Council considered apportioning 

the coastwide ACLs for 2011 and 2012 

using the same proportions as in 2009– 

2010. When applied to the 2011 

coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt this resulted 

in a 5,839 mt apportionment to the 

north and a 2,271 mt apportionment to 

the south. When applied to the 2012 

coastwide ACL 7,863 mt it resulted in 

5,839 mt apportionment to the north 

and a 2,271 mt apportionment to the 

south. Because new data were available 

from the 2007 and 2008 NWFSC shelf/ 

slope surveys, the Council also 

considered apportioning the coastwide 

ACLs using averaged 2003–2008 data 

(68 percent north and 32 percent south) 

and using a weighted average with more 

weighing given to recent years (64 

percent north and 36 percent south). 

When using averaged 2003–2008 data 

and applying it to the 2011 Coastwide 

ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a 5,515 

mt to the north and 2,595 mt to the 

south and for 2012 when applied to the 

ACL of 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,347 mt 

to the north and 2,516 mt to the south. 

When using the weighted average of the 

2003–2008 data and applying it to the 

2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it 

resulted in a 5,190 mt to the north and 

2,920 mt to the south and for 2012 when 

applied to the ACL of 7,863 mt it 

resulted in 5,032 mt to the north and 

2,832 mt to the south. The 

apportionment of biomass using the 

trawl survey data incorporates the best 

available information on the sablefish 

stock distribution. The Council 

recommended apportioning the 2011 

and 2012 coastwide ACLs with 68 

percent going to the north and 32 

percent going to the south, based on 

using averaged 2003–2008 data. 

To account for the uncertainty 

inherent in the abundance estimates of 

sablefish south of 36° north latitude 

(due to the short time-series of survey 

data from the southern area and 

advisory body advice), the Council 

recommended making a 50 percent 

reduction to the 2011 and 2012 southern 

apportionment of the coastwide ACLs of 

2,595 mt and 2,516 mt, respectively, 

resulting in 2011 and 2012 ACLs for the 

area south of 36° north latitude of 1,298 

mt and 1,258 mt, respectively. Even 

with the precautionary reduction in the 

southern area, the ACL is high relative 

to recent catches in the Conception 

Area. The Cowcod Conservation Area 

(CCA) closes a significant amount of the 

Conception Area to fishing and the areaswept biomass estimates for the 

Conception area are based on the 

assumption that catch rates outside of 

the CCAs are comparable to those inside 

(the survey does not sample within the 

CCAs). 

Thornyheads 

Shortspine and longspine thornyhead 

stocks have been assessed coastwide 

and projected harvest levels in the stock 

assessments are coastwide values. 

However, since 2008 each of the stocks 

has been managed with separate OYs for 

the areas north and south of Point 

Conception (34°27’ north latitude). 

Separate ACLs are being adopted for 

shortspine thornyhead north and south 

of Point Conception, and longspine 

thornyhead north and south of Point 

Conception. 

Only one ACL alternative, based on 

projections from the 2005 stock 

assessment and representing 66 percent 

of the coastwide ACL (the portion of the 

biomass estimated to occur north of 

Point Conception) was considered for 

shortspine thornyhead. Due to 

conservation concerns in the 

Conception area and a new 

specifications structure under proposed 

Amendment 23, two ACL alternatives, 

based on projections from the 2005 

stock assessment, were considered for 

shortspine thornyhead south. 

Alternative 1 represented 34 percent 

(the portion of the biomass estimated to 

occur south of Point Conception) of the 

coastwide ACL, reduced by 50 percent 

for conservation concerns. Under 

Alternative 1 the ACLs were 405 mt in 

2011 and 401 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 

ACLs represented 34 percent of the 

coastwide ACL with no conservation 

reductions and were 811 mt in 2011 and 

802 mt in 2012. The Council 

recommended a continuation of the 

added precautionary adjustment 

included under Alternative 1, and 

recommended ACLs of 405 mt in 2011 

and 401 mt in 2012. The conservation 

concern is largely due to the fact that a 

small proportion of the Conception area 

is surveyed in the NMFS trawl survey 

given the high proportion of 

untrawlable habitat in the Conception 

area and the prohibition of bottom 

trawling in the Cowcod Conservation 

Areas. The conservation concern is 

specifically south of Point Conception 

(of 34°27′ north latitude) and is 

accommodated in consideration of the 

ACL for the shortspine thornyhead stock 

for the Conception area. 

Two ACL alternatives, based on the 

most recent stock assessment (2005) 

were considered for longspine 

thornyhead north. Both ACL 

alternatives are based on the assumption 

that 79 percent of the coastwide biomass 

occurs north of Point Conception. 

Alternative 1 for the northern portion of 

the coastwide ACL, is a 10 percent 

reduction from the ABC for 

conservation uncertainty. Under 

Alternative 1 the ACLs were 2,119 mt in 

2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012. Alternative 

2 ACLs made the same assumption 

regarding stock distribution and 

represented 79 percent of the coastwide 

ACL based on projections from the 2005 

stock assessment. The ACLs under 

Alternative 2 were 2,825 mt in 2011 and 

2,751 mt in 2012. The Council 

recommended a continuation of the 

added precautionary adjustment 

included under Alternative 1 and the 

ACLs of 2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt 

in 2012. 

Two ACL alternatives, based on the 

most recent stock assessment (2005), 

were considered for longspine 

thornyhead south. Alternative 1 

assumed a constant density throughout 

the Conception area and represented 21 

percent (the portion of the biomass 

estimated to occur north of Point 

Conception) of the coastwide ACL 

reduced by 50 percent for uncertainty. 

Under Alternative 1 the ACLs were 375 

mt in 2011 and 366 mt in 2012. 

Alternative 2 ACLs made the same 

assumption regarding stock distribution 

and represented 21 percent of the 

coastwide ACL. The ACLs under 

Alternative 2 were 751 mt in 2011 and 

731 mt in 2012. For similar reasons as 

for shortspine thornyhead south, but 

with a 40 percent reduction from the 

ABC, the Council recommended a 

continuation of the added precautionary 

adjustment included under For similar 

reasons as for shortspine thornyhead 

south, the Council recommended a 

continuation of the added precautionary 

adjustment included under Alternative 

1 and recommended ACLs of 375 mt in 

2011 and 366 mt in 2012. 

Cabezon (California) 

In recent years, the OY for Cabezon in 

waters off California was based on the 

California State Nearshore Management 

Plan which uses a FMSY proxy of F50%

and a 60–20 precautionary adjustment 

for stocks below B60% (60 percent of the 

unfished biomass). This is in contrast to 

the PCGFMP FMSY proxy of F45% percent 

for Cabezon. In light of the new ACL 

requirements for a more precautionary 

ABC that is reduced from the OFL for 

scientific uncertainty, the Council’s 

advisory bodies recommended using the 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67825 

40–10 adjustment to better align the 

California management strategy with the 

PCGFMP. Alternative 1 considered an 

ACL of 102 mt in 2011 and 105 mt 2012. 

Alternative 1 is based on the low 

mortality scenario from the 2009 stock 

assessment with a 40–10 reduction. 

Since scientific uncertainty is addressed 

in the ABC specification and the new 

assessment indicates a healthy stock 

status, the more risk averse ACL 

Alternative 1 was not considered 

necessary for managing California 

cabezon. Alternative 2 is the ACL set 

equal to the ABC and results in a 2011 

ACL of 179 mt and a 2012 ACL of 168 

mt. Following consideration by the 

Council, Alternative 2 was 

recommended. The cabezon fishery is 

managed by the State under the 

California nearshore fishery 

management plan. Implementation of 

the California fishery management plan 

included provisions to improve fishery 

monitoring and research data collection. 

Improved stock assessment modeling 

plus improved inseason data 

availability, as implemented under the 

California fishery management plan, are 

expected to substantially reduce 

uncertainty in management of the 

nearshore fishery. Therefore, additional 

reductions in the ACL below ABC to 

address management uncertainty were 

not recommended by the Council. 

Cabezon (Oregon) 

Following a 2009 stock assessment for 

cabezon off Oregon the SSC 

recommended removing the species 

from the ‘‘other fish’’ complex. The 

recreational sector was the main source 

of cabezon removals until the 1990s 

when hook and line and pot gear 

commercial fisheries began targeting 

cabezon. Cabezon has since become a 

valuable live-fish commercial fishery 

associated with higher live market 

prices. Given the small contribution 

relative to other species in the complex, 

removing cabezon in Oregon from the 

‘‘other fish’’ complex will reduce the risk 

of overfishing. 

Two ACL alternatives were 

considered for the cabezon stock off 

Oregon. Alternative 1 includes an ACL 

of 29 mt in 2011 and 2012, and was 

based on the results of the low mortality 

scenario in the 2009 stock assessment. 

Since scientific uncertainty is addressed 

in the ABC specification and the new 

assessment indicates a healthier stock, 

the more risk averse ACL alternative 1 

was not considered necessary for 

managing Oregon cabezon. Alternative 2 

was from the results of the base model 

and the 2009 stock assessment, with the 

ACL set equal to the ABC. This resulted 

in a 2011 ACL of 50 mt and a 2012 ACL 

of 48 mt. Following consideration by the 

Council, an ACL of 50 mt in 2011 and 

an ACL of 48 mt in 2012 was 

recommended. The cabezon fishery is 

managed by the State of Oregon under 

a limited entry nearshore permit 

program with a conservative 

management approach and a 

management history in which necessary 

action to stay within harvest 

specifications has been taken by the 

state. 

California Scorpionfish 

California Scorpionfish south of 

34°27′ North latitude (Point Conception) 

was first assessed in 2005 and was 

estimated to be between 58 and 80 

percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. 

For 2011 and 2012 the Council 

considered two ACL alternatives for 

California scorpionfish. Alternative 1 

was based on the base model from the 

2009 stock assessment with the 60–20 

reduction from the California State 

Nearshore Management Plan. 

Alternative 1 resulted in a 2011 ACL of 

133 mt and a 2012 ACL of 124 mt. The 

Alternative 2 ACLs of 135 mt in 2011 

and 125 mt in 2012 are ACLs set equal 

to the ABC. The Council recommended 

setting the ACL equal to the ABC. Like 

cabezon, the California nearshore 

fishery management plan includes 

California scorpionfish which is a 

healthy stock, and is managed by the 

state under provisions for improved 

fishery monitoring and research data 

collection. 

Dover Sole 

Alternatives 1–3 are based on the 

results of the 2005 stock assessment, 

which estimated the Dover sole biomass 

to be at 59.8 percent of its unfished 

biomass in 2005 and was projected to be 

increasing. Alternative 1 is the 2010 OY 

which is based on the results of the 

2005 assessment with an FMSY proxy of 

F40%. The Alternative 1 ACL of 16,500 

mt is the MSY harvest level which is 

considerably larger than the coastwide 

catches in any recent years. Alternative 

2 reflects the change in the FMSY harvest 

proxy from F40% to F30% for flatfishes. 

The MSY harvest level at F30% is 17,560 

mt. Alternative 3 is based on the results 

of the 2005 assessment with an FMSY

proxy of F30%, with the ACL set equal 

to the ABC, and was considered because 

the Dover sole stock biomass is above 

BMSY. Alternative 3 results in ACLs of 

42,436 mt in 2011 and 42,843 mt in 

2012. After consideration of these 

alternatives, the Council recommended 

an ACL of 25,000 mt for 2011 and 2012 

which is intermediate to Alternatives 2 

and 3. An ACL of 25,000 mt is higher 

than recent harvests yet substantially 

lower than the ABC. This is anticipated 

to provide increased harvest 

opportunities on healthy stocks for the 

new trawl ITQ program. With a trawl 

IFQ program fishers would allow 

opportunity within the constraints of 

the individual quota shares for both 

Dover sole and overfished species that 

co-occur with Dover sole within. The 

Council indicated that such 

opportunities were necessary at the start 

of the IFQ fishery to provide harvest 

opportunity. 

English Sole 

Two ACL alternatives were 

considered for English sole for 2011 and 

2012. Alternative 1 is 7,158 mt and 

5,790 mt in 2011 and 2012, respectively. 

These amounts, are based on the results 

of the 2007 assessment update with an 

FMSY proxy of F40% and the ACL set 

equal to the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects 

the change in the FMSY harvest proxy 

from F40% to F30% for flatfishes. The 

2011 ACL of 19,761 mt and 2012 ACL 

of 10,150 mt under Alternative 2 are the 

ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council 

recommended Alternative 2. English 

sole is a healthy stock that is primarily 

caught in the trawl fishery where 

individual allocations and improved 

catch accounting under an IFQ fishery 

are expected to reduce the management 

uncertainty. 

Arrowtooth Flounder 

Two ACL alternatives were 

considered for arrowtooth flounder in 

2011 and 2012. The Alternative 1 ACLs 

are 9,109 mt in 2011 and 8,241 mt in 

2012 and are based on the results of the 

2007 assessment with an FMSY proxy of 

F40% and is the ACL set equal to the 

ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change 

in the FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to 

F30% for flatfishes. The Alternative 2 

ACL is set equal to the ABC and results 

in an ACL of 15,174 mt in 2011 and 

12,049 mt in 2012. The Council 

recommended Alternative 2. Like 

English sole, arrowtooth flounder is a 

healthy stock that is primarily caught in 

the trawl fishery, where individual 

allocations and improved catch 

accounting under an IFQ fishery are 

expected to reduce the management 

uncertainty. 

Starry Flounder 

Starry Flounder was assessed for the 

first time in 2005 and was estimated to 

be above 40 percent of its unfished 

biomass in 2005. However, the stock 

was projected to decline in both the 

northern and southern areas. The starry 

flounder assessment was considered to 

be a data-poor assessment relative to 

other groundfish assessments. The 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Alternative 1 ACL was based on the 

results of the 2005 stock assessment 

with an FMSY proxy of F40% and a 25 

percent precautionary reduction from 

the ABC to account for management 

uncertainty. Alternative 1 results in 

ACLs of 1,130 mt in 2011 and 1,166 mt 

in 2012. Alternative 2 reflects the 

change in the FMSY harvest proxy from 

F40% to F30% for flatfishes and includes 

a 10 percent reduction from the ABC as 

a precautionary measure. Alternative 2 

results in ACLs of 1,352 mt in 2011 and 

1,360 mt in 2012. Alternative 3 reflects 

the change in the FMSY harvest proxy 

from F40% to F30% for flatfishes. Under 

Alternative 3 the ACL would be set 

equal to ABC. The resulting ACLs under 

Alternative 3 are 1,502 mt in 2011 and 

1,511 mt in 2012. Following 

consideration of the ACLs, the Council 

recommended Alternative 2 with ACLs 

of 1,352 mt in 2011 and 1,360 mt in 

2012. 

Minor Rockfish North 

In 2010, the ABC for each minor 

rockfish complex was the sum of the 

ABCs. To obtain the total catch OY for 

the complex, the ‘‘remaining rockfish’’ 

(species that have been assessed by less 

rigorous methods or stock assessments) 

ABCs were further reduced by 25 

percent and ‘‘other rockfish’’ (species 

that do not have quantifiable stock 

assessments) ABCs were reduced by 50 

percent. The complex OYs were then 

based on the sum of the OYs for the 

component species contributions. Subcomplex OYs, minor nearshore rockfish, 

minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope 

rockfish were also based on the sum of 

their component species contributions. 

For 2011 and 2012, the Council 

recommended implementing the OFLs 

put forward by the SSC along with the 

SSC recommended ABC policies of 

using a sigma value and the Council 

recommended P* values. Substantial 

changes in minor nearshore north and 

minor shelf north harvest specifications 

from the 2010 levels resulted from the 

application of DB–SRA and the DCAC 

methods for determining OFLs for 

stocks that have not been assessed; the 

apportionment of catch north and south 

of 40°10′ north latitude to derive 

component species OFLs; and the 

application of scientific uncertainty 

buffers. 

The Council expressed concern about 

the long term impacts of leaving 

splitnose and greenstriped rockfish in 

their current complexes. If stocks within 

a complex are caught in proportion to 

their contribution to the OFL the risks 

of overfishing an individual stock is 

low. If stocks are not caught in such 

proportions, then it is possible for 

overfishing to occur on a component 

species. This is more of a concern with 

stocks that are targeted and that only 

contribute a small proportion of the 

overall OFL. 

Greenstriped rockfish and splitnose 

rockfish were assessed in 2009. Given 

the results of the new assessments the 

Council considered removing these 

stocks from the minor rockfish north 

complex. Splitnose rockfish is part of 

the minor Slope Rockfish North subcomplex, which is comprised of nine 

species. In 2011 and 2012, splitnose 

rockfish is projected to contribute more 

than 50 percent of the weight of the 

minor Slope Rockfish in the complex. 

Greenstriped rockfish is a minor shelf 

rockfish that would present a similar 

situation with an OFL contribution of 55 

percent of the complex. Removing a 

stock from a complex creates substantial 

complications for the management 

system. New sorting and reporting 

programs would be required for 

industry and the states. The 

implementation of the trawl shoreside 

IFQ program and initial allocation of 

minor slope rockfish under Amendment 

21 would also be affected. Historical 

data collected at the complex level 

would be unreliable for deriving IFQ 

catch history at the species level. 

Additional observer monitoring under 

an IFQ program would provide much 

needed data for allocations at the 

species level. Consideration was given 

to the potential for a target species 

within a complex becoming overfished. 

Ultimately, the Council recommended 

leaving splitnose and greenstriped 

rockfish in the minor rockfish north 

complexes at this time. 

For chilipepper rockfish, 7 percent of 

the biomass from the 2007 assessment 

area is attributed to the area north of 

40°10′ north latitude. The northern 

portion of the stock is currently 

managed as part of the minor rockfish 

north complex. The Council 

recommended continuing the 

management of this species within the 

complex north of 40°10′ north latitude. 

The Council considered dismantling 

of the minor rockfish complexes (both 

north and south) and grouping them by 

stock vulnerability, based on the PSA 

analysis prepared by the GMT. Due to 

workload and the complexity of the 

necessary analysis, the GMT could not 

complete the work in time for the 2011– 

2012 biennial management cycle. The 

Council expressed interest in such an 

analysis for the 2013–2014 biennial 

process and encouraged that a broad 

range of methods be considered through 

the Council’s STAR-light process (less 

vigorous review than the full STAR 

panel process). The lack of species 

specific historical landing data for 

stocks within complexes makes an 

analysis difficult. The trawl IFQ 

program will require full observer 

coverage for catch accounting, and it is 

expected to provide catch by species 

data that could be used in such an 

analysis. 

For minor nearshore rockfish north 

the Council recommended that 

splitnose, greenstriped, and chilipepper 

rockfish remain in the complex for 2011 

and 2012. A 50 mt contribution for 

cabezon in waters off Oregon is removed 

from the complex. Minor rockfish north 

is comprised of three minor rockfish 

sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and 

slope. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum 

of the OFLs of the component species 

within the complex. ABCs for the minor 

rockfish complexes and sub-complexes 

are based on a sigma value of 0.36 for 

category 1 stocks (splitnose and 

chilipepper rockfish), 0.72 for category 

2 stocks (greenstriped rockfish) and 1.44 

for category 3 stocks all with a P*s of 

0.45. The ACL for each component 

species is less than or equal to the ABC. 

The ACL for the complex is the sum of 

the sub-complex ACLs. The subcomplexes ACLs are the sum of the 

component stock ACLs. The resulting 

2011 and 2012 ACLs for the minor 

rockfish north represent a 42 percent 

(nearshore-15 percent, shelf-56 percent, 

and slope-23 percent) reduction from 

the OFL. This is in contrast to the 2010 

minor rockfish north OY which 

represented a reduction from the 2010 

ABC (now referred to as the OFL) of 38 

percent. 

Minor Rockfish South 

Similar to the minor rockfish north 

complex, the OFLs recommended by the 

SSC and the new ABC policies based on 

the OFLs for the 2011–2012 cycle 

resulted in substantial changes relative 

to 2010. Blue rockfish is currently 

managed within the minor rockfish 

complex. The first blue rockfish 

assessment on the West Coast was 

conducted in 2007 for the portion of the 

stock occurring in waters off California 

north of Point Conception (34°27′ north 

latitude). The Blue rockfish stock was 

estimated to be at 29.7 percent of its 

unfished biomass in 2007; therefore, the 

stock is considered to be in the 

precautionary zone. During the 2009 

and 2010 biennial specification process, 

the Council contemplated removing 

blue rockfish from the minor rockfish 

complex. The decision to continue 

managing blue rockfish within the 

minor nearshore complex was based on 

both scientific uncertainty and 

management needs, given the 

interaction of blue rockfish with other 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67827 

nearshore species. When blue rockfish 

occur offshore they can be targeted 

separately from other nearshore 

rockfish, but those that occur inshore 

mix with other nearshore rockfish 

stocks. Blue rockfish is managed under 

the state of California nearshore 

management plan which is a limited 

entry program with mandatory sorting 

requirements. Landings are routinely 

tracked and monitored, thereby 

reducing management uncertainty. 

The Council considered the 

contribution of blue rockfish to the 

minor rockfish complex ACL. For more 

efficient state management, blue 

rockfish would continue to be managed 

as part of the minor rockfish complex. 

In 2009–2010, blue rockfish in the 

California fisheries were managed with 

a harvest guideline (HG) to prevent 

overfishing as blue rockfish is a stock in 

the precautionary zone. To prevent an 

ACL from being exceeded, the Council 

recommended continued use of the HG. 

The 2011 HG will be 242 mt and the 

2012 HG will be 239 mt. The HG 

contribution for the unassessed portion 

of the stock south of Pt. Conception was 

calculated by first estimating an OFL 

using the DCAC methodology and then 

applying an ABC adjustment (s=1.44 

with a P* of 0.45). The HG contribution 

for the assessed area was calculated by 

determining the OFL from the 2007 

stock assessment, deriving an ABC 

using a P* of 0.45 for a category 2 stock, 

then adjusting the ABC value using the 

40–10 harvest control rule. The 2011 

and 2012 blue rockfish ABC 

contributions for the assessed and 

unassessed areas are then summed to 

determine the HGs. 

Similar to minor rockfish north, 

consideration was given to the potential 

for a target species within a complex 

becoming overfished and the 

contribution of a non-target species 

managed within a species complex. The 

Council contemplated the removal of 

greenstriped rockfish in the minor shelf 

rockfish south complex, but 

recommended leaving it in the complex 

at this time. 

Minor rockfish south is comprised of 

three minor rockfish sub-complexes: 

Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL for 

the complex is the sum of OFLs for 

nearshore, shelf and slope south subcomplexes. Each sub-complex OFL is 

the sum of the OFLs of the component 

species within the complex. ABCs for 

the minor rockfish complexes and subcomplexes are based on a sigma value 

of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher 

north of Point Conception, and blackgill 

rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks 

(blue, bank and greenstriped rockfish) 

and 1.44 for category 3 stocks with a P* 

of 0.45. The ACLs for the complex are 

the sum of the sub-complex ACLs. The 

ACLs for the sub-complexes are the sum 

of the component stock ACLs, which are 

less than or equal to the ABC 

contribution of each component stock. 

The ACLs for the minor slope and shelf 

sub-complexes were set equal to the 

2010 OYs. The resulting 2011 and 2012 

ACLs for the minor rockfish south 

represent a 45 percent (nearshore-14 

percent, shelf-68 percent, and slop-31 

percent) reduction from the OFL. This is 

in contrast to the 2010 a minor rockfish 

south OY reduction from the 2010 ABC 

(now referred to as the OFL) of 41 

percent in 2010. 

Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP 

removes dusky rockfish and red-dwarf 

rockfish from the PCGFMP. These 

stocks are not considered to be in the 

fishery as there are no historical records 

of them being landed. Therefore these 

stocks are removed from the complexes. 

Splitnose Rockfish 

A new coastwide stock assessment 

was prepared for splitnose rockfish in 

2009. Splitnose rockfish is a slope 

species currently managed in the minor 

rockfish complex north of 40°10′ north 

latitude, but as an individual species 

south of 40°10′ north latitude. Splitnose 

rockfish has been managed separately 

north and south of 40°10′ north latitude 

because the previous stock assessment 

was only for the southern portion of the 

stock. Although the SSC recommended 

2011 and 2012 coastwide splitnose 

rockfish OFLs of 2,381 and 2,507 mt, 

respectively, which were determined by 

applying the proxy F50% MSY harvest 

rate to the projected exploitable biomass 

in each year. The Council chose OFL 

and ABC values that assume that 

splitnose rockfish north of 40°10′ north 

latitude would continue to be managed 

within the minor nearshore rockfish 

complex north. The Council 

recommended continuing this 

management strategy largely due to the 

implications of determining the catch 

history for individual trawl permits for 

the initial allocation of quota shares for 

the shoreside trawl IFQ program under 

Amendment 20. Determining the catch 

history would be difficult because 

splitnose rockfish are not targeted and 

are predominantly discarded at sea 

resulting in little landing data. 

The Council recommended continued 

management of splitnose rockfish with 

a separate ACL south of 40°10′ north 

latitude and within the minor slope 

rockfish sub-complex ACL north of 

40°10′ north latitude. As noted above, 

the minor slope rockfish north complex 

is comprised of nine species. In 2011 

and 2012, splitnose rockfish were 

projected to contribute more than 50 

percent of the ABC/ACL of the minor 

Slope Rockfish North complex. The 

north/south apportionment 

recommended by the Council was based 

on the average 1916–2008 assessed area 

catch and is 64.2 percent for the area 

south of 40°10′ north latitude and 35.8 

percent for the area north of 40°10′ 

north latitude. The resulting ACL for 

2011 is 1,461 mt and 1,538 mt for 2012. 

Shortbelly Rockfish 

To understand the potential 

environmental determinants of 

fluctuations in the recruitment and 

abundance of an unexploited rockfish 

population in the California Current 

ecosystem, a non quantitative 

assessment was conducted in 2007. The 

results of the assessment indicated the 

shortbelly stock was healthy with an 

estimated spawning stock biomass at 67 

percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. 

Shortbelly rockfish is an abundant 

species that is not targeted in any 

commercial or recreational fisheries, 

and which is a valuable forage fish 

species. The OFL of 6,950 mt was 

recommended for the stock in both 2011 

and 2012 with an ABC of 5,789 mt (s0.72 with a P* of 0.40) in both 2011 and 

2012. The Council considered two ACL 

alternatives. Alternative 1 with an ACL 

of 50 mt was somewhat above the recent 

landing level and under Alternative 2 

ACL values were set equal to the ABC 

(5,789 in both 2011 and 2012). The 50 

mt ACL was recommended by the 

Council and was intended to be 

adequate to accommodate incidental 

catch while preventing the development 

of fisheries specifically targeting 

shortbelly rockfish. The Council 

recognized shortbelly rockfish for its 

value as a forage fish. 

Rebuilding Plan ACLS for Overfished 

Species 

When a stock has been declared 

overfished a rebuilding plan must be 

developed and the stock must be 

managed in accordance with the 

rebuilding plan. An overfished 

groundfish stock is considered rebuilt 

once its biomass reaches BMSY. 

Rebuilding plans are based on the 

results of rebuilding analyses. Life 

history characteristics (e.g., age of 

reproductive maturity, relative 

productivity at different ages and sizes, 

etc.) and the effects of environmental 

conditions on its abundance (e.g., 

relative productivity under inter-annual 

and inter-decadal climate variability, 

availability of suitable feed and habitat 

for different life stages, etc.) are taken 

into account in the stock assessment 

and the rebuilding analysis. A 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

rebuilding analysis for an overfished 

species uses the information in its stock 

assessment to determine TMIN, the 

minimum time to rebuild to BMSY in the 

absence of fishing. For each stock, TMIN

is dependent on a variety of physical 

and biological factors. The rebuilding 

analyses are used to predict TMIN for 

each overfished species and, in doing 

so, answer the question of what is ‘‘as 

quickly as possible’’ for each of the 

overfished species. 

To rebuild a stock by the TMIN date 

would require elimination of humaninduced mortality on a stock (the 

complete absence of fishing mortality is 

referred to as F = zero). However, the 

absence of fishing mortality does not 

necessarily result in the complete 

absence of human-induced fishing 

mortality. To rebuild by the TMIN date 

would require elimination of extractive 

scientific research, in addition to any 

target or incidental commercial, 

recreational, or ceremonial and 

subsistence fishing that results in 

overfished species mortality. 

Eliminating extractive scientific fishing 

would eliminate a significant portion of 

data used to inform stock assessments 

and to better understand the biological 

condition of groundfish stocks. For 

overfished species where retention has 

been prohibited, little information is 

available to inform stock assessments; 

this has particularly been an issue for 

species such as yelloweye rockfish. 

With the implementation of trawl 

rationalization, observer monitoring will 

increase to full coverage which is 

expected to provide more biological 

data regarding overfished species that 

are vulnerable to trawl gear. However, 

for species such as yelloweye rockfish 

and cowcod that are primarily taken in 

the recreational fishery and with nontrawl gears, little new biological data is 

expected to be available without 

research collections. Non-extractive 

survey techniques, such as Remote 

Operational Vehicle (ROV) work, are 

currently cost prohibitive on a large 

scale. Because Pacific Coast groundfish 

species are so intermixed, extractive 

scientific fishing for some nonoverfished species would need to be 

eliminated as well. To appropriately 

take into account the status and biology 

of overfished stocks, both now and in 

the future the scientific take of 

overfished and other groundfish stocks 

must continue. 

The relative level of depletion, 

combined with other biological 

characteristics of the stock, influences 

the sensitivity of a stock’s rebuilding 

time to changes to long-term harvest 

rates generally used to set ACLs. Stocks 

with very low levels of depletion; such 

as canary rockfish, cowcod, and 

yelloweye rockfish; are considered to 

have a higher sensitivity to changes in 

harvest rate and higher harvest rates for 

these species have a greater risk of not 

rebuilding by TTARTGET. From a 

biological view due to the differences in 

productivity between species, one year 

of delay of rebuilding for yelloweye 

rockfish (the slowest of the overfished 

species to rebuild) is not equivalent to 

a one year of delay in rebuilding for 

petrale sole (the quickest overfished 

species to rebuild). The estimate of 

mean generation time recommended in 

the National Standard guidelines for the 

calculation of TMAX captures these 

biological differences, but it is not 

incorporated into the other rebuilding 

parameters. 

As advised by the SSC, the Council 

has elected to set overfished species 

harvests based on a constant SPR 

harvest rate. The SPR is the expected 

lifetime contribution to the spawning 

stock biomass for a recruit (a fish of 

specific spawning age or greater) usually 

expressed as the number of eggs that 

could be produced by an average recruit 

in a fished stock, divided by the number 

of eggs that could be produced by an 

average recruit in an unfished stock. 

The SPR harvest rate specifies the 

proportion of the spawning stock that 

can be removed each year and 

inherently takes into account the 

productivity of the stock. The 

exploitation pattern, rate of growth, and 

natural mortality can be given 

consideration when calculating an SPR 

harvest rate. Applying a constant SPR 

harvest rate is more precautionary in an 

uncertain environment as it reduces the 

effect of changes in variability in the 

scale of biomass (a change in the entire 

trajectory of biomass from the first 

biomass estimate forward to the current 

biomass estimate). When a new stock 

assessment results in a change in the 

understanding of stock scale, a constant 

harvest rate strategy is expected to keep 

the stock on track to the TTARGET. In 

addition, the ‘‘rebuilding paradox’’ (the 

fishing interaction with the stock 

increases as the stock biomass increases) 

is addressed within a constant SPR 

approach. This is because the ACL 

would change in relation to changes in 

biomass. In contrast, constant catch 

rebuilding strategies do not adjust in 

relation to changes in biomass which 

can be problematic when there is a 

downward change in abundance. In this 

case, the catch may become too large 

relative to the size of the biomass 

population and adjustments become 

necessary to meet the same TTARGET. 

Although the biennial management 

cycle requires the focus on ACLs for a 

two year period, an SPR harvest strategy 

is based on a rebuilding trajectory over 

time. For stocks with slow trajectories, 

the differences between two alternatives 

considered during a single biennial 

management cycle need to be compared 

in relation to how they rebuild the stock 

over time. 

Given the changes in perception of 

stock status and biology, the Council 

tracks rebuilding progress in three 

dimensions: stock productivity; absolute 

stock abundance or stock scale; and 

relative stock abundance or stock status. 

Stock productivity is referred to as 

recruitment and means the ability of a 

stock to generate new individuals of 

harvestable size. Stock scale is the total 

number of individuals in a population. 

This value is rarely known, but is 

usually estimated from relative 

abundance or through other methods. 

Absolute stock abundance is an estimate 

of the current biomass usually measured 

by indices that track trends in 

population biomass over time. Stock 

status is the current biomass relative to 

the unfished biomass. Each of these 

dimensions is subject to considerable 

scientific uncertainty and can change 

the overall rebuilding outlook from 

cycle to cycle. To determine whether a 

stock is better or worse off compared to 

a previous assessment, all three 

dimensions must be examined. Changes 

in the understanding of stock 

productivity can affect rebuilding plans 

by altering our perception of how 

quickly a stock can increase. Changes in 

our understanding of life history traits 

(e.g. mortality, maturity, fecundity, or 

growth) can change the evaluation of 

stock productivity. Measuring 

recruitment is difficult given the elusive 

and inaccessible early life histories of 

most groundfish species and the fact 

that recruitment events are not constant. 

In the case of many groundfish, 

recruitment is highly variable and 

sporadic. Age or length data, along with 

survey biomass estimates and removal 

histories, all inform recruitment 

patterns, but to varying degrees of 

resolution. The most recent couple of 

years of recruitment are often the most 

uncertain. 

Absolute stock abundance, or stock 

scale, has also demonstrated 

considerable variability across 

assessments. This variability is often a 

result of uncertainty in catch histories, 

which scales the biomass via estimates 

of fishing mortality, but is also sensitive 

to life history parameters such as growth 

and mortality. Any changes in these 

estimates can have large effects in 

perceived biomass. These changes in 

scale are commonly seen in estimates of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67829 

unfished biomass, as the scale of the 

entire population trajectory can shift up 

or down. Changes in population scale 

will affect the level of catch needed to 

achieve the rebuilding goals if harvest 

levels are not based on harvest rates. 

Changes in the understanding of stock 

productivity and relative biomass can 

result in changes in the estimated time 

to rebuild and rebuilding reference 

points. 

Stock status or depletion is expressed 

as an estimate of current biomass 

relative to the estimate of unfished 

biomass. Importantly, changes in the 

estimate of unfished biomass can 

change with new data, even though the 

current population biomass stays the 

same. Likewise, as more data becomes 

available on productivity in current 

years it may alter our understanding of 

current year biomass relative to an 

unfished biomass. Because stock status 

is the basis for determining when a 

stock is rebuilt, subsequent estimates of 

when a stock is projected to rebuild at 

a specific SPR may change as estimates 

of stock status change. 

At its June 2010 meeting, the Council 

made final recommendations on: 2011– 

2012 harvest specifications (OFLs, ABC, 

ACLs ACTs, catch allocations and setasides); rebuilding plans for overfished 

species; and, management measures 

designed to keep total catch mortality 

within the final preferred ACL levels. 

Bocaccio 

The new 2009 assessment shows that 

bocaccio is rebuilding ahead of 

schedule. The Council considered, but 

did not recommend extending the 

bocaccio rebuilding plan north of 40°10′ 

north latitude to Cape Blanco based 

given advisory body advise that 

extending the rebuilding plan further 

north would not aid stock recovery and 

would complicate current management. 

Three bocaccio ACL alternatives derived 

from the 2009 rebuilding analysis were 

considered by the Council. The 

Alternative 1 ACLs of 53 mt in 2011 and 

56 mt in 2012 applies an SPR harvest 

rate of 95 percent and has a predicted 

median time to rebuild of 2019, which 

equals the minimum time to rebuild 

with F=zero (i.e., the shortest time to 

rebuild the stock at this point) and 7 

years before the TTARGET specified in the 

current rebuilding plan. The 2012 

bocaccio HG for the California 

recreational fishery Alternative 1, would 

reduce the Southern Management Area 

fishing season to only a five month 

fishing season during the least valuable 

months. The resulting season would not 

encompass the critical months for 

rockfish fishing from March through 

April when coastal pelagic and highly 

migratory species are not available to 

the fishery. In addition, the season in 

the South-Central Management Area 

would be reduced by 1 month resulting 

in a 6-month fishing season. The 

Alternative 2 ACLs of 109 mt in 2011 

and 115 mt in 2012 are consistent with 

an SPR harvest rate of 90 percent with 

a predicted median time to rebuild the 

stock of 2020 or one year longer than the 

minimum time to rebuild with F=zero 

and rebuilds 6 year earlier than the 

TTARGET specified in the current 

rebuilding plan. Most bocaccio 

mortality occurs in the California 

recreational fisheries. Under this 

alternative the only constraint over 

status quo in the recreational fishery is 

for ‘‘other flatfish’’ where fishing is 

prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) 

depth contour along the mainland coast 

and along islands and offshore 

seamounts from May 15 through 

September 15; and is closed entirely 

from January 1 through May 14 and 

from September 16 through December 

31). Alternative 2 for the California 

recreational fishery, given the preferred 

catch sharing alternative selected by the 

Council, would be sufficient to allow for 

a depth increase to 30 fm (55 m) or 

possibly 40 fm (73 m) in the cowcod 

conservation area (CCA) and retention 

of shelf and slope rockfish including 

bocaccio in the CCA. Bocaccio co-occur 

with chilipepper and widow rockfish, 

which have historically been taken with 

trawl gear south of 40°10′ north latitude. 

Under the trawl IFQ program, fishers 

could target chilipepper rockfish 

providing they have adequate quota 

pounds to cover all IFQ species in the 

catch. 

The Alternative 3 ACLs of 263 mt in 

2011 and 274 mt in 2012 are based on 

the current rebuilding plan and are 

based on the status quo SPR harvest rate 

of 77.7 percent. This alternative has a 

predicted median time to rebuild of 

2022 or three years longer than the 

minimum time to rebuild with F=zero 

and rebuilds 4 years earlier than the 

TTARGET specified in the current 

rebuilding plan. This alternative applies 

the same SPR harvest rate as in 2009– 

10, even though it results in slightly 

lower harvest levels. This alternative 

also takes into account the status of the 

stock and facilitates rebuilding early, 

while attempting to strike a balance 

between rebuilding the stock and 

minimizing severe economic 

consequences to communities. Bocaccio 

is a relatively productive species which 

is difficult for fishers to avoid and cooccurs with other stocks (e.g., widow 

and chilipepper). As with Alternative 2, 

the California recreational fishery could 

increase the RCA depths from 20 fm (37 

m) to 30 fm (55 m) under this 

alternative. As noted above under 

Alternative 2, with the trawl IFQ 

program, fishers could target 

chilipepper providing they have 

adequate quota pounds to cover all IFQ 

species in the catch. Alternative 3 

provides the greatest opportunity for 

targeting chilipepper with trawl gear. 

The Council expressed concerns relative 

to bocaccio catch in the initial year of 

the new IFQ program. For species where 

more than 80 percent of the OY has 

been harvested annually, concern was 

expressed in regards to the implications 

of full catch accounting and the number 

of fishers that may choose to carry-over 

quota pounds into 2012 or 2013. 

Because the rebuilding progress was 

considered adequate, and the 

assessment did not change our 

fundamental understanding of the stock, 

the SSC recommended maintaining the 

status quo rebuilding plan (i.e., no 

modifications to TTARGET or SPR harvest 

rate) under Alternative 3. Total catch 

from 2000–2008 was 50 percent of the 

OY, indicating that management has 

been effective at curtailing fishing 

mortality to facilitate rebuilding as 

quickly as possible. 

ACL allocations were also considered 

by the Council. The following are the 

Council’s recommended allocations for 

Bocaccio in 2011: Limited entry nonwhiting trawl, 29.6 mt; limited entry 

and open access non-nearshore fixed 

gears, 57.9; limited entry and open 

access nearshore fixed gear, 0.3; 

California recreational 161.8 mt. The 

following are the Council’s 

recommended allocations for bocaccio 

in 2012: Limited entry non-whiting 

trawl, 30.9 mt; limited entry and open 

access non-nearshore fixed gears, 60.4; 

limited entry and open access nearshore 

fixed gear, 0.3; California recreational 

168.9 mt. The recreational portion of the 

non-trawl allocation of bocaccio would 

accommodate a potential increase in 

bocaccio impacts in the recreational 

fishery as a result of allowing retention 

of shelf rockfish within the 30 fm (55 m) 

depth restriction in the CCA. 

Although the Council-recommended 

ACLs are 263 mt in 2011 and 274 mt in 

2012, the proposed management 

measures and catch allocations were 

projected to result in bocaccio total 

catch mortality of 249.6 mt in 2011 and 

260.6 mt in 2012, which is 13.4 mt less 

than the annual ACLs. Managing the 

fishery to a level that is 13.4 mt less 

than the annual ACLs is intended to 

allow the stock to rebuild faster while 

recognizing the management 

uncertainty associated with the species. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Canary Rockfish 

The historical catch data used in the 

2009 stock assessment update was 

significantly different from that used in 

previous assessments. This change 

caused a relatively large change in the 

unfished and terminal year (2009) 

biomass estimates. When compared to 

the results of the 2007 stock assessment, 

the depletion level in recent years is 

lower in the 2009 stock assessment. The 

perception of the relative status and 

productivity of canary rockfish has 

changed and stock cannot be rebuilt by 

the current TTARGET (2021) even in the 

absence of fishing, therefore the 

rebuilding plan must be modified. 

The impacts of three ACL alternatives 

were analyzed and included ACLs of 49 

in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012, 94 in 2011 

and 99 mt in 2012; and, 102 mt in 2011 

and 107 mt in 2012. Alternative 1 with 

an ACL of 49 mt in 2011 and 51 mt in 

2012 takes into account the less 

optimistic assessment update with a 

more precautionary harvest rate 

(SPR=94.4 percent). Alternative 1 

results in a TTARGET of 2025 which is 4 

years longer than the TTARGET in the 

existing rebuilding plan and 1 year 

longer than the minimum time to 

rebuild with F=zero. The canary 

rockfish ACLs in Alternative 1 are 

similar to the 2007–2008 OY of 44 mt 

which resulted in substantial hardship 

on fishers and communities because 

substantial harvest of other healthy 

species was foregone. Under Alternative 

1 a large closed area would be needed 

for the limited entry fixed gear fishery 

in the north or reductions to sablefish 

harvest would be necessary in order to 

stay within the overfished species 

constraints. With the ACLs proposed 

under Alternative 1, the canary rockfish 

ACL and associated apportionment to 

the non-nearshore fisheries is so low 

that the sablefish allocations would 

have to be reduced by as much as 42 

percent. The California nearshore 

fishery would also be severely 

constrained, requiring statewide 20 fm 

(37 m) Shoreward RCA lines and large 

trip limit reductions or total closures for 

some species would be necessary. This 

is in contrast to status quo where the 

non-trawl RCAs are 20 fm (37 m) in 

most northern areas and 60 fm (110 m) 

south of 34°27 north latitude. All 

recreational fisheries would experience 

reduced season lengths and restrictive 

depth restrictions. In addition, the trawl 

IFQ fishery is intended to provide longterm benefits to the fishery in the form 

of bycatch reduction and economic 

stability. Given the full catch accounting 

proposed under trawl IFQ program and 

that all catch, discarded and retain will 

count towards the individuals IFQ 

shares, the risk of the fishery exceeding 

the ACL is reduced compared 2010 and 

prior years. In the short term, fishers 

will need to learn how to avoid canary 

rather than simply discarding them atsea. ACLs for overfished species that are 

too low could be perceived as too risky 

(risk of exceeding the individual quota 

pounds) by fishers such that they limit 

their fishing participation for healthy 

target species; or hold quota pounds of 

constraining overfished for sale to 

fishers who incur overages. Reduce 

fishing time may result in fishers being 

unable to develop new methods or 

strategies risk to avoid overfished 

species. The long-term success of the 

trawl rationalization program to 

maintain low incidental catch of 

overfished species in conjunction with 

profitable harvest of healthy stocks is 

consistent with the needs of 

communities specified in the PCGFMP. 

Alternative 2 included ACLs of 94 mt 

in 2011 and 99 mt in 2012. This 

alternative takes into account the less 

optimistic assessment update with a 

more precautionary harvest rate 

(SPR=89.5 percent) than the current 

rebuilding plan and results in a TTARGET

that is two years longer than F=Zero. 

Under this alternative the California 

nearshore fishery would experience 

changes to the RCA and/or reductions in 

catch. 

Alternative 3 includes ACLs of 102 mt 

in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012. The 

alternative would maintain the SPR 

harvest rate of 88.7 percent in the 

current rebuilding plan. This is a 

conservative SPR harvest rate that 

results in a TTARGET that is three years 

longer the target year with no F=zero. 

Due to the nature of the canary stock, 

even higher ACL harvest levels in the 

range considered by the Council have 

small impacts on the time to rebuild. 

This is because the range of ACLs being 

considered represent a very low level of 

fishing mortality. Canary rockfish are 

under the rebuilding paradox (as the 

stock increases its biomass it becomes 

increasingly more difficult for fishers to 

avoid) and are difficult to avoid, so the 

ACL under this alternative would 

address those expected increased 

interactions. The California nearshore 

fishery would continue to be 

constrained under this alternative, 

preventing access to target species. The 

shoreward nontrawl RCA would be the 

same as under the No Action 

Alternative (20 fm (37 m) in most 

northern areas, 60 fm (110 m) south of 

34°27 north latitude). Landings of nonoverfished species would be reduced 

from the No Action Alternative levels in 

order to stay within the overfished 

species constraints. Alternative 1, the 

trawl IFQ fishery is intended to provide 

long-term benefits to the fishery. Under 

Alternative 3, canary rockfish would be 

less of a limit to access to healthy target 

species and the risk of encountering 

canary rockfish in excess of an 

individual’s quota shares is reduced. 

Although canary rockfish is still 

expected to constrain harvest of healthy 

stocks under Alternative 3, the 

constraints on harvest from the 

perceived risk of exceeding an 

individual’s quota shares and is not 

expected to undermine the long term 

benefits that shorebased trawl IFQ 

program. In the short term fishers will 

need to learn how to avoid canary 

rockfish rather than simply discarding 

them at-sea. However, long term 

benefits in reduced bycatch and 

improved avoidance techniques are 

expected in a rationalized trawl fishery. 

The Council also considered the 

allocation of the canary ACL among 

fishery sectors. The following are the 

Council’s recommended allocations for 

canary rockfish in 2011: Limited entry 

non-whiting trawl, 19.3 mt; limited 

entry Pacific whiting 14.1 mt (catcher/ 

processor 4.8 mt, mothership 3.4 mt, 

and shorebased 5.9 mt); limited entry 

and open access non-nearshore fixed 

gears, 2.3; limited entry and open access 

nearshore fixed gear, 3.3; Washington 

recreational, 4.4; Oregon recreational 

14.5 mt; and California recreational 22.9 

mt. The following are the Council’s 

recommended allocations for canary 

rockfish in 2012: Limited entry nonwhiting trawl, 19.3 mt; limited entry 

Pacific whiting 14.8 mt (catcher/ 

processor 5 mt, mothership 3.6 mt, and 

shorebased 6.2 mt); limited entry and 

open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 

2.3; limited entry and open access 

nearshore fixed gear, 3.3; Washington 

recreational, 4.4; Oregon recreational 

14.5 mt; and California recreational 24.2 

mt. Although the Council’s 

recommended ACLs are 102 mt in 2011 

and 107 mt in 2012, the proposed 

management measures and catch 

allocations were projected to result in 

canary total catch mortality of 82 mt in 

2011 and 87 mt in 2012, that is 20 mt 

less than the annual ACLs. The catch 

allocations are consistent with how the 

2010 Washington and Oregon 

recreational fisheries have been 

managed and with the PCGFMP 

Amendment 21 which specifies trawl 

and non-trawl allocations. Managing the 

fishery to a level that is 20 mt less than 

the annual ACLs is intended to allow 

the stock to rebuild faster while 

reducing inseason management changes 

for the species. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67831 

Cowcod 

Three ACL alternatives derived from 

the 2009 rebuilding analysis for the 

Conception area contribution and based 

on results of the 2009 stock assessment 

update were considered for analysis. As 

was done in previous biennial harvest 

specifications, the Conception area ACL 

was doubled as an appropriate harvest 

contribution for the unassessed 

Monterey area. 

Under Alternative 1, the ACL would 

be 2 mt for 2011 and 2012, with an SPR 

harvest rate of 90 percent with a median 

time to rebuild of 2064, which is four 

years longer than the minimum time to 

rebuild with F=zero. Under this 

alternative extractive research would 

not be possible. Additional 

modifications to the California 

recreational fishery southern 

management area may be necessary. 

Under Alternative 1, cowcod is less 

constraining than other overfished 

species occurring in the same areas. 

Although the low cowcod ACL would 

allow for an increase the CCA depth 

restriction from 20 fm to 30 fm (37–55 

m) for the California recreational and 

fixed gear fisheries, the bocaccio ACLs 

would not. The Alternative 2 ACL of 3 

mt for 2011 and 2012 is based on an 

SPR harvest rate of 82.7 percent in 2011 

and 2012. Although cowcod impacts 

have been minimized by prohibiting 

retention and area closures in California 

waters, there have been instances when 

3 mt has been estimated to have been 

incidentally taken. Alternative 2 has a 

median time to rebuild of 2068 which 

is eight years longer than the minimum 

time to rebuild with F=zero. The 

cowcod harvest limit would be 

sufficient to allow the proposed 30 fm 

(55 m) or 40 fm (73 m) depth restriction 

in the CCA and retention of shelf and 

slope rockfish including bocaccio in the 

CCA. The Alternative 3 ACL of 4 mt in 

2011 and 2012 is the status quo 

alternative based on an SPR harvest rate 

of 79 percent with a median time to 

rebuild of 2071 or eleven years longer 

the minimum time to rebuild with 

F=zero. The three ACL alternatives are 

predicted to rebuild the stock 8, 4, and 

1 year(s), respectively prior to the 

TTARGET of 2072 specified in the current 

rebuilding plan. The Council 

recommended maintaining the 4 mt 

ACL under Alternative 3 with no change 

to the SPR harvest rate of 79 percent 

from 2009–2010. Modifying the depth 

restriction in the CCA from 20 fm (37 m) 

to 30 fm (55 m) or 40 fm (73 m) is not 

projected to result in increased catch of 

cowcod and can be accommodated 

under Alternative 3. Because cowcod 

impacts have varied over the last 5 years 

(according to the total mortality reports), 

Alternative 3 would encompass the 

variability. Cowcod is extremely 

important to the recreational fishery and 

the trawl fishery south of 40°10′ north 

latitude. Trawl activity has declined 

south of 40°10′ north latitude over the 

last few years due in part to the buyback 

program. Trawl activity is expected to 

increase due to the new trawl 

rationalization program. 

Darkblotched Rockfish 

The 2009 assessment results indicated 

that the fishing mortality rate has been 

greatly reduced and darkblotched 

appear to be rebuilding gradually at 

close to previous rebuilding projections. 

Three ACL alternatives derived from the 

2009 rebuilding analysis were 

considered. The Alternative 1 ACLs of 

130 mt and 131 mt for 2011 and 2012, 

respectively. The Alternative 1 ACLs are 

based on an SPR harvest rate of 81.8 

percent and result in an estimated 

median time to rebuild of 2018, which 

is two years longer than the minimum 

time to rebuild with F=zero. The 

whiting trawl fishery would likely be 

constrained by this alternative. 

Reductions in the darkblotched rockfish 

OYs are highly limiting to the trawl 

fisheries because darkblotched rockfish 

co-occur with the most economically 

important species in the fishery such as 

petrale sole, sablefish, and whiting. 

Trawl opportunities on the slope would 

be limited as the seaward RCA moved 

deeper. With the low ACL under 

Alternative 1, ACLs for overfished 

species that are too low could be 

perceived as too risky (risk of exceeding 

the individual quota pounds) by fishers 

such that they limit their fishing 

participation for healthy target species; 

or hold quota pounds of constraining 

overfished for sale to other fishers who 

incur overages. Reduced fishing time 

may result in fishers being unable to 

develop new methods or strategies to 

avoid overfished species. Darkblotched 

rockfish quota shares may increase in 

value. Alternative 2 was based on an 

SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent and 

resulted in a 2011 ACL of 298 mt and 

2012 ACL of 296 mt, with a median time 

to rebuild of 2025. The median time to 

rebuild is nine years longer than the 

minimum time to rebuild with F=zero 

and 3 years sooner than the TTARGET in 

the current rebuilding plan. The 

Alternative 3 ACLs of 332 mt in 2011 

and 329 in 2012 are based on an SPR 

harvest rate of 62.1 percent which is the 

SPR harvest rate specified in the current 

rebuilding plan. Alternative 3 has a 

median time to rebuild of 2027 which 

is eleven years the minimum time to 

rebuild with F=zero. The three ACL 

alternatives are predicted to rebuild the 

stock 10, 6, and 1 year(s), respectively, 

earlier than the TTARGET specified in the 

current rebuilding plan. The SSC did 

not recommend any changes to the 

current rebuilding plan. The Council 

recommended Alternative 2, a 2011 

ACL of 298 mt and a 2012 ACL of 296 

mt. 

Petrale Sole 

The results of the 2009 stock 

assessment estimated the petrale sole 

biomass to be at 11.6 percent of its 

unfished biomass. Because petrale sole 

is below the BMSY proxy of B25% it was 

declared overfished by NMFS on 

February 9, 2010 and therefore requires 

the development of a rebuilding plan. 

The ACL alternatives considered for 

petrale sole are all projected to rebuild 

the stock to the B25% level well in 

advance of TMAX (2021). The shortest 

time to rebuild petrale sole is TMIN

(2014), which is the estimated 

rebuilding period if all sources of 

fishing-related mortality were 

eliminated beginning in 2011. With 

petrale sole, successful rebuilding by 

TMIN is also projected to occur even 

with some allowable harvest. The 

Alternative 1 ACLs of 459 and 624 mt 

in 2011 and 2012 respectively were 

based on an SPR harvest rate of 50 

percent. The median year estimated to 

rebuild the stock under Alternative 1 is 

2014, which is TMIN. Alternative 2 

applies the 25–5 precautionary harvest 

control rule beginning in 2011 and 

results in ACLs of 776 mt and 1,160 mt 

in 2011 and 2012, respectively. 

Alternative 2 is estimated to rebuild the 

stock by 2015 or 1 year the minimum 

time to rebuild with F=zero. Alternative 

3 would specify a 2011 ACL of 976 mt 

which is at the ABC level and for 2012 

the 25–5 precautionary adjustment 

would be applied, resulting in a 1,160 

mt ACL. Alternative 3 is estimated to 

rebuild the stock by 2016 or two years 

longer than the minimum time to 

rebuild with F=zero and 5 years earlier 

than TMAX. 

The Council recommended 

Alternative 3. Petrale sole are a major 

target stock in the current non-whiting 

trawl fishery. Industry has indicated 

that an allowable harvest below the 

1,000–1,200 mt level risks losing market 

share to substitute species and 

significantly disrupts the fishery. The 

fall petrale sole fishery has been a 

valuable economic asset to both the 

fishers and processors when both the 

weather and the late year trip limits put 

an economic hardship on the industry. 

The petrale sole fishery has become an 

established holiday season marketing 

item for the processors, brokers, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

wholesalers, restaurants, and grocery 

stores. While Alternative 3 is below this 

critical level of harvest, it is the highest 

alternative considered for 2011–2012. It 

would constrain the non-whiting trawl 

fishery, but cause less disruption to the 

fishery and economic harm to trawldependent fishing communities than the 

other alternatives. 

Petrale sole make seasonal inshoreoffshore migrations and are targeted in 

bottom trawl efforts on the shelf in the 

summer and in spawning aggregations 

in discrete areas on the shelf/slope 

break in the winter. One strategy for 

faster rebuilding of petrale sole would 

be to close the petrale sole fishing areas 

where the fish aggregate and spawn in 

the winter. The 2009 petrale sole 

assessment and rebuilding analysis 

indicated that larger and more mature 

fish are caught by the offshore winter 

fleet. Reducing these fishing 

opportunities has been shown to rebuild 

the stock relatively faster than allowing 

the mix of summer and winter petrale 

sole fishing that has occurred prior to 

2010. Under Alternative 3, the 200 fm 

(366 m) seaward RCA coastwide would 

continue to be modified in periods 1 

(January–February) and 6 (November– 

December) to provide access to petrale 

sole. Proposed changes to the 200 fm 

(366 m) RCA line in the Heceta Bank 

area are not expected to result in 

measurable impacts on spawning 

aggregations of petrale sole over the 

existing 200 fm (366 m) RCA line. In 

addition, the shoreward RCA line 

between of 48°10′ north latitude and 

40°10′ north latitude would be 

maintained at 75 fm (137 m) year round 

to reduce petrale sole catch. Under a 

rationalized trawl fishery, with 

individual accountability, the risk of 

exceeding the petrale sole trawl 

allocation or ACL is lower than under 

cumulative trip limit management 

where the fleet is modeled as a whole. 

Given petrale sole’s productivity and 

the fact that the species is caught almost 

exclusively by a single fishery sector, 

rebuilding the stock is more straight 

forward than rebuilding long-lived 

rockfish. The Council’s recommended 

alternative deviates from the Council’s 

policy of overfished species being 

managed as incidental only, because the 

ACLs recommended for petrale sole 

would allow for a targeted fishery with 

a minimal delay in rebuilding (2 years 

more than F=ZERO). Petrale sole is one of 

the most economically important stocks 

to the non-whiting trawl fishery. Petrale 

sole is the third most valuable species 

in terms of its overall annual ex-vessel 

value, contributing, on average, 19 

percent of total ex-vessel revenue in the 

non-whiting trawl fishery. Despite 

increases in the Dover sole ACL, petrale 

sole is so unique in its market 

desirability that it will be difficult if not 

impossible to make up lost revenue by 

switching to the harvest of other 

groundfish species. Allowing this level 

of harvest will extend the rebuilding 

period by two years from TMIN. 

POP 

The 2009 stock assessment update 

changed the perception of stock status. 

Although the population dynamics were 

similar to the 2007 assessment, the scale 

of the terminal year (2009) biomass 

estimate changed such that the TTARGET

(2017) in the current rebuilding plan 

cannot be attained even in the absence 

of fishing. Although the SPR was held 

constant (86.4 percent) from 2007 

through 2010, the target rebuilding year 

changed as a result of revised rebuilding 

analyses (2007–2008 TTARGET was 2015; 

2009–2010 TTARGET was 2017). Because 

the TTARGET (2017) in the current 

rebuilding plan cannot be attained even 

in the absence of fishing, the existing 

rebuilding plan must be revised. 

Three alternatives derived from the 

2009 rebuilding analysis based on the 

2009 stock assessment update were 

analyzed for the Council’s June meeting. 

All ACL alternatives contemplate a 

change in the median time to rebuild 

the stock greater than the current 

TTARGET. The Alternative 1 ACLs of 80 

mt in 2011 and 2012 was based on an 

SPR harvest rate of 93.6 percent with a 

median time to rebuild of 2019, one year 

longer than the minimum time to 

rebuild with F=zero. The Alternative 2 

ACLs of 111 mt in 2011 and 113 mt in 

2012 were based on an SPR harvest rate 

of 91.2 percent with a predicted median 

time to rebuild the stock of 2019 or one 

year longer than the minimum time to 

rebuild with F=zero. The Alternative 3 

ACLs of 180 mt in 2011 and 183 mt in 

2012 are based on the status quo SPR 

harvest rate of 86.4 percent from the 

current rebuilding plan. Alternative 3 

has a predicted median time to rebuild 

of 2020 or two years longer than the 

minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. 

This alternative results in slightly lower 

catches than those in 2009–2010. 

The Council recommended 

Alternative 3 (180 mt and 183 mt, in 

2011 and 2012 respectively). POP is a 

slope rockfish species that is primarily 

taken in the trawl fishery. As discussed 

above for canary rockfish, the ACLs 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 could 

compromise the long-term bycatch 

reduction benefits of IFQ management. 

The trawl IFQ fishery is intended to 

hold individual fishers responsible for 

their catch and creates a management 

structure that encourages fishers to 

develop methods or fishing strategies 

that reduce the catch of overfished 

species. Therefore, long term benefits in 

reduced bycatch and improved 

avoidance techniques are expected in a 

rationalized fishery. However, ACLs for 

overfished species that are too low 

could be perceived as too risky (risk of 

exceeding the individual quota pounds) 

by fishers such that they limit their 

fishing participation for healthy target 

species; or hold quota pounds of 

constraining overfished for sale to 

fishers who incur overages. Reduced 

fishing time may result in fishers being 

unable to develop new methods or 

strategies to avoid overfished species. 

Given the full catch accounting 

proposed under trawl IFQ program and 

that all catch, discarded and retained, 

will count towards the individual’s IFQ 

shares, the risk of the fishery exceeding 

the ACL is reduced compared with 2010 

and prior years. In the short term, 

fishers will need to learn how to avoid 

POP rather than simply discarding them 

at-sea. The long-term success of the 

trawl rationalization program to 

maintain low incidental catch of 

overfished species in conjunction with 

profitable harvest of healthy stocks is 

consistent with the needs of 

communities specified in the PCGFMP, 

by allowing some limited harvest of 

POP as unavoidable bycatch which 

permits targeting of Pacific whiting and 

slope fisheries. 

The needs of fishing communities 

were considered by evaluating how the 

alternative POP ACLs affect the 

opportunity for targeting healthy stocks 

that co-occur with POP. POP is 

primarily a trawl caught species landed 

in Oregon and Washington. The 

vulnerability (dependency on 

groundfish fishing and resiliency) of 

port group areas were considered in the 

supporting DEIS. Fishing communities 

in Oregon, Washington and northern 

California where healthy trawl-caught 

target species that co-occur with POP 

are landed were considered to be among 

the vulnerable and most vulnerable 

communities. 

Widow Rockfish 

The 2009 assessment indicated that 

the stock is at 38.5 percent of unfished 

biomass, just short of being rebuilt. The 

rebuilding analysis projects that the 

stock will be rebuilt by 2010 under each 

of the ACL alternatives considered by 

the Council. All of the Alternatives 

result in a TTARGET that is 5 years earlier 

than the current rebuilding plan. 

The Alternative 1 ACL is a constant 

harvest level of 200 mt in 2011 and 

2012. Alternative 1 represents catch 

levels far less than status quo. Because 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67833 

the Pacific whiting fisheries have been 

constrained by the catch of widow 

rockfish in recent years, the whiting 

sectors are expected to be seriously 

constrained under this alternative. The 

Pacific whiting fleets have been 

managed under bycatch limits for 

widow rockfish for several years and 

have taken extensive measures to keep 

incidental catch rates low. Despite this, 

unexpected widow rockfish catch 

events, where several tons of widow 

rockfish have been incidentally taken in 

single haul, have continued to occur in 

the Pacific whiting fishery. As the 

widow rockfish stock rebuilds, avoiding 

such events is increasingly more 

difficult. With a 200 mt ACL there is a 

higher likelihood that such an event 

would result in the closure of fishery 

coop or sector. The Alternative 2 ACL 

is a constant harvest level of 400 mt in 

2011 and 2012. The whiting trawl 

fishery may be constrained under this 

alternative, given the increase in widow 

biomass as it nears a rebuilt status. The 

Alternative 3 ACL is a constant harvest 

level of 600 mt in 2011 and 2012 which 

is slightly higher than recent total catch 

mortality. In addition to whiting, widow 

rockfish co-occurs with other stocks 

such as bocaccio and chilipepper. It’s 

difficult for fishers targeting Pacific 

whiting and chilipepper to avoid widow 

rockfish. The higher ACL alternative 

may provide additional opportunities 

for some sectors of the fishery. It is less 

likely that Pacific whiting sectors would 

be constrained under this alternative. 

The Council recommended Alternative 

3 with an ACL based on a constant 

harvest level of 600 mt in 2011 and 

2012. The SPR harvest rate associated 

with 600 mt is 91.7 percent in 2011, and 

91.3 percent in 2012, which is only 

slightly lower than the 2009–2010 SPR 

harvest rate of 95.0 percent. The 600 mt 

ACL, which is somewhat higher than 

the 2010 OY of 509 mt, is expected to 

accommodate recent catches and is 

unlikely to result in targeting of the 

stock. 

Yelloweye Rockfish 

Yelloweye rockfish have a life history 

that illustrates the classic challenge of 

rebuilding overfished rockfish stocks; 

they are slow to mature, have low 

productivity, and can live in excess of 

100 years. Stocks exhibiting low 

productivity will have longer predicted 

rebuilding periods due to longer mean 

generation times. Three ACL 

alternatives derived from the 2009 

rebuilding analysis were considered for 

yelloweye rockfish. Alternative 1, with 

an ACL of 13 mt for 2011 and 2012 was 

determined by applying an SPR harvest 

rate of 80.7 percent. Alternative 1 has a 

median time to rebuild of 2065, which 

is 19 years before TTARGET in the current 

rebuilding plan and 18 years longer than 

the minimum time to rebuild with 

F=zero. With an ACL of 13 mt the 

Oregon and California commercial 

nearshore fisheries would be severely 

constrained with more restrictive depth 

closures and/or reductions to landed 

catch compared to status quo or the 

other alternatives. All recreational 

fisheries would have greatly reduced 

season lengths and restrictive depth 

restrictions. Alternative 2 is based on an 

SPR harvest rate of 76 percent and 

results in an ACL of 17 mt for 2011 and 

2012. The median time to rebuild under 

Alternative 2 is 2074 or 10 years before 

the current TTARGET and 27 years longer 

than the minimum time to rebuild with 

F=zero. With an ACL of 17 mt, the 

Oregon and California nearshore 

fisheries would need more restrictive 

RCAs compared to the 20 fm (37 m) 

shoreward boundary used in all areas in 

2010. The 20 fm (37 m) depth 

restrictions implemented in 2009 

between 40°10′ north latitude and 43° 

north latitude would remain in effect. 

Large trip limit reductions or total 

closures for some species would be 

necessary in order to stay within the 

overfished species ACLs. All 

recreational fisheries would have 

reduced season lengths and restrictive 

depth restrictions. In California, 

yelloweye rockfish impacts are 

extremely constraining to the 

recreational fishery North of Point 

Arena and reductions in the ACLs from 

the preliminary preferred alternative of 

20 mt would result in additional season 

length reductions in the North-Central 

North of Point Arena Management Area. 

This management area is already 

severely constrained, with only a threemonth fishing season at 20 fm (37 m). 

Alternative 2 ACLs would also require 

a reduction in the season length in the 

Northern or North-Central South of 

Point Arena Management Areas to 

remain within the yelloweye rockfish 

harvest guidelines resulting in lost 

revenue to coastal communities in these 

areas. Alternative 3 would apply an SPR 

harvest rate of 72.8 percent and result in 

an ACL of 20 mt for 2011 and 2012. The 

median time to rebuild under 

Alternative 3 is 2084 which is the 

TTARGET specified in the current 

rebuilding plan and 37 years longer than 

the minimum time to rebuild with 

F=zero. For the non-nearshore fixed gear 

fisheries, management measures under 

this alternative would allow full access 

to the sectors’ sablefish allocation. A 

less restrictive RCA compared to 2010 

would be in place in Oregon (100 fm 

(183 m) vs. 125 fm (229 m). For the 

nearshore fishery, the shoreward RCA 

would be the same as under the No 

Action Alternative (20 fm (37 m) in 

most northern areas, 60 fm (110 fm) 

south of 34°27 north latitude). For the 

recreational fisheries, season structure 

and depth restrictions would be similar 

to 2010 with some increased 

opportunity in the California 

recreational fishery, as described below. 

In California, 20 mt (37 m) yelloweye 

rockfish ACL would allow the limited 

season in the North-Central North of 

Point Arena Management Area to be 

sustained as well as allowing a one and 

a half month increase to the season in 

the Northern Management Area over No 

Action. This alternative also provides 

one and a half months of additional 

fishing opportunities over status quo in 

the North-Central South of Point Arena 

Management Area and the Monterey 

and Morro Bay South-Central 

Management Areas. 

The SPR harvest rate specified in the 

current rebuilding plan is 71.9 percent, 

which when applied results in an ACL 

of 20 mt in 2011 and 21 mt in 2012 with 

a median time to rebuild of 2087, three 

years longer than the current TTARGET

and 40 years longer than the minimum 

time to rebuild with F=zero. The 

Council recommended Alternative 3 

with a more conservative harvest rate 

(SPR = 72.8 percent) than is currently 

specified in the rebuilding plan and 

which maintains the current TTARGET. 

With a 20 mt ACL, slightly higher 

fishing opportunities for recreational 

and commercial fixed gear fisheries 

would be expected relative to the other 

alternatives. Following consideration of 

the ACLs and resulting impacts, the 

Council recommended Alternative 3, 

with a 20 mt ACL in 2011 and 2012 and 

with the specification of a 17 mt ACT. 

A ramp-down OY strategy was 

adopted for yelloweye rockfish during 

the 2007 and 2008 biennial specification 

and management cycle. The ramp down 

began with an OY of 23 mt in 2007 and 

20 mt in 2008. The OY was to be 

reduced each year until ultimately 

reaching 14 mt in 2011 based on an SPR 

harvest rate of 71.9 percent. A constant 

SPR harvest rate of 71.0 percent was to 

remain in place through 2084 which 

was the TTARGET date. All of the 

yelloweye rockfish OYs considered by 

the Council were expected to cause 

severe impacts to fisheries and 

communities. The Council expressed 

strong concern about the severity of the 

impact on communities resulting from 

ramp down strategy as the OY drops 

below 17 mt. When considering 2011 

and 2012 harvest specifications and 

management measures, the Council 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

recognized the need to restrict the 

fisheries, but also took into account the 

potentially widespread negative effects 

that very low ACLs would have on the 

fisheries and fishing communities. 

Yelloweye rockfish is the key 

constraining stock for the non-nearshore 

fixed gear sectors. Yelloweye bycatch 

rates in these fixed gear sectors have 

remained relatively stable over recent 

years, with the lower bycatch 

projections in 2011 and 2012 resulting 

from the decreasing sablefish ACLs. 

Although the bycatch numbers provided 

to the Council for decision making were 

the best estimates of bycatch for the 

non-nearshore fixed gear fisheries, 

concerns were raised about management 

uncertainty arising from the bycatch 

model. The bycatch projections from the 

model have been conservative in recent 

years, in part because of the assumption 

that the fixed gear sablefish allocations 

are fully harvested. This assumption 

may be less conservative in 2011–2012 

because of the lower sablefish ACLs and 

the fact that the inseason changes to the 

DTL trip limits the Council has made 

over this cycle have increased the 

likelihood that a higher portion of the 

allocations for those sectors will be 

taken. Sablefish landings are monitored 

inseason and action would be taken to 

keep the sablefish allocations from 

being exceeded. 

ACL allocations were also considered 

by the Council. The following are the 

Council’s recommended allocations for 

yelloweye rockfish in 2011 and 2012: 

Limited entry non-whiting trawl, 0.6 mt; 

limited entry and open access nonnearshore fixed gears, 1.3; limited entry 

and open access nearshore fixed gear, 

0.7; Washington recreational, 2.6; 

Oregon recreational, 2.4 mt; and 

California recreational, 2.6 mt. The 

Council also considered two alternative 

allocation arrangements between the 

states of Oregon and California for 

yelloweye rockfish: A simple 50:50 

catch sharing plan and a sharing plan 

with Oregon receiving 55 percent and 

California receiving 45 percent derived 

from the stock assessment. Oregon is 

constrained by yelloweye rockfish 

under both allocation alternatives. With 

a 17 mt ACT, annual nearshore fishery 

landings would need to be further 

reduced to accommodate cuts under 

either of the new catch sharing plans. In 

addition to being constrained by 

yelloweye rockfish, California is 

projected to be constrained by canary 

rockfish due to the presence of two high 

bycatch areas (one north of 40°10′ and 

the other south of 40°10′). Under the 17 

mt yelloweye rockfish ACT, the 

California nearshore fishery would not 

reach its yelloweye rockfish limit 

because it would first be constrained by 

canary rockfish. California would be 

able to maximize cabezon landings 

because the majority of the cabezon 

catch is taken in shallow depths where 

bycatch rates are low. Precisely tracking 

recreational catch inseason, especially 

in the California recreational fishery, 

has been a challenge, which prompted 

the Council to adopt an ACT for 

yelloweye rockfish. 

The tradeoffs considered by the 

Council were between more restrictive 

depth restrictions and higher reductions 

in landed catch. In Oregon, overfished 

species impacts were modeled assuming 

a 20 fm (37 m) depth restriction (option 

a) and a 30 fm (55 m) depth restriction 

(option b). In California, overfished 

species impacts are modeled assuming a 

20 fm (37 m) depth restriction statewide 

(option a) and a 20 fm (37 m) depth 

restriction between 42° and 40°10′ north 

latitude only (option b). Although the 20 

fm (37 m) depth restriction provided 

little yelloweye savings in Oregon, it 

provided greater savings in California 

since a greater proportion of catch 

comes from the deeper depths. 

Following consideration of the catch 

sharing plans the Council 

recommended. 

Summary of Rebuilding Measures 

The harvest specifications and 

management measures being 

implemented through Federal regulation 

and intended to rebuild overfished 

species are summarized below. 

Management measures adopted for 2011 

and 2012 are expected to keep the 

incidental catch of overfished species 

within the ACLs and ACTs. 

Management measures designed to 

rebuild overfished species, or to prevent 

species from becoming overfished, may 

restrict the harvest of relatively healthy 

stocks that are harvested with 

overfished species. As a result of the 

constraining management measures 

imposed to rebuild overfished species, a 

number of the ACLs for healthy stocks 

may not be achieved. 

Bocaccio 

• Date declared overfished: March 3, 

1999. 

• Areas affected: South of 40°10′ 

north latitude. 

• Status of stock: 28.12 percent of its 

unfished biomass in 2009. 

• B0: 7,946 mt. 

• BMSY: 3,178 mt. 

• TF=0: 2018. 

• TMAX: 2031. 

• TTARGET: 2026 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• Target SPR Harvest rate: 77.7 

percent. 

• OFL: 737 mt in 2011 732 in 2012. 

• ACL: 263 mt in 2011 274 mt in 

2012. 

Biology of the stock: Bocaccio is most 

abundant in waters off central and 

southern California. Juveniles settle in 

nearshore waters after a several month 

pelagic stage. Adults range from depths 

of 6.5–261 fm (12– 478 m). Most adults 

are caught off the middle and lower 

shelf at depths between 27 fm and 137 

fm (50 and 250 m). Larger fish tend to 

be found deeper. Bocaccio are found in 

a wide variety of habitats, often on or 

near bottom features, but sometimes 

over muddy bottoms. Bocaccio are 

usually found near the bottom, however, 

they may also occur as much as 16.4 fm 

(30 m) off bottom. Tagging studies have 

shown that young fish move up to 148 

km (92 miles). Maximum age of 

bocaccio was determined to be at least 

40 and perhaps more than 50 years. 

Management measures for 2011 and 

2012: Since 2002 both commercial and 

recreational fisheries have been subject 

to very restrictive management 

measures that have brought catches 

down to very low levels. Area closures 

or RCAs have been one of the most 

effective measures to reduce catch of 

bocaccio. South of 40°10′ north latitude 

RCAs between 15 and 180 fm (329 m) 

provide protection for bocaccio, with 

the largest concentrations occurring in 

the 54 fm (99 m) to 82 fm (150 m) 

depths. The existing CCAs, where sport 

and commercial bottom fishing is 

prohibited, have also provided 

significant protection for bocaccio. 

Bocaccio have historically been taken 

by commercial trawl and fixed gear 

vessels and in the recreational fisheries. 

Adult bocaccio are often caught with 

chilipepper rockfish and have been 

observed schooling with speckled, 

vermilion, widow, and yellowtail 

rockfish. South of 40°10′ north latitude 

the bottom trawl, limited entry fixed 

gear, and open access fishing 

opportunities, in the depths where 

bocaccio are most commonly 

encountered, have been reduced though 

the use of RCAs. Management of the 

bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is 

expected to constrain the harvests to be 

within the trawl allocations. Full catch 

accounting and real time reporting in 

the shoreside IFQ program is expected 

to reduce management uncertainty in 

the trawl fishery, including bocaccio 

management uncertainty. 

Bocaccio are also vulnerable to 

commercial non trawl gears and to 

recreational fishing gear. To limit 

incidental catch of bocaccio in the 

limited entry fixed gear and open access 

fisheries, these fisheries continue to be 

restricted by RCAs and trip limits that 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67835 

are intended to cover landings of 

incidentally caught bocaccio only. 

California recreational fisheries will be 

constrained by bag limits. 

Management performance during 

rebuilding: Total catch estimates for the 

2002–2007 period are based on the total 

mortality reports produced by the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission and the NWFSC, while the 

2008 estimates are based on GMT 

scorecard estimates and recreational 

estimates from California Department of 

Fish and Game. Approximately 75 

percent of total trawl catch during this 

period were discarded catch. 

Commercial fishery discards have been 

concentrated around the central 

California region (Monterey Bay to San 

Francisco) region. Although the 

rebuilding OY is estimated to have been 

exceeded during two of the early years 

of rebuilding, since 2004 the total 

estimated catch (landings plus discards) 

has averaged approximately 80 tons. 

This represents less than 50 percent of 

the adopted OY values, and has been 

associated with low SPR harvest rates, 

such that SPR has been greater than 0.9 

percent since 2004. 

Canary Rockfish 

• Date declared overfished: January 4, 

2000 (65 FR 221). 

• Affected area: Coastwide. 

• Status of the stock: 23.7 percent in 

2009. 

• B0: 25,993 mt. 

• BMSY: 10,397 mt. 

• TF=0: 2024. 

• TMAX: 2046. 

• TTARGET: 2027 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR harvest rate: 88.7 percent. 

• OFL: 614 mt for 2011 and 622 mt 

for 2012. 

• ACL: 102 in 2011 and 107 in 2012. 

Biology of the stock: Canary rockfish 

are a continental shelf (shelf) species. 

Juveniles settle in nearshore waters after 

a several month pelagic stage. Adults 

range from depths of 25–475 fm (46–868 

m). Most adults are caught off the 

middle and lower shelf at depths 

between 44 fm and 109 fm (80 and 200 

m). Larger fish tend to be found in 

deeper waters. Canary rockfish are 

usually associated with areas of high 

relief such as pinnacles, but also occur 

over flat rock or mud and boulder 

bottoms. They are usually found near 

the bottom and are occasionally found 

off the bottom or in soft-bottom habitats 

that are atypical for rockfish. A tagging 

study showed that canary rockfish can 

migrate up to 700 km (435 miles). The 

maximum age of canary rockfish is 84 

years. 

Management measures in 2011 and 

2012: Unavoidable incidental catches of 

canary rockfish occur in trawl, fixed 

gear, open access, and recreational 

fisheries targeting groundfish, as well as 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

targeting species other than groundfish. 

Adult canary rockfish are often caught 

with bocaccio, sharpchin rockfish, 

yelloweye rockfish, yellowtail 

rockfishes, and lingcod. Researchers 

have also observed canary rockfish 

associated with silvergray and widow 

rockfish. 

Management measures intended to 

limit bycatch of canary rockfish include 

RCAs, cumulative trip limits to 

constrain the limited entry fixed gear 

and open access fisheries coastwide, 

IFQs in the whiting and nonwhiting 

shoreside fisheries, and canary limits in 

the whiting fishery. The use of broadbased RCA configurations has had the 

most effect in reducing canary rockfish 

mortality. 

Bottom trawling is prohibited in the 

trawl RCA, which covers depths where 

canary rockfish have most frequently 

been caught. To reduce incidental take 

of canary rockfish in the area north of 

40°10′ north latitude, vessels fishing 

shoreward of the RCAs are required to 

use selective flatfish trawl gear. Current 

footrope restrictions would remain in 

place. Incidental catch of canary 

rockfish in the mothership and catcher/ 

processor sectors will be constrained by 

sector-specific allocations that require 

closure of the sector when reached. 

Management of the bottom trawl fishery 

under IFQs is expected to constrain the 

harvests to be within the trawl 

allocations. Full catch accounting and 

real time reporting in the shorebased 

IFQ program is expected to reduce 

management uncertainty in the trawl 

fishery. The retention of canary rockfish 

continues to be prohibited in the 

commercial fixed gear fisheries. 

Recreational fisheries are managed 

through bag limits, size limits and 

seasons. As necessary, seasons can be 

shortened and bag limits reduced to stay 

within the ACLs. The retention of 

canary rockfish continues to be 

prohibited in the recreational fisheries. 

Management performance during 

rebuilding: Following the 1999 

declaration that the canary rockfish 

stock was overfished the canary OY was 

reduced by over 70 percent in 2000 (to 

200 mt) and by the same margin again 

from 2001–2003 (to 44 mt). In 

retrospect, revised catch data indicate 

that from 2003 to 2008, when the 

rebuilding OY was between 47 and 44 

mt, the OY was exceeded 5 out of 6 

years, but catches well below the ABC 

(In retrospect, due to current methods 

used for total mortality estimates, the 

catches are higher than we had 

estimated at the time. However, they 

were still below the ABC). 

Cowcod 

• Date declared overfished: January 4, 

2000. 

• Areas affected: South of 40°10′ 

north latitude. 

• Status of stock: 4.5 percent in 2009. 

• B0: 2,183 mt. 

• BMSY: 873 mt. 

• TF=0: 2060. 

• TMAX: 2097. 

• TTARGET: 2071 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR harvest rate: 79 percent. 

• OFL: 13 mt in 2011 and 13 mt in 

2012. 

• ACL: 4 mt in 2011 and 2012. 

Biology of the stock: Cowcod are 

found at depths of 11–200 fm (75–366 

m). Cowcod range from central Oregon 

to central Baja California and Guadalupe 

Island. However, they are rare off 

Oregon and Northern California. It has 

long been argued that smaller cowcod 

are found at the shallow end of the 

depth range. Recent submersible work, 

however, indicates that cowcod size 

distribution may be more associated 

with sea floor structure than depth. In 

Monterey Bay, juvenile cowcod recruit 

to fine sand and clay sediments at 

depths of 22–56 fm (40–100 m) during 

the months of March–September. Adults 

are found at depths of 50 280 fm (90– 

500 m) usually on high relief rocky 

bottom. Adult cowcod are believed to be 

less abundant in depths greater than 175 

fm (323 m). 

Management measures in 2011 and 

2012: All directed fishing opportunities 

have been eliminated since 2001. 

Retention of cowcod will continue to be 

prohibited for all commercial and 

recreational fisheries. To prevent 

incidental cowcod harvest, two CCAs 

(the Eastern CCA and the Western CCA) 

in the Southern California Bight were 

delineated to encompass key cowcod 

habitat areas and known areas of high 

catches. The CCAs were codified into 

regulation on November 4, 2003 (68 FR 

62374). Fishing for groundfish has been 

prohibited within the CCAs, except that 

minor nearshore rockfish, California 

scorpionfish, cabezon, lingcod, and 

greenling may be taken from waters 

where the bottom depth is less than 20 

fm (37 m). This rule proposes to 

increase the area in which recreational 

and commercial non-trawl gear can be 

used within the CCA by moving the 20 

fm (37 m) limit out to 30 fm (43 m). The 

rule also proposes to add an addition 

CCA depth contour line of 40 fm (55 m) 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to regulation for potential use in the 

future. 

Management performance during 

rebuilding: Estimates of total mortality 

indicate that the cowcod OY has not 

been exceeded in any year since 2002. 

The OYs during the rebuilding period 

have ranged from 4.8 (in 2002–2004) to 

4 mt (in 2007–2008), while annual 

mortality is estimated to have been 

between 0.32 mt and 3.51 mt, under the 

same rebuilding management measure 

structure as status quo. 

Darkblotched Rockfish 

• Date declared overfished: January 

11, 2001 (66 FR 2338). 

• Areas affected: Coastwide. 

• Status of the stock: 27.5 percent of 

its unfished biomass level in 2009. 

• B0: 32,783 mt. 

• BMSY: 15,763 mt. 

• TF=0: 2016. 

• TMAX: 2037. 

• OFL: 508 mt in 2011, 497 mt in 

2012. 

• ACL: 285 mt in 2011, 296 mt in 

2012. 

• TTARGET: 2025 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR harvest rate: 64.9 percent. 

Biology of the stock: Darkblotched 

rockfish are most abundant on the outer 

continental shelf and slope, mainly 

north of Point Reyes (38° north latitude). 

Most adult darkblotched rockfish are 

associated with hard substrates on the 

lower shelf and upper slope at depths 

between 77 and 200 fm (140 and 366 m). 

Darkblotched rockfish migrate to deeper 

waters with increasing size and age. 

Diurnal migration, rising off bottom at 

night, is a likely behavior of 

darkblotched rockfish. Fish landed in 

California generally had smaller size at 

age than fish landed in the two northern 

states (Oregon and Washington). 

Management measures in 2011 and 

2012: Because of their deeper 

distribution, darkblotched rockfish are 

caught almost exclusively by 

commercial bottom trawl vessels. Most 

landings have been made by bottom 

trawl vessels targeting flatfish on the 

shelf, and rockfish and the DTS species 

on the slope. Since 2001, darkblotched 

rockfish have had species-specific 

harvest specifications, and were 

removed from the minor slope rockfish 

complex. However, darkblotched 

rockfish continue to be managed within 

the minor slope rockfish trip limits. 

Management measures intended to limit 

catch of darkblotched rockfish include: 

RCAs; individual fishery quotas for the 

limited entry trawl shoreside trawl 

fisheries; allocations to the mothership 

and catcher/processor sectors of the 

Pacific whiting fisheries that result in 

fishery closure if the allocation is 

reached; and cumulative minor slope 

rockfish trip limits for limited entry 

fixed gear and open access gears. 

The boundaries of the RCAs vary by 

season and fishing sector and may be 

modified in response to new 

information about geographical and 

seasonal distribution of bycatch. The 

seaward boundary of the trawl RCA was 

set at a depth that was likely to keep 

fishing effort in deeper waters and away 

from areas where the bycatch of 

darkblotched rockfish was highest. 

Cumulative limits for slope rockfish 

north of 40°10′ north latitude are 

intended to accommodate incidental 

take of darkblotched rockfish in the 

limited entry fixed gear and open access 

fisheries. As needed, limited entry fixed 

gear and trip limits for co-occurring 

species may be adjusted to reduce 

darkblotched rockfish bycatch. 

Incidental catch of darkblotched 

rockfish in the mothership and catcher/ 

processor sectors will be constrained by 

sector-specific allocations that require 

closure of the sector when reached. 

Management of the bottom trawl fishery 

under IFQs is expected to constrain the 

harvests to be within the trawl 

allocations. Full catch accounting and 

real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ 

program is expected to reduce 

management uncertainty in the trawl 

fishery. 

Management performance under 

rebuilding: Between 2002 and 2008 the 

OY was exceeded once in 2002. Total 

catch during this period has ranged 

between 127 mt (2003) and 264 mt 

(2007), while landed catch has ranged 

between 80 mt (2003) and 189 mt 

(2004). The average percent retained 

during the rebuilding period has been 

63 percent. 

Petrale Sole 

• Date declared overfished: February 

9, 2010. 

• Areas affected: Coastwide. 

• Status of stock: Following the 2009 

stock assessment, the stock was believed 

to be at 11.6 percent of unfished 

biomass level in 2009. 

• B0: 25,334 mt. 

• BMSY: 6,334. 

• TF=0: 2014 (TMIN). 

• TMAX: 2021. 

• TTARGET: 2016 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR harvest rate: 31.0 percent in 

2011 and 32.4 percent in 2012. 

• ABC: 976 mt in 2011 and 1,222 mt 

in 2012. 

• ACL: 976 mt in 2011 and 1,160 mt 

2012. 

Biology of the stock: Petrale sole are 

found from Cape Saint Elias, Alaska to 

Coronado Island, Baja California, 

Mexico. The range may possibly extend 

into the Bering Sea, but the species is 

rare north and west of southeast Alaska. 

Adults migrate seasonally between 

deepwater winter spawning areas to 

shallower spring feeding grounds. 

During periods 1 and 6, there is 

virtually no petrale sole catch that 

occurs at depths less than 125 fm (229 

m), most interactions occur between 

175–200 fm (320 m–366 m), and catches 

then drop off quickly outside of the 200 

fm (366 m) line. Depth distributions 

change during periods 2 and 5, when 

petrale sole are typically deeper than 

125 fm (229 m), but shallower than 175 

fm (320 m), an intermediate depth for 

this species. Finally, petrale sole are 

shallowest during periods 3 and 4, 

when highest bycatch rates are observed 

shallower than 125 fm (229 m). Petrale 

sole show an affinity to sand, sandy 

mud, and occasionally muddy 

substrates. 

Spawning occurs over the continental 

shelf and continental slope. Spawning 

occurs in large spawning aggregations in 

the winter. Petrale sole tend to move 

into deeper water with increased age 

and size. Petrale sole begin maturing at 

three years. Petrale sole eggs and larvae 

are eaten by planktivorous invertebrates 

and pelagic fishes. Juveniles are preyed 

upon (sometimes heavily) by adult 

petrale sole, as well as other large 

flatfishes. Adults are preyed upon by 

sharks, demersally feeding marine 

mammals, and larger flatfishes and 

pelagic fishes. Petrale sole compete with 

other large flatfishes. Petrale sole have 

the same summer feeding grounds as 

lingcod, English sole, rex sole, and 

Dover sole. 

Management measures for 2011 and 

2012: Annual catches of petrale sole by 

gears other than groundfish bottom 

trawl have been minor coastwide. For 

the trawl fishery, IFQ management 

along with RCA restrictions would be 

used to constrain the petrale sole catch 

and to reduce fishing on spawning 

aggregations in the winter months. 

Because petrale sole exhibit distinct 

seasonal depth migrations, the trawl 

RCA would vary by season. Trip limits 

will continue to be used in the nontrawl fisheries. 

POP 

• Date declared overfished: March 3, 

1999. 

• Areas affected: Vancouver and 

Columbia. 

• Status of stock: Following the 2009 

stock assessment, the stock was believed 

to be at 28.6 percent of unfished 

biomass level in 2009. 

• B0: 37,780 mt. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67837 

• BMSY: 15,112 mt. 

• TF=0: 2018. 

• TMAX: 2045. 

• TTARGET: 2020 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR harvest rate: 86.4 percent. 

• ABC: 1,026 in 2011 and 1,007 mt in 

2012. 

• ACL: 180 mt in 2011 and 183 MT 

2012, with an ACT of 157 in both years. 

Biology of the stock: The POP 

population off the northern U.S. west 

coast (Columbia and U.S.-Vancouver 

areas) is at the southern extreme of the 

stock’s range. POP are found on the 

upper continental slope (slope), 109– 

150 fm (200–275 m) during the summer 

and somewhat deeper 164–246 fm (300– 

450 m) during the winter. Adults 

sometimes aggregate up to 16 fm (29 m) 

above hard bottom features and may 

then disperse and rise into the water 

column at night. The maximum age of 

POP has been determined to be 70 to 90 

years. The mean generation time is 28 

years. POP recruitment into the 

population occurs when the stock is at 

3 years of age. Age of maturity and size 

varies with locality. POP reach 90 

percent of their maximum size by age 20 

years. 

Management measures for 2011 and 

2012: POP occurs in similar depths as 

darkblotched rockfish, although they 

have a more northern geographic 

distribution. Adult POP are often caught 

with other upper slope groundfish such 

as Dover sole, thornyheads, sablefish, 

and darkblotched, rougheye, and 

sharpchin rockfish. North of 40°10′ 

north latitude, POP are caught in similar 

fisheries as darkblotched rockfish. POP 

are rarely caught in the recreational 

fisheries. Management measures for 

2011 and 2012 that are intended to limit 

the bycatch of POP and keep fishing 

mortality within the ACL include: 

RCAs, individual fishery quotas for the 

limited entry trawl shoreside trawl 

fisheries, allocations to the mothership 

and catcher/processor, and cumulative 

trip limits for commercial fixed gear 

fisheries. 

Because POP co-occur with 

darkblotched rockfish, measures to 

reduce the incidental catch of 

darkblotched rockfish benefit POP. 

These measures include seaward trawl 

RCA boundaries that are established to 

keep fishing effort in deeper water 

where POP are less abundant. Incidental 

catch of POP in the mothership and 

catcher/processor sectors will be 

constrained by sector-specific 

allocations that require closure of the 

sector when reached. Management of 

the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is 

expected to constrain the harvests to be 

within the trawl allocations. Full catch 

accounting and real time reporting in 

the shoreside IFQ program is expected 

to reduce management uncertainty in 

the trawl fishery. 

Management performance under 

rebuilding: The OYs for POP were 

exceeded in: 2001 by 1.3 percent (307 

mt out of a 303 mt OY); and in 2007 by 

4.0 percent (156 mt out of a 150 mt OY). 

The overage in 2007 was due to a 

relatively rare and unexpected bycatch 

event. 

Widow Rockfish 

• Date declared overfished: January 

11, 2001. 

• Areas affected: Coastwide. 

• Status of stock: 38.5 percent of its 

unfished biomass in 2009. 

• B0: 40,547 million eggs. 

• BMSY: 16,218 million eggs. 

• TF=0: 2010. 

• TMAX: 2035. 

• TTARGET: 2010 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR harvest rate: 91.7 in 2011, 91.3 

in 2012. 

• OFL: 5,097 mt in 2011, 4,923 mt in 

2012. 

• ACL: 600 mt in 2011 and 2012. 

Biology of the stock: Widow rockfish 

are most abundant off northern Oregon 

and southern Washington. Young of the 

year recruit to shallow nearshore waters 

after spending up to 5 months as pelagic 

larvae and juveniles in offshore waters. 

Adults range from bottom depths of 13 

fm to 300 fm (24 m to 549 m). Most 

adults occur near the shelf break at 

bottom depths between 77 fm to 115 fm 

(140 m to 210 m). Adults are semi 

pelagic with their behavior being 

dynamic. Large concentrations of 

widow rockfish form at night and 

disperse at dawn, an atypical pattern for 

rockfish. Widow rockfish tend to be 

more easily caught in higher abundance 

during El Nino (anomalously warm and 

dry) years. Maximum age of widow 

rockfish is 59 years. 

Management measures in 2011 and 

2012: Widow rockfish co-occurs with 

other stocks like yellowtail, bocaccio 

and chilipepper. Prior to rebuilding, 

large pure catches of widow rockfish 

were taken with midwater trawl gear. 

RCA management measure are to restrict 

fishing on the shelf are expected to 

continue, and would continue to be 

beneficial to the recovery of widow 

rockfish. Management of the bottom 

trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to 

constrain the harvests to be within the 

trawl allocations. Full catch accounting 

and real time reporting in the shoreside 

IFQ program is expected to reduce 

management uncertainty in the trawl 

fishery. Incidental catch of widow 

rockfish in the mothership and catcher/ 

processor sectors will be constrained by 

sector-specific allocations that require 

closure of the sector when reached. 

Non trawl and recreational fisheries 

have little incidental catch of widow 

rockfish. Cumulative trip limits are 

intended to accommodate low levels of 

incidental catch. 

Management performance under 

rebuilding: Since 2002, total catch has 

been well below the annual OY. In 

recent years, the annual catch has 

primarily been incidental catch in the 

Pacific whiting midwater trawl 

fisheries. The Pacific whiting fisheries 

have been managed with bycatch limits 

that result in fishery closure if the limit 

is reached. Monitoring programs 

(observers in the mothership and 

catcher/processor sectors and 

monitoring under full retention EFPs in 

the shorebased sector) have been in 

place throughout the rebuilding period. 

Yelloweye Rockfish 

• Date declared overfished: January 

11, 2002. 

• Areas affected: Coastwide. 

• Status of stock: 20.3 percent of its 

unfished biomass in 2009. 

• B0: 994 million eggs. 

• BMSY: 398 million eggs. 

• TF=0: 2047. 

• TMAX: 2089. 

• Target: 2084 (median year to 

rebuild). 

• SPR rate: 72.8 percent. 

• OFL: 48 mt in 2011 and 2012. 

• ACL: 20 mt in 2011 and 2012, with 

an ACT of 17 mt in both years. 

Biology of the stock: Yelloweye 

rockfish juveniles have been found at 

depths greater than 8 fm (15 m) in areas 

of high bottom relief. Adults range to 

depths of 300 fm (549 m). Most adults 

are caught off the middle and lower 

shelf at depths between 50 fm and 98 fm 

(91 m and 180 m). Adult yelloweye 

rockfish tend to be solitary and are 

usually associated with areas of high 

relief with refuges such as caves and 

crevices, but also occur on mud adjacent 

to rock structures. They are usually 

found on or near the bottom. Maximum 

age of yelloweye rockfish is 115 years. 

Researchers have observed adult 

yelloweye rockfish associated with 

bocaccio, cowcod, greenspotted 

rockfish, and tiger rockfish. 

Management measures in 2011 and 

2012: Yelloweye rockfish inhabit areas 

typically inaccessible to trawl gear. In 

the coastal trawl fishery, incidental 

catch occurs during the harvest of other 

target fisheries operating at the fringes 

of yelloweye rockfish habitat. Yelloweye 

rockfish is particularly vulnerable to 

hook and line gear. Because yelloweye 

rockfish exhibit site fidelity and they are 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

a more sedentary rockfish species, RCAs 

have been effective in reducing the 

catch of yelloweye rockfish. Specific 

yelloweye rockfish RCAs have been 

specified for the recreational and 

commercial non-trawl fisheries. North 

of 39° north latitude RCAs out to depths 

of 100–125 fm (183–229 m) are expected 

to reduce yelloweye rockfish catch. 

For 2011 and 2012, the 100 and 125 

fm (183 and 229 m) RCA lines at the 

southwest corner of Heceta Bank were 

moved seaward to better follow the 

bathymetry that they represent; the 

unmodified lines were, in many cases, 

extremely shallow. The industry has 

reported this to be an area of high 

yelloweye rockfish bycatch. While the 

impacts of this change to the RCA to 

yelloweye rockfish are not quantifiable, 

it is assumed that the modification will 

reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts. 

North of 40°10′ north latitude, 

Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation areas 

(YRCAs) will continue to be used to 

reduce yelloweye rockfish catch in the 

commercial fixed gear, open access, and 

recreational fisheries. Off Washington, 

recreational fishing for groundfish and 

halibut will continue to be prohibited 

inside the YRCAs and for limited entry 

fixed gear and open access fishing, the 

‘‘C’’ shaped YRCA off Washington will 

continue to be designated as an area to 

avoid. YRCAs off the coast of 

Washington are defined in Federal 

regulation at 50 CFR § 660.390. The 

North Coast Commercial YRCA restricts 

commercial limited entry and open 

access, the Salmon Troll YRCA restricts 

salmon troll fishing, and the 

recreational YRCA off the southern 

coast of Washington prohibits all 

recreational fishing for groundfish and 

halibut. The California recreational 

YRCAs and commercial non-trawl gear 

YRCAs will continue to be defined in 

regulation and may be implemented 

inseason. As in 2009 and 2010 the 

YRCAs not in effect at the start of 2011. 

Management performance under 

rebuilding: Following the 2002 

declaration that the yelloweye rockfish 

stock was overfished the total catch 

mortality of yelloweye rockfish was 

drastically reduced and has been 

maintained between 12.3 mt and 19.6 

mt. These catch levels represent a 95% 

reduction from average catches observed 

in the 1980s and 1990s. Between 2002 

and 2008, 54–76 percent of the annual 

catch was from the recreational 

fisheries. The annual OY has not been 

exceeded since 2002. 

Management of the bottom trawl 

fishery under IFQs is expected to 

constrain the harvests to be within the 

trawl allocations. Full catch accounting 

and real time reporting in the shoreside 

IFQ program is expected to reduce 

management uncertainty in the trawl 

fishery. 

Ecosystem Component Species 

Ecosystem component (EC) species 

are identified in the PCGFMP. The EC 

species are those species that are not 

considered to be ‘‘in the fishery’’ or 

targeted in any fishery. EC species are 

not typically retained for sale or 

personal use. The EC species are not 

actively managed. The EC species are 

determined to not be subject to 

overfishing, approaching an overfished 

condition, or overfished, nor are they 

likely to become subject to overfishing 

or overfished in the absence of 

conservation and management 

measures. 

Although harvest specifications are 

not specified for EC species, the 

incidental catch is monitored to ensure 

they continue to be classified correctly. 

While EC species are not considered to 

be ‘‘in the fishery,’’ Amendment 23 to 

the PCGFMP indicates that the Council 

should consider measures for the fishery 

to minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality of EC species consistent with 

National Standard 9, and to protect their 

associated role in the ecosystem. EC 

species are not required to have 

reference points specified, but should be 

monitored to the extent that any new 

pertinent scientific information becomes 

available (e.g., catch trends, 

vulnerability, etc.) to determine changes 

in their status or their vulnerability to 

the fishery. If necessary, they should be 

reclassified as ‘‘in the fishery.’’ 

The Council considered specifying 

shortbelly rockfish as an EC species, but 

decided against doing so. Shortbelly 

rockfish is an abundant species that is 

not targeted in any commercial or 

recreational fisheries, and which is a 

valuable forage fish species. Rather than 

classifying shortbelly rockfish as an EC 

species, the Council chose to 

recommend a very restrictive ACL 

which is intended to accommodate 

incidental catch while preventing the 

development of fisheries specifically 

targeting shortbelly rockfish. 

Overfishing 

Overfishing occurs whenever a stock 

or stock complex is subjected to a rate 

or level of fishing mortality that is above 

the stock’s capacity to produce MSY (an 

estimate of the largest average annual 

catch or yield that can be taken over a 

significant period of time under 

prevailing ecological and environmental 

conditions). This level is also referred to 

as MFMT (the maximum fishing 

mortality threshold) in the PCGFMP. 

Under the PCGFMP, OFLs for all species 

will be set based on the MFMT, which 

is expressed as a harvest unlike OFLs. 

None of the 2011 or 2012 OFLs would 

be set higher than the MFMT or its 

proxy applied to a stock’s abundance. 

The corresponding ABCs will be set 

below the OFL and ACLs will be set at 

or below the ABC. The groundfish 

management measures including those 

in this proposed rule are designed to 

keep harvest levels within specified 

ACLs. 

When evaluating whether overfishing 

has occurred for any species under the 

PCGFMP, NMFS compares that species’ 

estimated total catch (landed catch + 

discard) in a particular year to the 

MFMT applied to the estimated 

abundance (the ABC for 2010 and years 

earlier, and OFL beginning in 2011). 

Overfishing is difficult to detect 

inseason for many groundfish, 

particularly for minor rockfish species, 

because most species are not 

individually identified on landing. 

Species compositions, based on 

proportions encountered in samples of 

landings and extrapolated observer data, 

are applied during the year. However, 

final results are not available until after 

the end of the year. 

This proposed rule discusses 

overfishing estimated to have occurred 

in 2007 and 2008. When new data are 

available, NMFS updates estimates of 

whether overfishing has occurred as 

part of the agency’s report to Congress 

on the Status of U.S. Fisheries (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/ 

statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm) 

NMFS estimates that no overfishing 

occurred on any species during the 2007 

or 2008 fishing season, since no species 

or species complex total catch exceeded 

its ABC. During 2007 and 2008 the total 

catch of three species did exceed the 

OYs. In 2007, canary rockfish exceeded 

its 44 mt OY by 1.6 percent with the 

total catch estimated to have been 44.7 

mt. In 2007, POP exceeded its 150 mt 

OY by 4.0 percent with a total catch 

estimate of 156.0 mt. In 2008, sablefish 

exceeded its 5,934 mt OY by 2.4 percent 

with the total catch estimate of 6,078 

mt. 

Amendment 20: Carry-Over Provision 

Under Amendment 20 to the 

PCGFMP, up to 10 percent of unused 

IFQ quota pounds in a vessel’s account 

may be carried over for use in the next 

fishing year. Similarly, in order to cover 

an overage (landings that exceed the 

amount of quota pounds held in a vessel 

account) that is within 10 percent of the 

quota pounds that have been in the 

vessel account during the year, the 

vessel owner may use that amount from 

the quota pounds he will receive in the 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67839 

following fishing year to account for the 

overage in the current year. The 

rationale for the carry-over as presented 

in the Amendment 20 EIS is to provide 

increased flexibility to fishery 

participants. During the biennial harvest 

specification and management process, 

specifically at the Council’s June 2010 

meeting, the Council further considered 

how the carry-over provision works in 

relationship to the 2011–2012 harvest 

specifications, particularly ACLs and 

the trawl allocations. 

The primary risk pertaining to carryover provisions is the risk associated 

with management uncertainty, i.e. the 

risk of the carry-over provision relative 

to the ability to manage the fisheries to 

stay within the ACLs and whether that 

risk is acceptably low. An examination 

was done on the worst case scenario 

which would occur if every quota 

holder carried an underage (landings 

that are less than the amount of quota 

pounds held in a vessel account) of 10 

percent for species that are ‘‘fully 

prescribed’’ in the IFQ fishery. The 

likelihood of this occurring was 

believed to be a low risk. Because both 

carry-overs and carry-unders are both 

expected for the following year, the 

biological impacts were expected to be 

low. 

Non-overfished trawl target species 

where 80 percent or more of the annual 

OY was harvested from 2005–2008 

include Dover sole, sablefish, and 

shortspine thornyhead. Fully harvested 

stocks are more likely than others to 

experience ACL overages due to the 

carry-over provision. Under an IFQ 

fishery, more than 80% of the sablefish 

allocation is expected to be harvested, 

particularly given the lower ACLs in 

2011–2012 relative to recent OYs. 

Petrale sole is likely to be fully 

harvested with a lower harvest level 

than in the past. Whiting may also be 

fully or near fully harvested. Dover sole 

has a higher harvest level than in recent 

years and therefore the fishery has a 

lower risk of exceeding the Dover sole 

trawl allocation or the ACL as a result 

of the carry-over provision. The 

overfished species, other than petrale 

sole, will likely have 80 percent or more 

of the annual ACL harvested and thus 

are potential species for which an ACL 

overage due to the carry-over provision 

may be possible. 

Management Measures 

New management measures being 

proposed for the 2011–2012 work in 

combination with the existing 

regulations to create a management 

structure that is intended to constrain 

fishing so the catch of overfished 

groundfish species does not exceed the 

rebuilding ACLs while allowing, to the 

extent practicable, the ACLs for 

healthier groundfish stocks that cooccur with the overfished stocks to be 

achieved. Routine management 

measures for the commercial fisheries 

include: Bycatch limits, trip and 

cumulative landing limits, time/area 

closures, size limits, and gear 

restrictions. Routine management 

measures for the recreational fisheries 

include bag limits, size limits, gear 

restrictions, fish dressing requirements, 

and time/area closures. Routine 

management measures are used to 

modify fishing behavior during the 

fishing year to allow a harvest 

specification to be achieved, or to 

prevent a harvest specification from 

being exceeded. The groundfish fishery 

is managed with a variety of other 

regulatory requirements that are not 

considered routine, and which are not 

changed through this rulemaking and 

are found at 50 CFR § 660, Subparts C 

through G. The regulations at 50 CFR 

§ 660, Subparts C through G include, but 

are not limited to, long-term harvest 

allocations, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, monitoring requirements, 

license limitation programs, and 

essential fish habitat (EFH) protection 

measures. The routine management 

measures specified at 50 CFR 

§ 660.60(c), Subpart C in combination 

with the entire collection of groundfish 

regulations as specified at 50 CFR 660, 

Subparts C through G are used to 

manage the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery to stay within the harvest 

specifications identified in the 

rulemaking. This section presents 

proposed management measures 

developed for 2011–2012. 

At the Council’s April 2010 meeting 

the Enforcement Consultants (EC) raised 

catch accounting concerns relative to 

U.S. vessels (including processing 

vessels) that fish for species managed 

under the PCGFMP and that transport 

catch to another country, such as 

Canada and Mexico, thereby 

circumventing catch accounting. The EC 

further investigated the issue including 

the possible implementation of 

regulatory language to ensure that 

Federal regulations provide for full 

catch accounting before catch leaves the 

United States. At the Council’s June 

2010 meeting the EC provided the 

Council with draft regulatory language 

that would require the submission of 

vessel activity reports for any non-IFQ 

catcher vessel, mothership processor, or 

catcher/processor engaged in fishing for 

groundfish in the EEZ before it leaves 

the EEZ by crossing the seaward 

boundary, or crosses the borders to the 

EEZs of Mexico or Canada. The Council 

recommended that a vessel activity 

report be implemented. However, 

development and implementation of a 

vessel activity report would take more 

time than is available for this 

rulemaking. Therefore, a vessel activity 

report is under consideration for future 

implementation and has not been 

included in this action. 

Limited Entry Trawl 

Incidental Trip Limits for Trawl 

Rationalization—Amendment 20 

The Shoreside IFQ program being 

implemented under Amendment 20 to 

the PCGFMP will require the following 

incidentally caught species to be 

managed with trip limits: Minor 

nearshore rockfish north and south, 

black rockfish, cabezon (46°16 to 42° 

north latitude and south of 42° north 

latitude), spiny dogfish, shortbelly 

rockfish, Pacific whiting, and the ‘‘other 

fish’’ category. If determined necessary, 

trip limits may also be established for 

longnose skate, California scorpionfish, 

and as sub-limits within the other fish 

category, big skate, California skate, 

leopard skate, soupfin shark, finescale 

codling, Pacific rattail, kelp greenling, 

and cabezon off Washington. The 

establishment of trip limits for these 

species will allow incidental catch to be 

landed and for the fishers to be paid for 

those landings. Overall, the amount of 

regulatory discards for incidentally 

caught species is expected to be 

reduced. Under the shoreside IFQ 

program gear switching provisions, 

trawl trip limits apply to incidental 

landing allowances regardless of 

whether the vessels are using either 

trawl or fixed gears. In the development 

of trawl trip limits, monthly landings in 

the limited entry non-whiting and 

whiting trawl fishery from 2008 and 

2009 were examined and compared to 

the 2010 trip limits. These trip limits do 

not apply to vessels in the mothership 

and catcher/processor sectors of the 

whiting fishery. 

Minor Nearshore Rockfish and Black 

Rockfish North and South of 40°10 

North Latitude 

The minor nearshore rockfish and 

black rockfish trip limits for vessels 

participating under the shoreside IFQ 

program using trawl or fixed gears north 

and south of 40°10 north latitude would 

be specified at 300 lbs/month for 

periods 1 through 6. The highest 

monthly landings of nearshore rockfish 

in the trawl fishery during 2008 and 

2009 were between 150–200 pounds; 

with the majority of the landings having 

been less than 50 pounds. In a 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

rationalized trawl fishery increases to 

minor nearshore rockfish and black 

rockfish landings are not expected. This 

is because of state regulations restricting 

trawl fishing in nearshore areas and 

because the risk of catching yelloweye 

rockfish is relatively high in these areas. 

In Washington state waters (0–3 miles) 

commercial fishing with either trawl or 

fixed gear (including pots) in nearshore 

waters is prohibited. To commercially 

land targeted amounts of nearshore 

rockfish species in Oregon, vessels must 

hold a state fixed gear nearshore permit. 

Landing of incidental amounts of 

nearshore rockfish are allowed by 

trawlers and by fixed gear vessels 

without nearshore permits, however 

recent (2010) state trip limits for these 

species have been more restrictive than 

the federal trip limits and are expected 

to remain in place in 2011 and 2012. In 

California, vessels must hold a state 

fixed gear nearshore permit to land 

nearshore rockfish. With full catch 

accounting under the shoreside IFQ 

program and the anticipated high cost of 

purchasing yelloweye rockfish quota 

pounds, it seems unlikely that IFQ 

participants will be targeting nearshore 

rockfish. 

Cabezon (46°16 North Latitude to 42° 

North Latitude and South of 42° North 

Latitude) 

Beginning with 2011–2012, cabezon 

would be managed as a separate species 

north of 42° north latitude, as well as 

south of 42° north latitude off 

California. A review of recent landings 

of cabezon by the limited entry trawl 

fleet indicated that landings were 

infrequent with most being below 20 

pounds. The Council recommended that 

the cabezon trip limits for vessels 

participating in the shoreside IFQ 

program using trawl or fixed gears to 

harvest IFQ species with a limited entry 

trawl permit be specified at 50 lbs/ 

month for periods 1 through 6 north and 

south of 42° north latitude, which 

would accommodate the landings seen 

in the last two years. 

Spiny Dogfish 

The limits specified in regulation for 

trawl gear in 2010 are 200,000 lbs 

(91 mt) per 2 months periods 1 and 2; 

150,000 lbs (68 mt) per 2 months 

periods 3, and 100,000 lbs (45 mt) per 

2 months periods 4 through 6 in both 

the north and the south. In recent years, 

no limited entry trawl vessel has 

approached or attained the spiny 

dogfish cumulative limits specified in 

Federal regulation. Under a rationalized 

fishery, an IFQ vessel could target spiny 

dogfish with either trawl gear or fixed 

gear. Due to anticipated catch of 

yelloweye rockfish, the access to spiny 

dogfish could be constrained. The risk 

to an individual of yelloweye rockfish 

bycatch would likely outweigh the 

value of targeting spiny dogfish. 

Therefore, the Council recommended 

that the spiny dogfish trip limits for 

vessels using trawl or fixed gears to 

harvest IFQ species with a limited entry 

trawl permit north and south of 40°10 

north latitude be specified at 60,000 lbs 

(27 mt) per 2 month, which would 

accommodate the trawl landings seen in 

recent years. 

Longspine Thornyhead South of 34°27 

North Latitude 

Unlike longspine thornyhead in the 

north, the Council did not specify 

trawl/non-trawl allocation for longspine 

thornyhead south of 34°27 north 

latitude under Amendment 21. The 

Council chose to manage longspine 

thornyheads south of 34°27 north 

latitude with trip limits, and longspine 

thornyhead in the north with individual 

fishing quotas. From 1995–2005, the 

trawl fishery harvested very small 

proportions of the longspine thornyhead 

OY. Additionally, total mortality by all 

fleets in recent years has been well 

below the OY. Historically, longspine 

thornyhead has not been a target species 

in the trawl fishery, but instead has 

been caught in association with 

shortspine thornyhead, Dover sole, and 

sablefish. Given the low exploitation of 

longspine thornyhead south, the 

Council recommended that south of 

34°27 North latitude, the longspine 

thornyhead incidental landing limits for 

vessels using trawl or fixed gears to 

harvest IFQ species with a limited entry 

trawl permit be specified at 24,000 lbs 

(11 mt) per 2 months, which is the 2010 

limit currently specified in regulation 

for limited entry trawl gears. 

Remaining Groundfish Species 

Under the Final Preferred Alternative, 

the Council specified incidental trip 

limits for species not managed with IFQ 

for vessels using trawl or fixed gear to 

harvest IFQ species with a limited entry 

trawl permit. For the purpose of setting 

trip limits for non-IFQ species, the 

Council considered the following 

remaining groundfish species: Longnose 

skate, big skate, California skate, 

California scorpionfish, leopard shark, 

soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific 

rattail (grenadier), ratfish, kelp 

greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon in 

Washington. A review of the 2008 and 

2009 limited entry trawl landings for 

these stocks was conducted. Grenadier 

makes up the largest component of the 

remaining fish landings in the trawl 

fishery and most landings were less 

than 8,000 lbs (3.6 mt) with a few 

landings as high as 12,000 lbs (11 mt). 

Historically, there was some buying/ 

selling of grenadier in an attempt to 

develop a market, however recent 

landings are incidental catch associated 

with the targeting of DTS species. Big 

skate and California skate are also 

included in the remaining fish category. 

In recent years, there has been interest 

in targeting and marketing skates. 

Overall the species being considered 

had landings that were less than 1,500 

pounds (680 kg) per month with most 

monthly landings less than 1,000 

pounds (454 kg). The Council 

recommended that incidental landing 

limit for vessels using trawl or fixed 

gears to harvest IFQ species with a 

limited entry trawl permit remain 

unlimited at the start of 2011. Should 

increased landings occur such that there 

is concern about overfishing, the 

Council would likely implement the 

appropriate trip limits through routine 

inseason action. Therefore, trip limits 

for the remaining groundfish are being 

added to the regulations as a routine 

management measure. 

Trawl Fishery Trip Limit Tables 

This action specifies incidental trip 

limits for species not managed with IFQ 

for vessels using trawl or fixed gear to 

harvest IFQ species with a limited entry 

trawl permit. The purpose of allowing 

trip limits for these species is to allow 

incidental catch to be landed and for the 

fishers to be paid for those landings. 

Without trip limits these incidentally 

caught species would need to be 

discarded (regulatory discard) or 

forfeited to the state at the time of 

landing. A second set of tables is 

included with this action, in the event 

that trawl rationalization is delayed the 

trawl non-IFQ fishery tables would be 

implemented to prevent the fishery from 

exceeding its specifications. 

RCA Configurations for Vessels 

Harvesting IFQ Quota Pounds 

Based on analysis of West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Data and vessellogbook data, the boundaries of the 

RCAs were set to prohibit groundfish 

fishing within a range of depths where 

encounters with overfished species were 

most likely to occur. The RCAs 

boundaries vary by season, latitude, and 

gear group. Boundaries for limited entry 

trawl vessels are different than those for 

the limited entry fixed-gear and open 

access gears. The non-trawl RCAs apply 

to the limited entry fixed-gear and open 

access gears other than non-groundfish 

trawl. The non-groundfish trawl RCAs 

are defined by fishery. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67841 

Trawl RCA boundaries and 

cumulative limits are routinely adjusted 

inseason based upon fishery 

performance. Managers structure catch 

limit opportunities and closed areas 

with several objectives in mind 

including reducing interactions with 

overfished species while simultaneously 

providing for a year round fishing 

opportunity. While many adjustments to 

catch limits and trawl RCA boundaries 

are relatively minor, in recent years 

some of these adjustments have been 

relatively extreme and have closed 

fishing opportunity for wide areas of the 

coast mid-season. Under the 2010 

management structure for the trawl 

fishery, catch projections (and estimates 

of total catch inseason) are made using 

what is often described as the ‘‘trawl 

bycatch model.’’ This model uses 

discard estimates from the WCGOP data 

and logbook information to develop 

temporal and spatially stratified bycatch 

rates for overfished species. The bycatch 

model can be used to estimate both 

target species and overfished species 

catch based on a proposed set of 

management measures (2-month 

cumulative trip limits and RCA 

configurations). Under a rationalized 

fishery, there will be full catch 

accounting and individuals will be held 

accountable for their bycatch. Despite 

the high level of individual 

accountability, there is still a risk of 

exceeding the trawl allocation since 

overfished species interactions can be 

unpredictable. As a starting place for the 

shoreside trawl IFQ program and as a 

risk adverse measure, the Council 

recommended maintaining the RCA 

structure that was in place in June 2010. 

As the IFQ fishery develops and if catch 

data supports reconsideration of the 

RCAs, the Council could revise the RCA 

boundaries through inseason measures. 

Under Amendment 20 to the 

PCGFMP, quota pounds associated with 

a limited entry trawl permit may be 

harvested with either trawl gear or legal 

fixed gear. Groundfish regulations 

specify both trawl and non-trawl RCAs. 

The type of gear employed determines 

the RCA structure. As such, vessels that 

harvest IFQ species with trawl gear will 

be held to the trawl RCA while vessels 

that harvest with fixed gear will be held 

to the fixed gear RCA. 

Gear Switching 

The yelloweye rockfish trawl catch 

allocation is based on the trawl bycatch 

model, which projects very low 

amounts of yelloweye rockfish catch 

(0.6 mt) for 2011 and 2012. In general, 

yelloweye rockfish is much less 

vulnerable to being caught by trawl gear 

than non-trawl gears. With fixed-gear, 

nearshore fishers are able to fish in areas 

and depth ranges where yelloweye 

rockfish are found (rock bottom). As a 

result, yelloweye rockfish bycatch rates 

in the nearshore fixed gear fisheries are 

much greater than those used to model 

bycatch in the trawl fisheries. For 

reasons similar to those for yelloweye 

rockfish, canary rockfish bycatch rates 

are also higher in the nearshore fixedgear fishery model than in the trawl 

model. 

Under a trip limit fishery structure, 

management measures (trip limits, trawl 

gear restrictions and RCAs) restrict trawl 

yelloweye retention and fishing and in 

rocky habitats where yelloweye rockfish 

concentrate. Under trawl 

rationalization, the gear switching 

provision allows fishers to used fixed 

gears to harvest trawl allocations. All 

IFQ species caught by those fishing 

under the gear switching provisions, 

including yelloweye and canary, must 

be covered by trawl quota pounds. 

Increased fishing by trawl IFQ program 

participants using fixed gear shoreward 

of the RCA could present an increased 

risk of exceeding the trawl sector 

allocation for yelloweye rockfish, and 

possibly canary rockfish. For this 

reason, the 2011 and 2012 management 

measures include measures designed to 

discourage fixed gear fishing by trawl 

IFQ participants in the nearshore, where 

impacts to yelloweye and canary 

rockfish are potentially the greatest. 

To discourage fishing in nearshore 

areas under the gear switching 

provision, the Council recommended 

that the trawl sector receive no 

allocation of nearshore species making 

it unlikely that trawl IFQ fishery 

participants will operate in waters 

shallower than 30 fm (55 m). Further, 

state regulations require nearshore 

permits to land targeted amounts of 

nearshore species. In Oregon, additional 

gear restrictions may restrict fixed gear 

operations in the nearshore areas. The 

shoreward non-trawl RCA structure is 

designed such that the trawl IFQ fishery 

participants’ only viable opportunity for 

shoreward non-trawl activity is south of 

34°27 north latitude, where yelloweye 

rockfish and are less common. It is less 

likely that vessels fishing seaward of the 

RCA under the gear switching provision 

would encountering overfished species 

in excess of the trawl fishery 

allocations. Gear switching seaward of 

the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour may 

allow access to valuable species such as 

sablefish and shortspine thornyheads 

with less incidental catch than with 

trawl gear. 

Potential Mid-Water Opportunity in 

2011–2012 

There is an opportunity under the 

trawl rationalization program to allow 

targeting of species such as yellowtail 

rockfish within the RCA using midwater 

trawl gear during the primary whiting 

season. Under current trawl 

rationalization regulations, this 

opportunity is available regardless of 

amount of whiting onboard. A cursory 

analysis of data reveals that the risk of 

exceeding overfished species ACLs as a 

result of a mid-water opportunity 

appears lower than for bottom trawl gear 

for some species (e.g., yelloweye); it 

may be equally as risky for some species 

including canary; and appears to have a 

higher risk for species including widow 

rockfish. Under a rationalized trawl 

fishery structure with individual 

accountability, and the Council’s 

recommended ACLs for canary and 

widow rockfish, and with the 

subsequent trawl allocation, the risk of 

exceeding ACLs for these species is 

sufficiently low. Therefore, this 

opportunity could be afforded in 2011– 

2012. 

Further Considerations for a 

Rationalized Trawl Fishery 

The 2011 petrale ACL reductions over 

2010 and arrowtooth ACL decision 

directly affect the initial allocation of 

individual bycatch quota (IBQ) for 

Pacific halibut. Pacific halibut IBQ will 

be calculated using a formula based on 

quota share for arrowtooth flounder and 

petrale sole, two target species that 

correlate to Pacific halibut bycatch. 

Therefore, under the new lower petrale 

ACLs, permits with more arrowtooth 

quota pounds will be allocated more 

halibut IBQ. 

Shoreside whiting receives a one-time 

overfished species allocation for the 

initial allocation. Thereafter, this sector 

will join the rationalized non-whiting 

trawl fishery and be allowed to trade/ 

purchase shares of overfished and nonoverfished species. 

Limited-Entry Fixed Gear and Open 

Access Non-Trawl Fishery Management 

Measures 

Management measures for the limited 

entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access 

non-trawl fisheries tend to be similar 

because the majority of participants in 

both fisheries use hook-and-line gear. 

These fisheries will be most constrained 

by management measures to decrease 

impacts on yelloweye rockfish. 

Non-Trawl RCAs 

The non-trawl RCA applies to vessels 

that take, retain, possess or land 

groundfish unless they are incidental 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

fisheries that are exempt from the nontrawl RCA (e.g. the pink shrimp nongroundfish trawl fishery). The non-trawl 

RCA boundaries proposed for 2011– 

2012 are the same as those in place for 

the non-trawl fisheries in 2009–2010, 

except for the seaward boundary of the 

non-trawl RCA between 45°03.83′ north 

latitude and 43°00′ north latitude. 

The seaward and shoreward 

boundaries of the non-trawl RCAs vary 

along the coast, and are divided at 

various commonly used geographic 

coordinates, defined in § 660.11, 

Subpart C. In 2009–2010, new divisions 

of the RCA boundaries were established 

based on recently available fishery 

information, indicating that fishing in 

some areas where the non-trawl fishery 

occurs has higher yelloweye rockfish 

impacts than in others, and the RCA 

boundaries were adjusted to reduce 

impacts to yelloweye rockfish in these 

areas. For 2009–2010 the seaward 

boundary of the non-trawl RCA between 

45°03.83′ north latitude (Cascade Head) 

and 43°00′ north latitude (Columbia/ 

Eureka line) was specified at 125 fm 

(229 m), except on days when the 

directed halibut fishery is open, when 

the fishery is then restricted to waters 

seaward of the 100 fm (183 m) line. This 

regulation, which was new in the 2009– 

2010 cycle, was implemented to reduce 

yelloweye rockfish impacts by fixed 

gear fishers targeting sablefish and other 

target groundfish. For 2011–2012, the 

modeled-overfished species impacts by 

the limited entry and open access 

fisheries showed that given the lower 

sablefish ACLs for 2011 and 2012, along 

with the Council’s final preferred 

apportionment of overfished species for 

the non-nearshore fishery, the 100 fm 

(183 m) line could be accommodated. 

For 2011 and 2012, the non-trawl 

RCA boundaries from north to south are 

proposed to be as follows: From the 

U.S./Canada Border and 46°16′ north 

latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed 

to be between the shoreline and a 

boundary line approximating the 100 fm 

(183 m) depth contour. Between 46°16′ 

north latitude and 43°00′ north latitude 

the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be 

between the boundary lines 

approximating the 30 fm (55 m) and the 

100 fm (183 m) depth contours. Between 

43°00′ north latitude and 42°00′ north 

latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed 

to be between boundary lines 

approximating 20 fm (37 m) and 100 fm 

(183 m) depth contours. Between 42°00′ 

north latitude the non-trawl RCA is 

proposed to be between the 20 fm (37 

m) depth contour (there is no boundary 

line approximating the 20 fm (37 m) 

depth contour off California) and the 

boundary line approximating the 100 fm 

(183 m) depth contour. Moving the 

seaward RCA boundary from 125 fm 

(229 m) to the 100 fm (183 m) between 

46°16′ and 43°00′ north latitude results 

in a projected increase of 0.1 mt of 

yelloweye rockfish for the area between 

46°16′ and 43°00′ north latitude. Moving 

the seaward RCA from 43° north 

latitude to Cascade Head from 125 to 

100 fm (229 to 183 m) opens more 

fishing areas, may decrease conflicts 

among fixed gear fishers, may reduce 

running time to some fishing grounds 

(which subsequently decreases expense 

and improves safety), and may increase 

sablefish catch rates in some instances. 

The following lines are proposed 

south of 40°10′ north latitude. Between 

40°10′ north latitude and 34°27′ north 

latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed 

to be between boundary lines 

approximating the 30 fm (55 m) and 150 

fm (274 m) depth contours. Between 

34°27′ north latitude and the U.S. 

border with Mexico, including waters 

around islands, the non-trawl RCA is 

proposed to be between boundary lines 

approximating the 60 fm (110 m) and 

150 fm (274 m) depth contours. The 

boundary lines vary along the coast 

because of the different abundances of 

overfished species along the coast. 

For 2011 and 2012, the 100 fm (186 

m) and 125 fm (229 m) latitude and 

longitude coordinates defining the lines 

at the southwest corner of Heceta Bank 

are proposed to be moved to better 

follow the bathymetry. In this area the 

existing lines are, in many cases, 

extremely shallow and reported to allow 

fishing in areas of high yelloweye 

rockfish bycatch by members of the 

industry. While the impacts to 

yelloweye rockfish from refining the 100 

fm (186 m) and 125 fm (229 m) line 

waypoints are not quantifiable in the 

Heceta Bank area, it is likely that the 

modifications would reduce yelloweye 

rockfish impacts over the existing line 

structure. 

This rule proposes to use the 

boundary line approximating the 100 fm 

(183 m) depth contour as the seaward 

boundary for the non-trawl RCA north 

40°10′ north latitude. In the event that 

the boundary line approximating the 

125 fm (229 m) and depth contour is 

implemented around Heceta Head 

(44°08.30′ north latitude) through 

inseason action, this action also 

proposes to revisions to the latitude and 

longitude coordinates that define the 

boundary line approximating the 125 fm 

(229 m) depth contour to reduce 

impacts to yelloweye rockfish. This rule 

also proposes changes to the boundary 

line approximating the 60 fm (110 m) 

depth contour off northern California to 

better approximate the 60 fm (110 m) 

depth contour and to better align the 

bycatch data collected that is divided by 

depth contours. Subsequent changes to 

the boundary line approximating the 50 

fm (91 m) depth contour in the same 

area are necessary to prevent 

unintended crossovers from the change 

to the 60 fm (110 m) line. The latitude 

and longitude coordinates that define 

these boundary lines that approximate 

depth contours, and are used to define 

the non-trawl RCA, are found in 

groundfish regulations at §§ 660.71 

through 74, Subpart C (redesignated 

from § 660.391 through 394). 

In 2009–2010 NMFS defined new 

YRCAs off northern California that may 

be implemented through inseason 

action if necessary. These YRCAs will 

continue to be available for inseason 

management if catch of yelloweye 

rockfish needs to be reduced during 

2011–2012. The latitude and longitude 

coordinates that define these YRCAs are 

found in groundfish regulations at 

§ 660.70, Subpart C. 

The Salmon Troll YRCA is found in 

groundfish regulation at § 660.70, 

Subpart C, and § 660.333, Subpart F, 

and in the Pacific Coast salmon 

regulations at § 660.405. 

Like trawl fishery participants, nontrawl vessels are also subject to several 

groundfish closed areas other than those 

within the RCA boundary lines and 

those intended for EFH conservation. 

The following closed areas apply to all 

non-trawl vessels, including both open 

access and limited entry fixed gear 

vessels, and have not been proposed for 

modification in 2011 and beyond 

(§ 660.70, Subpart C): A Cordell Banks 

Closed Area; closed areas around the 

Farallon Islands off San Francisco and 

San Mateo Counties, CA; the Eastern 

CCA. The non-trawl fisheries have little 

to no incidental catch of POP, 

darkblotched, or widow rockfish. The 

effects of these fisheries on bocaccio, 

canary, cowcod, and yelloweye rockfish 

are constrained as much as possible by 

the non-trawl RCA, described above, 

and by the YRCAs and CCAs. 

Non-Trawl Fishery Trip Limits 

Trip limits proposed for the non-trawl 

fisheries in 2011–2012 are similar to 

those that applied to these fisheries in 

2009–2010 with the exception of 

changes to trip limit structures in the 

sablefish daily trip limit in the LEFG 

fishery north of 36° north latitude. Trip 

limits in the LEFG fishery north of 36° 

north latitude are modified to allow 

additional flexibility for fishers by 

eliminating the daily and weekly trip 

limits. Daily or weekly trip limits may 

be imposed, if necessary, via routine 

inseason action during 2011–2012 to 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67843 

keep total catch of sablefish within the 

2011 and 2012 sablefish allocations. 

Also, the sablefish trip limits in the 

LEFG fishery south of 36° north latitude 

are modified to allow additional 

flexibility for fishers by eliminating the 

daily trip limit and establishing only a 

weekly cumulative limit. Trip limits in 

the open access sablefish fishery remain 

very similar to those that were in place 

in 2009–2010. The open access sablefish 

limits coastwide are more conservative 

than the LEFG sablefish limits in both 

poundage and structure, recognizing 

that the open access fleet can expand to 

an unknown number of participants. 

South of 36° north latitude open access 

sablefish limits are more conservative 

than the LEFG sablefish limits in both 

poundage and structure, recognizing 

that the limited entry fleet has 

historically harvested a larger 

proportion of the sablefish ACL South of 

36° north latitude, particularly in the 

years 2000–2005. Also, as in past years, 

thornyheads may not be taken and 

retained in the open access fisheries 

north of 34°27′ north latitude. 

Primary Sablefish Fishery Tier Limits 

Tier limits for the limited entry fixed 

gear sablefish-endorsed fleet are lower 

than in 2009–2010, reflecting the lower 

sablefish harvest specifications for 2011 

and 2012: in 2011, Tier 1 at 41,379 lb 

(18,769 kg), Tier 2 at 18,809 lb (8,532 

kg), and Tier 3 at 10,748 lb (4,875 kg). 

For 2012 the tier limits are as follows: 

Tier 1 at 40,113 lb (18,195 kg), Tier 2 

at 18,233 lb (8,270 kg), and Tier 3 at 

10,419 lb (4,726 kg). 

These tier limits are found in 

groundfish regulations at § 660.231, 

Subpart E. 

Management measures for the LEFG 

fishery, including gear requirements, are 

found at § 660.330, subpart F, with 

management measures specific to the 

primary sablefish season (e.g. tier 

fishery) found at § 660.321, subpart E. 

Limited entry fixed gear trip limits are 

found in Table 2 (North) and Table 2 

(South) of subpart E of part 660. 

Salmon Troller Lingcod Limits 

Salmon trollers will be allowed to 

keep incidentally caught lingcod with a 

ratio limit of 1 lingcod per 15 Chinook, 

plus 1 lingcod up to a trip limit of 10 

lingcod, up to a maximum limit of 400 

lbs per month when fishing inside the 

non-trawl RCA. When salmon trollers 

fish entirely outside of the non-trawl 

RCA they are not subject to the lingcod 

retention ration described above, but 

only to the monthly trip limit. 

Open Access Non-Groundfish Trawl 

Gear Fisheries Management Measures 

Open access non-groundfish trawl 

gear (used to harvest ridgeback prawns, 

California halibut, sea cucumbers, and 

pink shrimp) is managed with ‘‘per trip’’ 

limits, cumulative trip limits, and area 

closures. Trip limits in 2011–2012 are 

similar to those in 2007–2008 and 2009– 

2010. The species-specific open access 

limits described in the trip limit table 

apply unless otherwise specified and, in 

addition, open access non-groundfish 

trawl vessels may not exceed overall 

groundfish limits if they are specified. 

As in past years, the pink shrimp fishery 

is subject to a non-species specific 

groundfish limit of ‘‘500 lb/day, 

multiplied by the number of days of the 

trip, not to exceed 1,500 lb/trip.’’ In 

addition to the general groundfish limit, 

vessels fishing for pink shrimp have 

species specific sub limits for lingcod 

and sablefish that are different from 

other open access limits described in 

Table 3 South to Subpart F. Also, as in 

past years, thornyheads may not be 

taken and retained in the open access 

fisheries north of 34°27′ north latitude. 

The trawl RCA is described in Table 

1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to Subpart 

D. Trawling with open access nongroundfish gear for pink shrimp will be 

permitted within the trawl RCA; 

however, the states require pink shrimp 

trawlers to use finfish excluder devices 

to reduce their groundfish bycatch, 

particularly to prevent bycatch mortality 

for canary and other rockfishes. The 

required use of finfish excluders in the 

pink shrimp trawl fishery will continue 

in 2011–2012. 

Regulations in this proposed rule 

include two options for trawl RCA 

configurations (in Table 1a (South) and 

Table 1b (South): One that would be in 

place with implementation of the trawl 

individual quota program; and one that 

would be in place if the trawl individual 

quota program is delayed. Trawling for 

ridgeback prawns, California halibut, 

and sea cucumber are subject to the 

same RCA area closures that apply to 

vessels fishing in the limited entry trawl 

fishery, except that non-groundfish 

trawling will be permitted shoreward of 

a boundary line approximating the 100 

fm (183 m) depth contour if and when 

the inshore boundary line of the limited 

entry trawl RCA is moved shallower 

than 100 fm (183 m). NMFS may clarify 

the regulatory language regarding the 

non-groundfish trawl RCA in 660.333, 

Subpart F, and in line 41 of Table 3 

(South) to 660, Subpart F, regarding 

how the trawl RCA applies to the open 

access non-groundfish trawl sectors. 

Currently in regulation the description 

of non-groundfish trawl RCA refers to 

the nontrawl RCA, which is inconsistent 

with the non-groundfish trawl RCA in 

Table 3 (South). RCA restrictions off 

California are particularly intended to 

reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality 

for southern and coastwide overfished 

species such as bocaccio, cowcod, and 

canary rockfish. No changes to other 

groundfish conservation area 

restrictions are proposed for the open 

access non-groundfish trawl fishery in 

2011–2012. Management measures for 

the open access fisheries, including gear 

requirements, are found at § 660.333, 

Subpart F. Trip limits are found in 

Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) of 

subpart F of part 660. 

Recreational Fisheries Management 

Measures 

Recreational fisheries management 

measures are designed to limit catch of 

overfished and nearshore species to 

sustainable levels while also allowing 

viable fishing seasons. Overfished 

species that are taken in recreational 

fisheries are bocaccio, cowcod, canary, 

and yelloweye rockfish. Because sport 

fisheries are more concentrated in 

nearshore waters, the 2011–2012 

recreational fishery management 

measures are intended to constrain 

catch of nearshore species such as 

minor nearshore rockfish, black 

rockfish, blue rockfish and cabezon. 

These protections are particularly 

important for fisheries off California, 

where the bulk of West Coast 

recreational fishing occurs. Management 

measures for the California recreational 

groundfish fishery are designed to 

reduce the incidental catch of 

overfished rockfish, primarily yelloweye 

and canary rockfish, while providing as 

much fishing opportunity as possible for 

anglers targeting groundfish. Depth 

restrictions and RCAs are the primary 

tools used to keep overfished species 

impacts under the prescribed harvest 

levels for the California recreational 

fishery. Washington, Oregon, and 

California each proposed, and the 

Council recommended, different 

combinations of seasons, bag limits, area 

closures, and size limits, to best fit the 

requirements to rebuild overfished 

species found in their regions, and the 

needs and constraints of their particular 

recreational fisheries. 

Recreational fisheries management 

measures for Oregon in 2011–2012 are 

proposed to be very similar to the 

recreational fishery management 

measures that were in place off Oregon 

during 2009–2010. Recreational 

fisheries off northern California and 

Washington are constrained by the need 

to reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Changes to recreational fishery 

management measures off California are 

in response to the revised stock status 

of target species, requests by the public 

to simplify regulations, information 

regarding the distribution of overfished 

species and the desire to redistribute 

effort displaced by restrictions on take 

in newly established Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs)in state waters. 

Washington 

Off Washington, recreational fishing 

for groundfish and Pacific halibut will 

continue to be prohibited inside the 

North Coast Recreational YRCA, a Cshaped closed area off the northern 

Washington coast, the South Coast 

Recreational YRCA, and the Westport 

Offshore YRCA. Coordinates for all of 

these YRCAs are defined at § 660.70, 

Subpart C. The RCA for recreational 

fishing off Washington will be the same 

as in 2010. The aggregate groundfish bag 

limits off Washington will be reduced 

from 15 fish to 12 fish, because very few 

anglers were attaining the 15 aggregate 

groundfish bag limits. The rockfish and 

lingcod sub-limits will remain the same 

as in 2007–2008 and 2009–2010: 10 

rockfish sub-limit with no retention of 

canary or yelloweye rockfish; 2 lingcod 

sub-limit, with the lingcod minimum 

size of 22 inches (56 cm). Since catches 

of cabezon have increased in recent 

years and the stock status of cabezon off 

the Washington coast is unknown, and 

to make cabezon retention regulations 

off the West Coast consistent with 

WDFW regulations in Puget Sound, 

Washington, this rule proposes a 

cabezon sub-limit for 2011–2012 of two 

cabezon per day. The lingcod seasons in 

2011–2012 will be the same as those in 

2009–2010. As in 2009–2010, south of 

Leadbetter Point off the state of 

Washington, when halibut are onboard 

the vessel from May through September, 

there will continue to be no retention of 

groundfish, except sablefish and Pacific 

cod. 

Oregon 

Off Oregon, recreational fishing for 

groundfish in 2011–2012 will have the 

same management measures as in 2009– 

2010, except that the Oregon 

recreational fishery marine fish bag 

limit will have a seasonal sub-bag limit 

for cabezon, as described at 

§ 660.360(c)(2)(iii). The seasonal sub-bag 

limit for cabezon is intended to reduce 

the projected impacts to cabezon in the 

Oregon recreational ocean boat fishery 

in order to stay within the recreational 

portion of the 2011 and 2012 cabezon 

ACLs for Oregon of 50 mt and 48 mt, 

respectively. 

California 

For 2011–2012, recreational fisheries 

off California are proposed to be 

managed as five separate areas, down 

from six in 2009–2010, to reduce 

complexity while retaining flexibility in 

minimizing impacts on overfished 

stocks. They are also re-named to 

shorten their names and to relate the 

name of the management area to the 

region of the coast to which it applies. 

The following are the management areas 

that will be defined for 2011–2012: The 

Northern Management Area is defined 

as the area from the Oregon/California 

border to 40°10′ north latitude; the 

Mendocino Management Area is defined 

as the area from 40°10 north latitude to 

38°57 north latitude; the San Francisco 

management area is defined as the area 

from 38°57 north latitude to 37°11 north 

latitude; the central management area is 

defined as the area from 37°11 north 

latitude to 34°27 north latitude and the 

southern management area is defined as 

the area from 34°27 north latitude to the 

U.S./Mexico border. 

California updated its recreational 

fisheries catch model with data from the 

California Recreational Fisheries Survey 

to make recommendations to the 

Council for the 2011–2012 fisheries. 

Season and area closures differ between 

California regions to better prevent 

incidental catch of overfished species 

according to where those species occur 

and where fishing effort is greatest, 

while providing as much fishing 

opportunity as possible. The Californiawide combined bag limit for the 

Rockfish-Cabezon-Greenling (RCG) 

Complex would continue to be 10 fish 

per day when the season is open. RCG 

Complex sub-bag limits will also remain 

the same, except that the cabezon limit 

statewide will increase from two fish to 

three fish per day. The increase to the 

cabezon sub-bag limit from two fish to 

three fish is anticipated to increase 

cabezon mortality by 10 percent. The 

increase on cabezon mortality from 

increased sub-bag limit, combined with 

other changes to management measures 

that may change the projected impacts 

to cabezon, are anticipated to result in 

annual total mortality of 33.9 mt of 

cabezon in 2011 and 2012, which is 

well within the 2011–2012 cabezon 

ACL. The increase in the cabezon subbag limit is not anticipated to affect 

projected impacts to co-occurring 

overfished species as effort is not 

expected to increase appreciably as a 

result of the increased bag limit and 

overfished species shelf species are not 

commonly found in shallow waters 

where cabezon reside. 

Fishing seasons for lingcod will be 

modified to be the same as the fishing 

seasons for the RCG Complex. This 

modification extends the fishing season 

for lingcod later in the year and 

eliminates portions of the former 

seasonal closures that occurred in the 

winter months. Winter closures had 

been used since lingcod was declared 

overfished in 2001 to prevent catch of 

lingcod during its spawning and nesting 

season while the stock was rebuilding. 

According to the most recent stock 

assessment, the southern lingcod stock 

has rebuilt to 70 percent of its unfished 

biomass. Therefore the Council 

recommended and NMFS is proposing 

an increase in the length of the 

recreational lingcod fishing season, and 

reducing regulatory complexity by 

having the seasons for the RCG Complex 

and lingcod be the same for 2011–2012. 

The increase in fishing season length for 

lingcod is not anticipated to affect 

projected impacts to co-occurring 

overfished species, as the improved 

fishing opportunity is not expected to 

appreciably increase fishing effort as 

retention of lingcod is not expected to 

be the deciding factor as to whether or 

not anglers go fishing. The new seasons 

for lingcod are described at 

§ 660.360(c)(3)(iii)(A). This rule also 

proposes to retain the lingcod size limit, 

but to decrease the lingcod size limit 

from 24 inches to 22 inches. The 22 

inch lingcod size limit is intended to 

preserve nest guarding males, yet still 

allow for increased lingcod fishing 

opportunity. The lingcod fillet length 

restriction would also be reduced to 

reflect the change in the size limit (i.e. 

14 inch fillet length restriction under a 

22 inch total length size limit). 

Overfished species impacts may 

decrease as a result of this rule change 

as anglers obtain their two fish lingcod 

bag limit more rapidly, incurring less 

overfished species impacts in the 

process. For the same reasons described 

above, an increase in the lingcod bag 

limit was considered for 2011–2012. 

However, the increased bag limit was 

not recommended at this time due to the 

potential for increased impacts to cooccurring overfished rockfish species, 

such as yelloweye rockfish, as anglers 

continue incurring impacts on those 

species in pursuit of additional lingcod 

to fill a higher bag limit. 

This rule proposes to implement a 

gear restriction (e.g. hook limits) for 

cabezon and kelp greenling to make the 

restrictions for these fish consistent 

with the existing gear restrictions for 

rockfish, so that the same number of 

fishing lines and hooks apply to all of 

the species in the RCG Complex. This 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67845 

new gear regulation closes a regulatory 

loophole, and will prevent excessive 

recreational fishing effort using multiple 

rods to target cabezon and kelp 

greenling. The gear restrictions for the 

RCG Complex are described at 

§ 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B). 

This rule proposes revisions to the 

time and area closures that make up the 

recreational RCA off California. 

Generally, the proposed revisions 

extend the length of the California 

recreational fisheries in all Management 

Areas except the Mendocino 

Management Area (between 40°10’ 

north latitude and 38°57.50′ north 

latitude) and the Southern Management 

Area (south of 34°27′ north latitude). In 

the Southern Management Area, season 

length will stay the same as in 2009– 

2010, but the depth restriction for 

recreational fishing for California 

scorpionfish will move seaward during 

January and February, opening 

additional areas to fishing that occur 

between the boundary line 

approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth 

contour and the boundary line 

approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth 

contour. This change simplifies 

regulations by keeping the depth 

restrictions for California scorpionfish 

in this management area the same 

throughout the year. These time and 

area closures are liberalized for 2011– 

2012 to allow additional fishing 

opportunities to harvest healthy stocks 

to achieve but not exceed 2011–2012 

ACLs, without causing the projected 

mortality of overfished rockfish species, 

such as yelloweye rockfish, bocaccio, 

cowcod and canary rockfish, to exceed 

their respective harvest limits in the 

California recreational fishery. 

Incidental catch of cowcod in the area 

south of 34°27′ north latitude continues 

to be restricted by the CCAs. Prior to 

2011, the CCAs were closed throughout 

the year to recreational fishing for 

groundfish deeper than the 20 fm (37 m) 

depth contour. Shallower than the 20 fm 

(37 m) depth contour, retention of some 

species was allowed. In 2010, the state 

of California is in the process of 

implemented marine protected areas in 

state waters between Point Conception 

to U.S. Mexico border, including state 

waters adjacent to offshore islands and 

rocks. An environmental impact 

analysis prepared by the state of 

California (Draft Environmental Impact 

Report; California marine life protection 

act initiative South Coast Study Region) 

indicates that cowcod are likely to 

benefit from marine protected areas that 

are closed to fishing activities. The best 

available scientific information on 

depth distributions of cowcod indicate 

that adults primarily inhabit depths 

deeper than 60 fm (110 m). To provide 

some additional fishing opportunities in 

areas where the bycatch of cowcod is 

not appreciable, this proposed rule 

would allow recreational fishing for 

some species, including shelf rockfish, 

shallower than new boundary lines that 

approximate the 30 fm (55 m) depth 

contour in several areas that are 

currently within the CCAs. This 

proposed rule would also establish new 

boundary lines that approximate the 40 

fm (73 m) depth contour in several areas 

within the CCAs, which may be used as 

the boundary for recreational fisheries 

that occur within the CCA during 2011– 

2012 and beyond. Latitude and 

longitude coordinates that define the 

boundary lines that approximate the 30 

fm (55 m) and 40 fm (73 m) depth 

contours within the CCA are found at 

§ 660.71, Subpart C. 

Management measures for 

recreational fisheries off all three West 

Coast states are found at § 660.360, 

Subpart G. Washington Coastal Tribal 

Allocations, Harvest Guidelines And 

Set-Asides 

As in previous years, the mortality of 

groundfish species in tribal fisheries are 

subtracted from the 2011 and 2012 

ACLs before other allocations are 

derived. In 2011–2012, the tribes will 

continue to have formal allocations for 

sablefish and Pacific whiting that are 

deducted from the ACLs for those 

species. The tribal allocation for 

sablefish is 10 percent of the ACL north 

of 36° north latitude, less 1.6 percent for 

estimated discard mortality. For 2011 

and 2012, the tribal sablefish allocations 

are 552 mt and 535 mt, respectively. 

The formula for the tribal allocation of 

Pacific whiting in 2010 was [17.5 

percent * (U.S. OY)] + 16,000 mt and 

was described in a proposed rule on 

March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11829) and 

implemented in a final rule on May 4, 

2010 (75 FR 23620). With a U.S. OY of 

193,935 mt, the tribal allocation for the 

2010 tribal Pacific whiting fishery was 

49,939 mt. In accordance with the 

procedures set forth in 50 CFR § 660.50, 

subpart C, tribal allocations of Pacific 

whiting will be established annually 

until the co-managers complete the 

evaluation of the relevant scientific 

information and a determination of the 

long-term tribal allocation for Pacific 

whiting is made. 

The 2011 and 2012 tribal harvest 

guideline for black rockfish is the same 

as in 2009 and 2010: 13.61 mt (30,000 

lbs) for the management area between 

the U.S./Canada border and Cape Alava 

(48°10.00′ north latitude) and 4.5 mt 

(10,000 lbs) for the management area 

between Destruction Island and 

Leadbetter Point (46°38.17′ north 

latitude). The tribes have not had formal 

allocations for Pacific cod or lingcod in 

recent years; however, the Council 

recommended adopting a tribal proposal 

for tribal harvest guidelines for these 

two species in 2011 and 2012 of 400 mt 

(881,840 lbs). Pacific cod harvest 

guideline and a 250 mt (551,150 lbs). 

Lingcod harvest guideline will apply to 

the tribes for 2011 and 2012. 

For some species on which the tribes 

have a modest harvest, no specific 

allocation or harvest guideline has been 

determined. The amounts anticipated to 

be taken by tribal fisheries for all other 

groundfish species or species groups, 

including overfished species, are 

referred to as tribal set-asides. Set-asides 

for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal 

harvest are deducted from the ACL, 

similarly to the tribal allocations and 

harvest guidelines described above. Setaside amounts for each species or 

species group taken in tribal fisheries 

are based on the projected catch from 

the proposed tribal fishery management 

measures, described below. Set-aside 

amounts could change through the 

biennial harvest specifications and 

management measures process. The setaside amounts will be specified in the 

footnotes to Tables 1a through 2d of 

subpart C. 

Washington Coastal Tribal Fisheries 

Management Measures 

Tribes implement management 

measures for tribal fisheries both 

separately and cooperatively with those 

management measures that are 

described in the Federal regulations. 

The tribes may adjust their tribal fishery 

management measures inseason to stay 

within the overall harvest targets 

described above, including their 

estimated impacts to overfished species. 

Trip limits are the primary management 

measure that the tribes specify in 

Federal regulations at 660.50, subpart C. 

Continued from 2009–2010, the tribes 

propose trip limit management for the 

following species taken in tribal 

fisheries in 2011–2012: Spiny dogfish; 

several rockfish species and species 

groups, including thornyheads; and 

flatfish species and species groups. 

These trip limits are described below. 

For spiny dogfish, tribal fisheries in 

2011–2012 will be restricted to a 

cumulative limit of ‘‘200,000 lbs (90,718 

kg.) per two month period.’’ This 

cumulative limit is similar to the bimonthly cumulative limit for spiny 

dogfish that was in place for the limited 

entry trawl fishery in 2009–2010. 

For rockfish species, the 2011–2012 

tribal fisheries will operate under trip 

and cumulative limits, and will be 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

required by tribal regulations to fully 

retain all overfished rockfish species 

and marketable non-overfished rockfish 

species. Tribal fisheries are restricted all 

gears to ‘‘17,000 lbs (7,711 kg) per two 

month period’’ for shortspine 

thornyheads and ‘‘22,000 lbs (9,979 kg) 

per two month period’’ for longspine 

thornyheads. As in 2009–2010, other 

rockfish, including minor nearshore, 

shelf and slope rockfish, are restricted to 

a ‘‘300 lb (136 kg) per trip’’ limit for each 

species group. If trip limits for minor 

nearshore rockfish are made less 

restrictive than ‘‘300 lb per trip’’ through 

inseason adjustments during 2011– 

2012, then the tribal limit would be set 

equal to the incidental trip limits 

published in Table 1 (North) to subpart 

D. As in 2009–2010, tribal midwater 

trawl fisheries in 2011–2012 are subject 

to a cumulative limit for yellowtail 

rockfish of 180,000 lb per two months 

and the landings of widow rockfish 

must not exceed 10 percent of the 

cumulative poundage of yellowtail 

rockfish landed by a given vessel for the 

year. As in 2009–2010, trip limits for 

canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish 

in 2011–2012 are ‘‘300 lb (136-kg) per 

trip’’ and ‘‘100 lbs (45 kg) per trip,’’ 

respectively. The tribes will continue to 

develop management measures, 

including depth, area, and time 

restrictions, in the directed tribal Pacific 

halibut fishery in order to minimize 

incidental impacts on yelloweye 

rockfish. 

Tribal cumulative limits for most 

flatfish species in 2011–2012 will be 

very similar to the limited entry trawl 

fishery trip limits from 2009–2010. The 

2011–2012 tribal cumulative limits are 

as follows: ‘‘110,000 lbs per two 

months’’ for Dover sole, English sole, 

and Other Flatfish, combined; and 

150,000 lbs per months for arrowtooth 

flounder. The tribal cumulative for 

petrale sole will be the same in 2011– 

2012 as it was in 2009–2010: 50,000 lb 

per two months. 

Tribal fishing regulations, as 

recommended by the tribes and the 

Council and adopted by NMFS, are in 

Federal regulations at 660.50, subpart C. 

Housekeeping Measures 

NMFS is proposing to correct and 

update the descriptions of season dates 

and trip limits throughout the 

regulations. NMFS proposes to replace, 

where appropriate, the words ‘‘end’’, 

‘‘ends’’ or ‘‘ending’’ with ‘‘closed’’, 

‘‘closes’’, or ‘‘closing’’. Changes to the 

language pertaining to season dates and 

trip limits are intended to improve 

enforceability by making the regulations 

consistent with the definition of 

‘‘closure or closed’’ at 660.11, subpart C. 

Changes are proposed for the following 

sections: § 660.131, and subpart D; 

§ 660.231. Housekeeping changes to the 

season dates and trip limits descriptions 

by replacing ‘‘end’’ with ‘‘close’’ do not 

change the intent or effect of these 

seasonal and trip limit regulations. 

NMFS is also proposing to clarify 

language describing the fishing 

restrictions within some Yelloweye 

Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCAs) 

that are not currently in effect as a 

housekeeping measure within this 

action. In the definitions of the Point St. 

George, South Reef, Reading Rock, Point 

Delgada North, and Point Delgada South 

YRCAs there is language that states that 

‘‘fishing for groundfish is open [within 

the YRCA] from January 1, through 

December 31.’’ However, other 

restrictions may be in effect for these 

non-trawl fisheries that geographically 

overlap these YRCAs. Currently, the 

language implies that fishing for 

groundfish is open when it may 

otherwise be restricted. Therefore, the 

language above will be stricken from the 

descriptions of those YRCAs in sections: 

§ 660.302, Subpart E; § 660.330, subpart 

F; and § 660.360, subpart G. 

Housekeeping changes to the 

description of these YRCAs does not 

change the intent or effect of these area 

restrictions. 

Additionally, NMFS may clarify 

language regarding the non-groundfish 

trawl RCA and how it applies to the 

open access non-groundfish trawl 

sectors. See ‘‘Open access nongroundfish trawl gear fisheries 

management measures’’ for additional 

information on these proposed changes. 

Classification 

At this time, NMFS has made a 

preliminary determination that most of 

the 2011–2012 groundfish harvest 

specifications and management 

measures in this proposed rule are 

consistent with the national standards 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. However, NMFS has 

not made such a determination with 

respect to the specifications, including 

the rebuilding plans, for yelloweye 

rockfish, darkblotched rockfish and 

cowcod. There may be some questions 

whether the ACLs for these species are 

consistent with the court order in NRDC 

v. Locke. In addition, there may be some 

question whether the reductions in the 

protections in the CCAs are consistent 

with rebuilding requirements. NMFS 

specifically invites comments regarding 

these issues. NMFS will take into 

account the complete record, including 

any data, views, and comments received 

during the comment period, in making 

its final determination on whether the 

2011–2012 specifications and 

management measures are consistent 

with the above-described standards and 

laws. If NMFS concludes, based on the 

overall record and public comments, 

that some rebuilding provisions are 

inconsistent with the court order or 

other rebuilding requirements, NMFS 

could make the necessary changes in the 

final rule and return the action to the 

Council for further consideration. 

A DEIS was prepared for the 2011– 

2012 groundfish harvest specifications 

and management measures. The DEIS 

includes an RIR and an IRFA. The 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published a notice of availability for the 

draft EIS on August 27, 2010 (75 FR 

52736). A copy of the DEIS is available 

online at http://www.pcouncil.org/. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the RFA 

(RFA). The IRFA describes the 

economic impact this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would have on small entities. 

A description of the action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this action are contained at the 

beginning of this section in the 

preamble and in the SUMMARY section of 

the preamble. A copy of the IRFA is 

available from NMFS (SEE ADDRESSES). 

A summary of the analysis follows: The 

Council’s RIR/IRFA compares all the 

alternatives by discussing the impacts of 

each alternative on commercial vessels, 

buyers and processors, recreational 

charter vessels, seafood consumers, 

recreational anglers, non-consumptive 

users, non-users, and enforcement. 

Based on analyses discussed in Chapter 

4 of the DEIS, the following summary is 

based on the Council’s RIR/IRFA and 

focuses on the Council’s final preferred 

alternative proposed to be implemented 

by this action and the non action 

alternative. 

The overall economic impact of the 

Final Preferred Alternative is that many 

sectors are expected to achieve social 

and economic benefits similar to those 

under the current regulations, or the No 

Action alternative. However, there are 

differences in the distribution of exvessel revenue and angler trips on a 

regional basis and on a sector-by-sector 

basis. These changes are driven by 

changes in the forecast abundance for 

target species and overfished species. 

Change in the nearshore species harvest 

guidelines may positively impact 

recreational fisheries in certain regions 

compared with No Action. With the 

exception of the nearshore open access 

sector, all other non-tribal commercial 

fisheries sectors are expected to achieve 

lower levels of ex-vessel revenues than 

under No Action. The limited entry 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67847 

fixed gear sector shows the greatest 

projected decline in revenue as a result 

of the sablefish ACL decrease. The 

Pacific whiting fishery is expected to be 

able to attain revenues similar to No 

Action; however, the impact to this 

fishery is dependent on results of the 

upcoming stock assessment cycle for 

Pacific whiting. 

On a coastwide basis, commercial exvessel revenues for the non-tribal 

directed groundfish sectors are 

estimated to be approximately $69 

million per year under the Final 

Preferred Alternative compared with 

approximately $71 million under No 

Action, and the number of recreational 

bottom fish trips is estimated to be 645 

thousand under the Final Preferred 

Alternative compared with 609 

thousand under No Action. The decline 

in commercial fisheries revenues is 

largely the result of a reduction in 

harvest of sablefish under the action 

alternatives. 

A variety of time/area closures 

applicable to commercial vessels have 

been implemented in recent years. The 

most extensive of these are the RCAs, 

which have been in place since 2002 to 

prohibit vessels from fishing in depths 

where overfished groundfish species are 

more abundant. Different RCA 

configurations apply to the limited entry 

trawl sector and the limited entry fixed 

gear and open access sectors. In 

addition, the depth ranges covered can 

vary by latitudinal zone and time 

period. The alternatives vary somewhat 

in terms of the extent of RCAs. In 

additions to the RCAs, two CCAs have 

been in place since 1999 in the 

Southern California Bight to reduce 

bycatch of the overfished cowcod stock 

and yelloweye conservation areas have 

been established off the Washington 

Coast to reduce bycatch of the 

overfished yelloweye rockfish stock. 

The Final Preferred Alternative for the 

limited entry non-whiting trawl fleet 

generates slightly lower ex-vessel 

revenue on a coastwide basis when 

compared to revenues under the current 

regulations or no action alternative. This 

is primarily driven by a decrease in the 

abundance of sablefish and petrale sole 

as opposed to changes in status of 

constraining species. Area-based 

management for the limited entry nonwhiting trawl fleet under the preferred 

alternative will be comparable to what 

was in place in 2009 and 2010—the area 

north of Cape Alava, Washington and 

shoreward of the trawl RCA will remain 

closed in order to protect overfished 

rockfish species. Given the decreased 

amount of fishable area in northern 

Washington since 2009 higher costs for 

fishery participants from increases in 

fuel required to travel to and fish at 

those deeper depths would remain. 

The limited entry whiting fishery is 

expected to be able to attain revenues 

similar to the previous biennial period. 

Rebuilding species that largely constrain 

the whiting fishery include widow and 

canary rockfish. The past few years have 

witnessed an increase in the incidental 

take of widow rockfish in the whiting 

fisheries despite bycatch avoidance 

behavior. This trend is likely to 

continue as it is expected that the 

fishery will continue to encounter more 

widow rockfish as that stock rebuilds. It 

is important to note that potential exvessel revenue in these fisheries 

ultimately depends on the Pacific 

whiting stock assessment, which is 

adopted annually by the Council during 

the March meeting. 

The fixed gear sablefish sector will 

generate lower revenue under the Final 

Preferred Alternative than No Action 

because the sablefish ACL has 

decreased. However, the fixed gear fleet 

will have somewhat more area available 

than under No Action, because fishing 

will be open at depths deeper than 100 

fm (183 m) north of 40°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° 

north latitude will see sablefish harvest 

close to status quo levels. There are no 

recommended changes to area 

management relative to status quo. 

Under the Final Preferred Alternative, 

the nearshore groundfish fishery is 

expected to have a moderate increase in 

ex-vessel revenues compared with No 

Action due to increased targeting 

opportunities for black rockfish 

(between 42 north latitude and 40 10′ 

north latitude) and cabezon south 

(South of 42 north latitude). Fishing 

areas open to the nearshore fleets will 

be roughly the same as under No 

Action. Fishing opportunity and 

economic impacts to the nearshore 

groundfish sector are largely driven by 

the need to protect canary and 

especially yelloweye rockfish. 

The final preferred alternative is 

projected to provide the west coast 

economy with slightly lower ex-vessel 

revenues than was generated by the 

fishery under No Action. However, 

effects on buyers and processors along 

the coast will vary depending location. 

In addition, the Council’s preferred 

alternative attempts to take into account 

the desire expressed by buyers and 

processors to have a year round 

groundfish fishery. Individual quota 

management for trawl fisheries should 

help accommodate this preference; 

however in practice in the absence of 

trip limits it is somewhat uncertain how 

trawl landings will be distributed in 

time and space. 

In terms of recreational angler effort, 

the number of angler trips under the 

final Council-preferred alternative is 

slightly higher compared to No Action, 

but somewhat less than in 2009. 

However, an increase in angler effort 

under the final Council-preferred 

alternative is occurring primarily in 

south and central California, while 

northern Washington shows a slight 

increase and Oregon shows no change 

compared with No Action. It is expected 

that under the proposed 2011–2012 

management measures, tribal groundfish 

fisheries will generate less revenue and 

personal income than under No Action 

due to a reduction in sablefish harvest. 

The 2011–2012 period will be the first 

groundfish management cycle in which 

the shoreside trawl sector fisheries 

would be conducted under the 

Amendment 20 trawl rationalization 

program, including issuance and 

tracking of individual fishing quotas 

(IFQ) for most trawl-caught groundfish 

species. IFQ management is designed to 

provide opportunities for fisherman and 

processors to maximize the value of 

their fishery by creating incentives to 

make the optimum use of available 

target and bycatch species. Since all 

trawl trips will be observed, catch of 

constraining overfished species will be 

monitored in real time, and individuals 

will be held directly responsible for 

‘‘covering’’ all catch of groundfish 

species with IFQ. Since IFQ for 

constraining, overfished species 

represents a real cost in terms of money 

and/or fishing opportunity, it is 

expected that fishers will take 

extraordinary steps to avoid 

unnecessary catch of these species. At 

the same time there is uncertainty about 

how individuals will be able to manage 

the individual risk inherent in a system 

based on personal responsibility. This 

issue may present a considerable 

challenge, especially to small businesses 

that have access to only a single limited 

entry trawl permit. Exhausting all 

readily available supplies of IFQ for a 

particularly constraining species, such 

as yelloweye, may result in the business 

being effectively shut down for the 

remainder of the season. Partly for this 

reason it is expected that over time the 

number of vessels and permits engaging 

in the limited entry trawl fishery will 

decline as fishers strive to consolidate 

available IFQ onto a smaller number of 

vessels in order to reduce the costs of 

harvesting the quotas. A smaller number 

of active vessels will mean reductions in 

the number of crew hired and in 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

expenditures made in local ports for 

materials, equipment, supplies and 

vessel maintenance. As such, while 

wages and profits for those crew and 

vessel owners that do remain in the 

fishery should increase, the amount and 

distribution of exvessel revenues and 

community income will change in ways 

that are not yet foreseeable, but probably 

to the detriment of some businesses and 

communities currently involved in the 

groundfish trawl fishery. Due to these 

types of countervailing uncertainties, 

impacts on trawl fisheries under the 

2011–2012 management measures used 

in this analysis were estimated using a 

model designed to project overfished 

species bycatch levels under a status 

quo cumulative trip limit management 

regime. Likewise, the model used to 

estimate community income impacts 

was calibrated based on recently 

estimated spending patterns for regional 

vessels and processors. While providing 

a useful starting point for comparing 

gross-level effects under the 

alternatives, the true range of economic 

impacts achievable under the 

rationalized, IFQ-managed fishery may 

reflect a considerable departure from 

these estimates. 

The Council analysis includes a 

discussion of small businesses. This 

proposed rule will regulate businesses 

that harvest groundfish. According to 

the Small Business Administration, a 

small commercial harvesting business is 

one that has annual receipts under $4.0 

million and a small charter boat 

business is one that has annual receipts 

under $7 million. The Council estimates 

that implementation of the Final 

Preferred Alternative will affect about 

2,600 small entities. These small entities 

are those that are directly regulated by 

the proposed rule that will be 

promulgated to support implementation 

of the Final Preferred Alternative. These 

entities are associated with those vessels 

that either target groundfish or harvest 

groundfish as bycatch. Consequently, 

these are the vessels, other than catcherprocessors, 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 trappot); 199 endorsed for longline (191 

longline only, 4 longline and trap-pot, 

and 4 trawl and longline); 32 endorsed 

for trap-pot (27 trap-pot only, 4 longline 

and trap-pot, and 1 trawl and trap-pot). 

Of the longline and trap-pot permits, 

164 are sablefish endorsed. Of these 

endorsements 130 are ‘‘stacked’’ on 50 

vessels. Ten of the limited entry trawl 

endorsed permits are used or owned by 

catcher/processor companies associated 

with the whiting fishery. The remaining 

389 entities are assumed to be small 

businesses based on a review of sector 

revenues and average revenues per 

entity. The open access or nearshore 

fleet, depending on the year and level of 

participation, is estimated to be about 

1,300 to 1,600 vessels. Again, these are 

assumed to be ‘‘small entities.’’ The 

tribal fleet includes about 53 vessels, 

and the charter boat fleet includes 525 

vessels that are also assumed to be 

‘‘small entities.’’ 

The Final Preferred Alternative 

represents the Council’s efforts to 

address the directions provided by the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which 

emphasizes the need to rebuild stocks in 

as short a time as possible, taking into 

account: (1) The status and biology of 

the stocks, (2) the needs of fishing 

communities, and (3) interactions of 

depleted stocks within the marine 

ecosystem. By taking into account the 

‘‘needs of fishing communities’’ the 

Council was also simultaneously taking 

into account the ‘‘needs of small 

businesses’’ as fishing communities rely 

on small businesses as a source of 

economic income and activity and 

income. Therefore, it may be useful to 

review whether the Council’s threemeeting process for selecting the 

preferred alternative can be seen as 

means of trying to mitigate impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities. The 

EIS and RIR/IRFA include analysis of a 

range of alternatives that were 

considered by the Council, including 

analysis of the effects of setting 

allowable harvest levels necessary to 

rebuild the seven groundfish species 

that were previously declared 

overfished. An eighth species, petrale 

sole, was declared overfished in 2010 

and the proposed action includes a new 

rebuilding plan for this species along 

with the 2011–2012 ACLs and 

management measures consistent with 

the adopted rebuilding plan. Associated 

rebuilding analyses for all eight species 

estimate the time to rebuild under 

various levels of harvest. 

The Council initially considered a 

wider range of alternatives, but 

ultimately rejected from further analysis 

alternatives allowing harvest levels 

higher than what is generally consistent 

with current policies for rebuilding 

overfished stocks and a ‘‘no fishing’’ 

scenario (F=0). Section 2.2 of the DEIS 

describes five integrated alternatives 

including No Action, the Council’s 

Final Preferred Alternative, and three 

other alternatives (including the 

Council’s Preliminary Preferred 

Alternative, which is similar to the 

Final Preferred Alternative). 

Comparison of the action alternatives 

with No Action allows an evaluation of 

the economic implications to groundfish 

sectors, ports, and fishing communities; 

and the interaction of depleted species 

within the marine ecosystem of 

reducing ACLs for overfished species to 

rebuild stocks faster than they would 

under the rebuilding strategies that the 

Council adopted and have modified 

consistent with new, scientific 

information on the status and biology of 

these stocks. 

Alternative 2011–2012 groundfish 

management measures are designed to 

provide opportunities to harvest 

healthy, target species within the 

constraints of alternative ACLs for 

overfished species. The integrated 

alternatives allow estimation of target 

species catch under the suite of 

overfished ACLs for overfished species 

both to demonstrate that target species 

ACLs are projected to be exceeded and 

to estimate related socioeconomic 

impacts. 

The Council reviewed these analyses 

and read and heard testimony from 

Council advisors, fishing industry 

representatives, representatives from 

non-governmental organizations, and 

the general public before deciding the 

final Council-preferred alternative in 

June 2010. The Council’s final preferred 

management measures are intended to 

stay within all the final recommended 

harvest levels for groundfish species 

decided by the Council at their April 

and June 2010 meetings. 

NMFS issued Biological Opinions 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 

26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 

27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 

15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the 

Pacific Coast groundfish PCGFMP 

fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget 

Sound, Snake River spring/summer, 

Snake River fall, upper Columbia River 

spring, lower Columbia River, upper 

Willamette River, Sacramento River 

winter, Central Valley spring, California 

coastal), coho salmon (Central California 

coastal, southern Oregon/northern 

California coastal), chum salmon (Hood 

Canal summer, Columbia River), 

sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette 

Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and 

lower Columbia River, Snake River 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67849 

Basin, upper Willamette River, central 

California coast, California Central 

Valley, south/central California, 

northern California, southern 

California). These biological opinions 

have concluded that implementation of 

the PCGFMP for the Pacific Coast 

groundfish fishery was not expected to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species 

under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 

consultation under the ESA in 2005 for 

both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl 

fishery and the groundfish bottom trawl 

fishery. The December 19, 1999, 

Biological Opinion had defined an 

11,000 Chinook incidental take 

threshold for the Pacific whiting fishery. 

During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, 

the 11,000 fish Chinook incidental take 

threshold was exceeded, triggering 

reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data 

from the West Coast Groundfish 

Observer Program became available, 

allowing NMFS to complete an analysis 

of salmon take in the bottom trawl 

fishery. 

NMFS prepared a Supplemental 

Biological Opinion dated March 11, 

2006, which addressed salmon take in 

both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl 

and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. 

In its 2006 Supplemental Biological 

Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch 

rates of salmon in the 2005 whiting 

fishery were consistent with 

expectations considered during prior 

consultations. Chinook bycatch has 

averaged about 7,300 fish over the last 

15 years and has only occasionally 

exceeded the reinitiation trigger of 

11,000 fish. The Chinook ESUs most 

likely affected by the whiting fishery 

have generally improved in status since 

the 1999 section 7 consultation. 

Although these species remain at risk, 

as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS 

concluded that the higher observed 

bycatch in 2005 does not require a 

reconsideration of its prior ‘‘no 

jeopardy’’ conclusion with respect to the 

fishery. 

For the groundfish bottom trawl 

fishery, NMFS concluded that 

incidental take in the groundfish 

fisheries is within the overall limits 

articulated in the Incidental Take 

Statement of the 1999 Biological 

Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl 

limit from that opinion was 9,000 fish 

annually. NMFS will continue to 

monitor and collect data to analyze take 

levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior 

determination that implementation of 

the Groundfish PCGFMP is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any of the affected ESUs. 

Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 

37160, June 28, 2005) were recently 

listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 

7816, February 11, 2008) were recently 

relisted as threatened under the ESA. 

The 1999 biological opinion concluded 

that the bycatch of salmonids in the 

Pacific whiting fishery were almost 

entirely Chinook salmon, with little or 

no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and 

steelhead. The Southern Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of green 

sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) 

and the southern DPS of Pacific 

eulachon (75 FR 13012, March 18, 2010) 

were also recently listed as threatened 

under the ESA. As a consequence NMFS 

has begun the process to initiate 

consultation on the effects of the 

fishery. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, 

this proposed rule was developed after 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials from 

the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 

1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of 

the Pacific Council must be a 

representative of an Indian tribe with 

federally recognized fishing rights from 

the area of the Council’s jurisdiction. In 

addition, regulations implementing the 

PCGFMP establish a procedure by 

which the tribes with treaty fishing 

rights in the area covered by the 

PCGFMP request new allocations or 

regulations specific to the tribes, in 

writing, before the first of the two 

meetings at which the Council considers 

groundfish management measures. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 660.324(d) further 

state ‘‘the Secretary will develop tribal 

allocations and regulations under this 

paragraph in consultation with the 

affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, 

with tribal consensus.’’ The tribal 

management measures in this proposed 

rule have been developed following 

these procedures. The tribal 

representative on the Council made a 

motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal 

management measures, which was 

passed by the Council. Those 

management measures, which were 

developed and proposed by the tribes, 

are included in this proposed rule. The 

tribal whiting set aside will be 

established prior to the beginning of the 

whiting fishery in April, after further 

consultation with the tribes and the 

states. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, fishing, and Indian 

fisheries. 

Dated: October 20, 2010. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 660, as amended 

at 75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010, 

effective November 1, 2010, is proposed 

to be further amended as follows: 

50 CFR Chapter VI 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 

U.S.C. 773 et seq. 

Subpart C—West Coast Groundfish 

Fisheries 

2. In § 660.11, 

a. Add definitions of ‘‘Acceptable 

Biological Catch’’, ‘‘Annual Catch Limit’’, 

‘‘Annual Catch Target’’, and ‘‘Overfishing 

Limit’’ in alphabetical order. 

b. Revise the definition of ‘‘Fishery 

harvest guideline’’. 

c. At the definition for ‘‘Groundfish’’, 

revise paragraphs (7) introductory text, 

(7)(ii)(A) and (B), and paragraph (9). 

d. At the definition of ‘‘North-South 

management area’’ redesignate 

paragraphs (2)(xvii) through (xxii) as 

(2)(xviii) through (xxiii). 

e. At the definition of ‘‘North-South 

management area’’, add paragraph 

(2)(xvii). 

§ 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 fishingrelated 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, longterm allocation of the harvestable 

surplus of a stock or stock complex. 

Annual Catch Target (ACT) is a 

management target set below the annual 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

catch limit and may be used as an 

accountability measure in cases where 

there is great uncertainty in inseason 

catch monitoring to ensure against 

exceeding an annual catch limit. Since 

the annual catch target is a target and 

not a limit, it can be used in lieu of 

harvest guidelines or strategically to 

accomplish other management 

objectives. Sector-specific annual catch 

targets can also be specified to 

accomplish management objectives. 

* * * * * 

Fishery harvest guideline means the 

harvest guideline or quota after 

subtracting from the ACL or ACT when 

specified, any allocation for the Pacific 

Coast treaty Indian tribes, projected 

research catch, deductions for fishing 

mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as 

necessary, and set-asides for EFPs. 

* * * * * 

Groundfish * * * 

* * * * * 

(7) Rockfish: In addition to the species 

below, longspine thornyhead, S. 

altivelis, and shortspine thornyhead, S. 

alascanus, ‘‘rockfish’’ managed under 

the PCGFMP include all genera and 

species of the family Scorpaenidae, 

except dusky rockfish, S. ciliatus; 

dwarf-red rockfish, S. rufianus, that 

occur off Washington, Oregon, and 

California, even if not listed below. The 

Scorpaenidae genera are Sebastes, 

Scorpaena, Scorpaenodes, and 

Sebastolobus. Where species below are 

listed both in a major category 

(nearshore, shelf, slope) and as an areaspecific listing (north or south of 40°10′ 

N. lat.) those species are considered 

‘‘minor’’ in the geographic area listed. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) North of 40°10′ N. lat.: 

bronzespotted rockfish, S. gilli; 

bocaccio, S. paucispinis; chameleon 

rockfish, S. phillipsi; chilipepper, S. 

goodei; cowcod, S. levis; flag rockfish, S. 

rubrivinctus; freckled rockfish, S. 

lentiginosus; greenblotched rockfish, S. 

rosenblatti; greenspotted rockfish, S. 

chlorostictus; greenstriped rockfish, S. 

elongatus; halfbanded rockfish, S. 

semicinctus; harlequin rockfish, S. 

variegates; honeycomb rockfish, S. 

umbrosus; Mexican rockfish, S. 

macdonaldi; pink rockfish, S. eos; 

pinkrose rockfish, S. simulator; pygmy 

rockfish, S. wilsoni; redstripe rockfish, 

S. proriger; rosethorn rockfish, S. 

helvomaculatus; rosy rockfish, S. 

rosaceus; silvergray rockfish, S. 

brevispinis; speckled rockfish, S. ovalis; 

squarespot rockfish, S. hopkinsi; starry 

rockfish, S. constellatus; stripetail 

rockfish, S. saxicola; swordspine 

rockfish, S. ensifer; tiger rockfish, S. 

nigrocinctus; vermilion rockfish, S. 

miniatus. 

(B) South of 40°10′ N. lat.: 

bronzespotted rockfish, S. gilli; 

chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi; flag 

rockfish, S. rubrivinctus; freckled 

rockfish, S. lentiginosus; greenblotched 

rockfish, S. rosenblatti; greenspotted 

rockfish, S. chlorostictus; greenstriped 

rockfish, S. elongatus; halfbanded 

rockfish, S. semicinctus; harlequin 

rockfish, S. variegates; honeycomb 

rockfish, S. umbrosus; Mexican 

rockfish, S. macdonaldi; pink rockfish, 

S. eos; pinkrose rockfish, S. simulator; 

pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni; redstripe 

rockfish, S. proriger; rosethorn rockfish, 

S. helvomaculatus; rosy rockfish, S. 

rosaceus; silvergray rockfish, S. 

brevispinis; speckled rockfish, S. ovalis; 

squarespot rockfish, S. hopkinsi; starry 

rockfish, S. constellatus; stripetail 

rockfish, S. saxicola; swordspine 

rockfish, S. ensifer; tiger rockfish, S. 

nigrocinctus; vermilion rockfish, S. 

miniatus; yellowtail rockfish, S. 

flavidus. 

* * * * * 

(9) ‘‘Other fish’’: Where regulations of 

subparts C through G of this part refer 

to landings limits for ‘‘other fish,’’ those 

limits apply to all groundfish listed here 

in paragraphs (1) through (8) of this 

definition except for the following: 

Those groundfish species specifically 

listed in Tables 1a and 2a of this subpart 

with an OFL for that area (generally 

north and/or south of 40°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°44.00′ N. 

lat. 

* * * * * 

Overfishing limit (OFL) is the MSY 

harvest level or the annual abundance of 

exploitable biomass of a stock or stock 

complex multiplied by the maximum 

fishing mortality threshold or proxy 

thereof and is an estimate of the catch 

level above which overfishing is 

occurring. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 660.12, revise paragraph (a)(8) 

to read as follows: 

§ 660.12 General groundfish prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(8) Fail to sort, prior to the first 

weighing after offloading, those 

groundfish species or species groups for 

which there is a trip limit, size limit, 

scientific sorting designation, quota, 

harvest guideline, ACT, ACL or OY, if 

the vessel fished or landed in an area 

during a time when such trip limit, size 

limit, scientific sorting designation, 

quota, harvest guideline, ACT, ACL or 

OY applied; except as specified at 

§ 660.131, subpart C for vessels 

participating in the Pacific whiting atsea sectors. 

* * * * * 

4. In § 660.30, paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) 

and (a)(6) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 660.60, subpart C, NMFS will advise 

the Council of the amount of fish 

authorized to be retained under a 

compensation EFP, which then will be 

deducted from the next harvest 

specifications (ACLs or ACTs) set by the 

Council. Fish authorized in an EFP too 

late in the year to be deducted from the 

following year’s ACLs or ACTs will be 

accounted for in the next management 

cycle where it is practicable to do so. 

* * * * * 

5. Revise § 660.40 to read as follows: 

§ 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°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. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67851 

(c) Cowcod. The target year for 

rebuilding the cowcod stock south of 

40°10 N. latitude to BMSY is 2071. The 

harvest control rule to be used to 

rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual 

SPR harvest rate of 79 percent. 

(d) Darkblotched rockfish. The target 

year for rebuilding the darkblotched 

rockfish stock to BMSY is 2025. The 

harvest control rule to be used to 

rebuild the darkblotched rockfish stock 

is an annual SPR harvest rate of 64.9 

percent. 

(e) Petrale Sole. The target year for 

rebuilding the petrale sole stock to BMSY

is 2016. The harvest control rule is an 

annual SPR harvest rate of 31 percent in 

2011 and 32.4 percent in 2012. 

(f) Pacific Ocean Perch (POP). The 

target year for rebuilding the POP stock 

to BMSY is 2020. The harvest control rule 

to be used to rebuild the POP stock is 

an annual SPR harvest rate of 86.4 

percent. 

(g) Widow rockfish. The target year for 

rebuilding the widow rockfish stock to 

BMSY is 2010. A constant catch of 600 

mt will be used to rebuild the widow 

rockfish stock, which is an annual SPR 

harvest rate of 91.7 percent in 2011 and 

91.3 percent in 2012. 

(h) Yelloweye rockfish. The target year 

for rebuilding the yelloweye rockfish 

stock to BMSY is 2084. The harvest 

control rule to be used to rebuild the 

yelloweye rockfish stock is an annual 

SPR harvest rate of 72.8 percent. 

6. In § 660.50, paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and 

(ii), (f)(4),(g)(2), and (g)(7) are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 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° 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° N. lat.) The tribal 

allocation is reduced by 1.5 percent for 

estimated discard mortality. 

* * * * * 

(4) Pacific whiting. The tribal 

allocation for 2010 is 49,939 mt. The 

tribal allocations for will be announced 

each year following the Council’s March 

meeting when the final specifications 

for Pacific whiting are announced. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Thornyheads. The tribes will 

manage their fisheries to the following 

limits for shortspine and longspine 

thornyheads. The limits would be 

accumulated across vessels into a 

cumulative fleetwide harvest target for 

the year. The limits available to 

individual fishermen will then be 

adjusted inseason to stay within the 

overall harvest target as well as 

estimated impacts to overfished species. 

The annual following limits apply: 

(i) Shortspine thornyhead cumulative 

trip limits are 17,000-lb (7,711-kg) per 2 

months. 

(ii) Longspine thornyhead cumulative 

trip limits are 22,000-lb (9,979-kg) per 2 

months. 

* * * * * 

(7) Flatfish and other fish. Treaty 

fishing vessels using bottom trawl gear 

are subject to the following limits: For 

Dover sole, English sole, other flatfish 

110,000 lbs (49,895 kg) per 2 month; 

and for arrowtooth flounder 150,000 lbs 

(68,039 kg) per 2 month. The Dover sole 

and arrowtooth limits in place at the 

beginning of the season will be 

combined across periods and the fleet to 

create a cumulative harvest target. The 

limits available to individual vessels 

will then be adjusted inseason to stay 

within the overall harvest target as well 

as estimated impacts to overfished 

species. For petrale sole, treaty fishing 

vessels are restricted to a 50,000 lb 

(22,680 kg) per 2 month limit for the 

entire year. Trawl vessels are restricted 

to using small footrope trawl gear. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 660.55 paragraphs (a), (b) 

introductory text, (f)(1)(ii) and (k) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.55 Allocations. 

* * * * * 

(a) General. An allocation is the 

apportionment of a harvest privilege for 

a specific purpose, to a particular 

person, group of persons, or fishery 

sector. The opportunity to harvest 

Pacific Coast groundfish is allocated 

among participants in the fishery when 

the ACLs for a given year are established 

in the biennial harvest specifications. 

For any stock that has been declared 

overfished, any formal allocation may 

be temporarily revised for the duration 

of the rebuilding period. For certain 

species, primarily trawl-dominant 

species, beginning with the 2011–2012 

biennial specifications process, separate 

allocations for the trawl and nontrawl 

fishery (which for this purpose includes 

limited entry fixed gear, directed open 

access, and recreational fisheries) will 

be established biennially or annually 

using the standards and procedures 

described in Chapter 6 of the PCGFMP. 

Chapter 6 of the PCGFMP provides the 

allocation structure and percentages for 

species allocated between the trawl and 

nontrawl fisheries. Also, separate 

allocations for the limited entry and 

open access fisheries may be established 

using the procedures described in 

Chapters 6 and 11 of the PCGFMP and 

this subpart. Allocation of sablefish 

north of 36° 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, setasides, and estimated harvest under 

regulations at § 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 nongroundfish 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(k) Exempted fishing permit setasides. Annual set-asides for EFPs 

described at § 660.60(f), will be 

deducted from the ACL or ACT when 

specified. Set-aside amounts will be 

adjusted through the biennial harvest 

specifications and management 

measures process. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 660.60 paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (g) 

and (h)(1) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 660.11, subpart C and not 

otherwise listed as a distinct species or 

species group. Specific to the IFQ 

fishery, sub-limits or aggregate limits 

may be specified for the following 

species: Longnose skate, big skate, 

California skate, California scorpionfish, 

leopard shark, soupfin shark, finescale 

codling, Pacific rattail (grenadier), 

ratfish, kelp greenling, shortbelly, and 

cabezon in Washington. Size limits have 

been designated as routine for sablefish 

and lingcod. Trip landing and frequency 

limits and size limits for species with 

those limits designated as routine may 

be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or 

more frequent basis for the purpose of 

keeping landings within the harvest 

levels announced by NMFS, and for the 

other purposes given in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) Applicability. Groundfish species 

harvested in the territorial sea (0–3 nm) 

will be counted toward the catch 

limitations in Tables 1a through 2d of 

this subpart, and those specified in 

subparts D through G, including Tables 

1a (North) and 1a (South) Tables 1b 

(North) and 1b (South) of subpart D, 

Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) of 

subpart E, Tables 3 (North) and 3 

(South) of subpart F. 

(h) * * * 

(1) Commercial trip limits and 

recreational bag and boat limits. 

Commercial trip limits and recreational 

bag and boat limits defined in Tables 1a 

through 2d of this subpart, and those 

specified in subparts D through G of this 

part, including Tables 1a (North) and 1a 

(South), Tables 1b (North) and 1b 

(South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) 

and 2 (South) of subpart E, Tables 3 

(North) and 3 (South) of subpart F must 

not be exceeded. 

* * * * * 

9. In § 660.65, the introductory text is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.65 Groundfish harvest 

specifications. 

Harvest specifications include OFLs, 

ABCs, and the designation of OYs, and 

ACLs. Management measures necessary 

to keep catch within the ACL include 

ACTs, harvest guidelines (HGs), or 

quotas for species that need individual 

management, and the allocation of 

fishery HGs between the trawl and 

nontrawl segments of the fishery, and 

the allocation of commercial HGs 

between the open access and limited 

entry segments of the fishery. These 

specifications include fish caught in 

state ocean waters (0–3 nm offshore) as 

well as fish caught in the EEZ (3–200 

nm offshore). Harvest specifications are 

provided in Tables 1a through 2d of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 660.71 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

a. Remove paragraph (e)(78), 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(79) 

through (e)(333) as (e)(78) through 

(e)(332) respectively. 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) through 

(n) as (o) through (r), respectively. 

d. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(o), revise paragraphs (o)(149) and (150), 

redesignate paragraphs (o)(151) through 

(212) as (o)(153) through (214), add new 

paragraphs (o)(151) and (152), 

e. Add paragraphs (k), (l), (m), (n), (s), 

(t), (u), and (v) to read as follows: 

§ 660.71 Latitude/longitude coordinates 

defining the 10 fm (18 m) through 40 fm (73 

m) depth contours. 

* * * * * 

(k) The 30fm (55m) depth contour 

around Santa Barbara Island off the 

state of California is defined by straight 

lines connecting all of the following 

points in the order stated: 

(1) 33°30.41′ N. lat., 119°02.93′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 33°30.22′ N. lat., 119°03.84′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 33°29.53′ N. lat., 119°04.60′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 33°28.57′ N. lat., 119°04.06′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 33°28.35′ N. lat., 119°03.44′ W. 

long.; 

(6) 33°27.73′ N. lat., 119°03.41′ W. 

long.; 

(7) 33°27.31′ N. lat., 119°01.80′ W. 

long.; 

(8) 33°27.76′ N. lat., 119°01.31′ W. 

long.; 

(9) 33°27.78′ N. lat., 119°00.85′ W. 

long.; 

(10) 33°27.95′ N. lat., 119°00.75′ W. 

long.; 

(11) 33°28.47′ N. lat., 119°00.92′ W. 

long.; 

(12) 33°29.61′ N. lat., 119°00.69′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 33°30.41′ 

N. lat., 119°02.93′ W. long. 

(l) The 30fm (55m) depth contour 

around San Nicolas Island off the state 

of California is defined by straight lines 

connecting all of the following points in 

the order stated: 

(1) 33°19.00′ N. lat., 119°28.00′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 33°18.50′ N. lat., 119°39.50′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 33°17.18′ N. lat., 119°40.26′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 33°15.61′ N. lat., 119°38.65′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 33°12.50′ N. lat., 119°30.00′ W. 

long.; 

(6) 33°12.00′ N. lat., 119°27.00′ W. 

long.; 

(7) 33°12.68′ N. lat., 119°23.30′ W. 

long.; 

(8) 33°13.50′ N. lat., 119°20.00′ W. 

long.; 

(9) 33°15.50′ N. lat., 119°20.00′ W. 

long.; 

(10) 33°16.50′ N. lat., 119°25.00′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 33°19.00′ 

N. lat., 119°28.00′ W. long. 

(m) The 30fm (55m) depth contour 

around Tanner Bank off the state of 

California is defined by straight lines 

connecting all of the following points in 

the order stated: 

(1) 32°43.37′ N. lat., 119°08.86′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 32°42.86′ N. lat., 119°07.36′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 32°41.13′ N. lat., 119°05.46′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 32°40.57′ N. lat., 119°05.76′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 32°41.49′ N. lat., 119°09.90′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 32°43.37′ 

N. lat., 119°08.86′ W. long. 

(n) The 30fm (55m) depth contour 

around Cortes Bank off the state of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67853 

California is defined by straight lines 

connecting all of the following points in 

the order stated: 

(1) 32°29.73′ N. lat., 119°12.95′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 32°28.83′ N. lat., 119°10.38′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 32°28.17′ N. lat., 119°07.04′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 32°26.27′ N. lat., 119°04.14′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 32°25.22′ N. lat., 119°04.77′ W. 

long.; 

(6) 32°28.60′ N. lat., 119°14.15′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 32°29.73′ 

N. lat., 119°12.95′ W. long. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(149) 36°18.40′ N. lat., 121°57.93′ W. 

long.; 

(150) 36°16.80′ N. lat., 121°59.97′ W. 

long.; 

(151) 36°15.00′ N. lat., 121°55.95′ W. 

long.; 

(152) 36°15.00′ N. lat., 121°54.41′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(s) The 40fm (73m) depth contour 

around Santa Barbara Island off the 

state of California is defined by straight 

lines connecting all of the following 

points in the order stated: 

(1) 33°30.89′ N. lat., 119°02.42′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 33°29.89′ N. lat., 119°05.27′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 33°29.54′ N. lat., 119°05.39′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 33°28.53′ N. lat., 119°04.27′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 33°28.23′ N. lat., 119°03.73′ W. 

long.; 

(6) 33°27.77′ N. lat., 119°03.67′ W. 

long.; 

(7) 33°27.32′ N. lat., 119°02.80′ W. 

long.; 

(8) 33°27.20′ N. lat., 119°01.82′ W. 

long.; 

(9) 33°27.64′ N. lat., 119°00.31′ W. 

long.; 

(10) 33°29.96′ N. lat., 119°00.45′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 33°30.89′ 

N. lat., 119°02.42′ W. long. 

(t) The 40fm (73m) depth contour 

around San Nicolas Island off the state 

of California is defined by straight lines 

connecting all of the following points in 

the order stated: 

(1) 33°20.00′ N. lat., 119°29.00′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 33°18.72′ N. lat., 119°41.27′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 33°17.56′ N. lat., 119°41.38′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 33°15.19′ N. lat., 119°38.59′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 33°12.35′ N. lat., 119°30.11′ W. 

long.; 

(6) 33°11.81′ N. lat., 119°27.13′ W. 

long.; 

(7) 33°12.60′ N. lat., 119°23.15′ W. 

long.; 

(8) 33°12.93′ N. lat., 119°22.26′ W. 

long.; 

(9) 33°12.78′ N. lat., 119°21.48′ W. 

long.; 

(10) 33°13.11′ N. lat., 119°17.70′ W. 

long.; 

(11) 33°13.77′ N. lat., 119°17.77′ W. 

long.; 

(12) 33°14.50′ N. lat., 119°19.82′ W. 

long.; 

(13) 33°15.52′ N. lat., 119°19.94′ W. 

long.; 

(14) 33°16.67′ N. lat., 119°23.12′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 33°20.00′ 

N. lat., 119°29.00′ W. long. 

(u) The 40fm (73m) depth contour 

around Tanner Bank off the state of 

California is defined by straight lines 

connecting all of the following points in 

the order stated: 

(1) 32°43.67′ N. lat., 119°09.11′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 32°43.02′ N. lat., 119°07.17′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 32°40.62′ N. lat., 119°04.52′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 32°40.00′ N. lat., 119°05.00′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 32°41.43′ N. lat., 119°10.05′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 32°43.67′ 

N. lat., 119°09.11′ W. long. 

(v) The 40fm (73m) depth contour 

around Cortes Bank off the state of 

California is defined by straight lines 

connecting all of the following points in 

the order stated: 

(1) 32°30.45′ N. lat., 119°12.61′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 32°28.90′ N. lat., 119°10.26′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 32°28.49′ N. lat., 119°07.04′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 32°26.29′ N. lat., 119°03.80′ W. 

long.; 

(5) 32°24.91′ N. lat., 119°04.70′ W. 

long.; 

(6) 32°28.57′ N. lat., 119°14.91′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 32°30.45′ 

N. lat., 119°12.61′ W. long. 

11. Section 660.72 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

a. Remove and reserve paragraphs 

(f)(143) through (f)(144), and remove 

paragraph (f)(198), 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(122) 

through (a)(195) as (a)(127) through 

(a)(200), paragraphs (f)(145) through 

(f)(197) as (f)(146) through (f)(198), 

paragraphs (j)(16) through (j)(254) as 

(j)(18) through (j)(256), and paragraphs 

(j)(4) through (j)(15) as (j)(5) through 

(j)(16), 

c. Revise paragraphs (a)(121), newly 

designated (a)(193), (b), (f) (140) through 

(f)(142), and newly designated (j)(183) 

through (j)(185), 

d. Add paragraphs (a)(122) to (a)(126), 

add and reserve paragraph (a)(145), and 

add paragraphs (j)(4) and (j)(17), to read 

as follows: 

§ 660.72 Latitude/longitude coordinates 

defining the 50 fm (91 m) through 75 fm (137 

m) depth contours. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(121) 36°18.40′ N. lat., 121°58.97′ W. 

long.; 

(122) 36°18.40′ N. lat., 122°00.35′ W. 

long.; 

(123) 36°16.02′ N. lat., 122°00.35′ W. 

long.; 

(124) 36°15.00′ N. lat., 121°58.53′ W. 

long.; 

(125) 36°15.00′ N. lat., 121°56.53′ W. 

long.; 

(126) 36°14.79′ N. lat., 121°54.41′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(193) 32°55.35′ N. lat., 117°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°30.15′ N. lat., 124°56.12′ W. 

long.; 

(2) 48°28.29′ N. lat., 124°56.30′ W. 

long.; 

(3) 48°29.23′ N. lat., 124°53.63′ W. 

long.; 

(4) 48°30.31′ N. lat., 124°51.73′ W. 

long.; and connecting back to 48°30.15′ 

N. lat., 124°56.12′ W. long. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(140) 36°16.80′ N. lat., 122°01.76′ W. 

long.; 

(141) 36°14.33′ N. lat., 121°57.80′ W. 

long.; 

(142) 36°14.67′ N. lat., 121°54.41′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(4) 48°10.00′ N. lat., 125°27.99′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(17) 48°10.00′ N. lat., 125°20.19′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(183) 36°17.49′ N. lat., 122°03.08′ W. 

long.; 

(184) 36°14.21′ N. lat., 121°57.80′ W. 

long.; 

(185) 36°14.53′ N. lat., 121°54.99′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

12. Section 660.73 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

a. Remove paragraphs (a)(118) 

through (a)(120), (a)(156), (d)(134), 

(d)(180), (h)(157) and (h)(158), 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) 

through (a)(16) as (a)(4) through (a)(17), 

paragraphs (a)(17) through (a)(117) as 

(a)(19) through (a)(119), paragraphs 

(a)(121) through (a)(155) as (a)(128) 

through (a)(162), paragraphs (a)(157) 

through (a)(307) as (a)(165) through 

(a)(315), paragraphs (d)(135) through 

(d)(179) as (d)(138) through (d)(182), 

paragraphs (d)(181) through (d)(350) as 

(d)(185) through (d)(354), and 

paragraphs (h)(159) through (h)(302) as 

(h)(158) through (h)(301), 

c. Add paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(18), 

(a)(120) through (a)(127), (a)(163) and 

(a)(164), (d)(134) through (d)(137), 

(d)(183), (d)(184), and (h)(157) to read as 

follows: 

§ 660.73 Latitude/longitude coordinates 

defining the 100 fm (183 m) through 150 fm 

(274 m) depth contours. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) 48°10.00′ N. lat., 125°40.00′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(18) 48°10.00′ N. lat., 125°17.81′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(120) 44°02.34′ N. lat., 124°55.46′ W. 

long.; 

(121) 43°59.18′ N. lat., 124°56.94′ W. 

long.; 

(122) 43°56.74′ N. lat., 124°56.74′ W. 

long.; 

(123) 43°55.76′ N. lat., 124°55.76′ W. 

long.; 

(124) 43°55.41′ N. lat., 124°52.21′ W. 

long.; 

(125) 43°54.62′ N. lat., 124°48.23′ W. 

long.; 

(126) 43°55.90′ N. lat., 124°41.11′ W. 

long.; 

(127) 43°57.36′ N. lat., 124°38.68′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(163) 40°30.37′ N. lat., 124°37.30′ W. 

long.; 

(164) 40°28.48′ N. lat., 124°36.95′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(134) 43°59.43′ N. lat., 124°57.22′ W. 

long.; 

(135) 43°57.49′ N. lat., 124°57.31′ W. 

long.; 

(136) 44°55.73′ N. lat., 124°55.41′ W. 

long.; 

(137) 44°54.74′ N. lat., 124°53.15′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(183) 40°30.35′ N. lat., 124°37.52′ W. 

long.; 

(184) 40°28.39′ N. lat., 124°37.16′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(157) 40°30.30′ N. lat., 124°37.63′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

13. Section 660.74 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

a. Remove paragraphs (a)(159), 

(g)(136), 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(160) 

through (a)(284) as (a)(161) through 

(a)(285), (g)(137) through (g)(256) as 

(g)(138) through (g)(257), 

c. Revise paragraphs (g)(133), (l)(84) 

and (l)(85), 

d. Add paragraphs (a)(159) and 

(a)(160), (g)(136) and (g)(137), to read as 

follows: 

§ 660.74 Latitude/longitude coordinates 

defining the 180 fm (329 m) through 250 fm 

(457 m) depth contours. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(159) 40°30.22′ N. lat., 124°37.80′ W. 

long.; 

(160) 40°27.29′ N. lat., 124°37.10′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(133) 40°30.16′ N. lat., 124°37.91′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(136) 40°22.34′ N. lat., 124°31.22′ W. 

long.; 

(137) 40°14.40′ N. lat., 124°35.82′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(84) 43°57.88′ N. lat., 124°58.25′ W. 

long.; 

(85) 43°56.89′ N. lat., 124°57.33′ W. 

long.; 

* * * * * 

14a. Tables 1a through 1c, Subpart C, 

are proposed to be revised to read as 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67855 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.000</GPH>
67856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67857 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.002</GPH>
67858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67859 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.004</GPH>
67860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67861 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.006</GPH>
67862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67863 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.008</GPH>
67864 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67865 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.010</GPH>
67866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67867 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.012</GPH>
67868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67869 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.014</GPH>
67870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67871 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.016</GPH>
67872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67873 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.018</GPH>
67874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67875 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.020</GPH>
67876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67877 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.022</GPH>
67878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Subpart D—West Coast Groundfish— 

Limited Entry Trawl Fisheries 

15. In § 660.130 paragraph (d) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.130 Trawl fishery—management 

measures. 

* * * * * 

(d) Sorting. Under § 660.12(a)(8), 

subpart C, it is unlawful for any person 

to ‘‘fail to sort, prior to the first weighing 

after offloading, those groundfish 

species or species groups for which 

there is a trip limit, size limit, scientific 

sorting designation, quota, harvest 

guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the 

vessel fished or landed in an area during 

a time when such trip limit, size limit, 

scientific sorting designation, quota, 

harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY 

applied.’’ The States of Washington, 

Oregon, and California may also require 

that vessels record their landings as 

sorted on their state landing receipt. 

* * * * * 

16. In § 660.131, paragraph (b)(4)(ii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.131 Pacific whiting fishery 

management measures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) If, during a primary whiting 

season, a whiting vessel harvests a 

groundfish species other than whiting 

for which there is a midwater trip limit, 

then that vessel may also harvest up to 

another footrope-specific limit for that 

species during any cumulative limit 

period that overlaps the start or close of 

the primary whiting season. 

* * * * * 

17. In § 660.140 paragraph (a) and the 

introductory text of paragraph (c)(1) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.140 Shorebased IFQ program. 

(a) General. The Shorebased IFQ 

Program requirements in § 660.140 will 

be effective beginning January 1, 2011, 

except for paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(6), and 

(d)(8) of this section, which are effective 

immediately. The Shorebased IFQ 

Program applies to qualified 

participants in the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish fishery and includes a 

system of transferable QS for most 

groundfish species or species groups, 

IBQ for Pacific halibut, and trip limits 

or set-asides, as necessary, for the 

remaining groundfish species or species 

groups. The IFQ Program is subject to 

area restrictions (GCAs, RCAs, and 

EFHCAs) listed at §§ 660.70 through 

660.79, subpart C. The Shorebased IFQ 

Program may be restricted or closed as 

a result of projected overages within the 

Shorebased IFQ Program, the MS Coop 

Program, or the C/P Coop Program. As 

determined necessary by the Regional 

Administrator, area restrictions, season 

closures, or other measures will be used 

to prevent the trawl sector in aggregate 

or the individual trawl sectors 

(Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P 

Coop) from exceeding an ACL, OY, ACT 

or formal allocation specified in the 

PCGFMP or regulation at § 660.55, 

subpart C, or §§ 660.140, 660.150, or 

660.160, subpart D. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) IFQ species. IFQ species are those 

groundfish species and Pacific halibut 

in the exclusive economic zone or 

adjacent state waters off Washington, 

Oregon and California, under the 

jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, for which QS and 

IBQ will be issued. QS and IBQ will 

specify designations for the species/ 

species groups and area to which it 

applies. QS and QP species groupings 

and area subdivisions will be those for 

which ACLs or ACTs are specified in 

the Tables 1a through 2d, subpart C, and 

those for which there is an area-specific 

precautionary harvest policy. QS for 

remaining minor rockfish will be 

aggregated for the shelf and slope depth 

strata (nearshore species are excluded). 

The following are the IFQ species: 

* * * * * 

18. In § 660.150 paragraph (a)(5) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 660.55, 

subpart C, or §§ 660.140, 660.150, or 

660.160, subpart D. 

* * * * * 

19. In § 660.160 paragraph (a)(5) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 660.55, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67879 

subpart C, or §§ 660.140, 660.150, or 

660.160, subpart D. 

* * * * * 

20. Table 1 (North), Table 1 (South) to 

part 660, subpart D are redesignated as 

Table 1a (North), Table 1a (South) to 

part 660, subpart D; the newly 

redesignated Table 1a (North) and Table 

1a (South) are revised, and Table 1b 

(North) and Table 1b (South) are added 

to part 660, subpart D to read as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.024</GPH>
67880 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67881 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.026</GPH>
67882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67883 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.028</GPH>
67884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67885 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Subpart E—West Coast Groundfish— 

Limited Entry Fixed Gear Fisheries 

21. In § 660.230 paragraphs (c)(1), 

(c)(2)(ii), and (d)(5) through (9) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.230 Fixed gear fishery— 

management measures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Under § 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°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 § 660.70, Subpart C. 

Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is 

prohibited within the Point St. George 

YRCA, on dates when the closure is in 

effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, 

possess, or land groundfish taken with 

limited entry fixed gear within the Point 

St. George YRCA, on dates when the 

closure is in effect. The closure is not in 

effect at this time. This closure may be 

imposed through inseason adjustment. 

Limited entry fixed gear vessels may 

transit through the Point St. George 

YRCA, at any time, with or without 

groundfish on board. 

(6) South Reef YRCA. The latitude 

and longitude coordinates of the South 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.030</GPH>
67886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Reef YRCA boundaries are specified at 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 660.70, 

subpart C. Fishing with limited entry 

fixed gear is prohibited within the Point 

Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when 

the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to 

take and retain, possess, or land 

groundfish taken with limited entry 

fixed gear within the Point Delgada 

(South) YRCA, on dates when the 

closure is in effect. The closure is not in 

effect at this time. This closure may be 

imposed through inseason adjustment. 

Limited entry sfixed gear vessels may 

transit through the Point Delgada 

(South) YRCA, at any time, with or 

without groundfish on board. 

* * * * * 

22. In § 660.231, paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(3)(i) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.231 Limited entry fixed gear 

sablefish primary fishery. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Season dates. North of 36° N. lat., 

the sablefish primary season for the 

limited entry, fixed gear, sablefishendorsed 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 § 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 § 660.232, 

subpart E. In 2011, the following annual 

limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 41,379 lb 

(18,769 kg) Tier 2 at 18,809 lb (8,532 

kg), and Tier 3 at 10,748 lb (4,875 kg). 

For 2012 and beyond, the following 

annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 

40,113 lb (18,195 kg), Tier 2 at 18,233 

lb (8,270 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,419 lb 

(4,726 kg). 

* * * * * 

23. In § 660.232 paragraph (a)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 660.231(a) of this 

subpart to fish in the primary season 

will count against the primary season 

cumulative limit(s) associated with the 

permit(s) registered for use with that 

vessel. A vessel that is eligible to fish in 

the sablefish primary season may fish in 

the DTL fishery for sablefish once that 

vessels’ primary season sablefish 

limit(s) have been taken, or after the 

close of the primary season, whichever 

occurs earlier. Any subsequent sablefish 

landings by that vessel will be subject 

to the restrictions and limits of the 

limited entry DTL fishery for sablefish 

for the remainder of the fishing year. 

* * * * * 

24. Table 2 (North) and Table 2 

(South) to part 660, subpart E are 

revised to read as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67887 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.031</GPH>
67888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67889 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Subpart F—West Coast Groundfish— 

Open Access Fisheries 

25. In § 660.330 paragraphs (c) 

introductory text, (c)(2) and (d)(5) 

through (9) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 660.330 Open access fishery— 

management measures. 

* * * * * 

(c) Sorting. Under § 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°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 § 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 

§ 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 § 660.70, subpart C. Fishing 

with open access gear is prohibited 

within the Reading Rock YRCA, on 

dates when the closure is in effect. It is 

unlawful to take and retain, possess, or 

land groundfish taken with open access 

gear within the Reading Rock YRCA, on 

dates when the closure is in effect. The 

closure is not in effect at this time. This 

closure may be imposed through 

inseason adjustment. Open access gear 

vessels may transit through the Reading 

Rock YRCA, at any time, with or 

without groundfish on board. 

(8) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. The 

latitude and longitude coordinates of 

the Point Delgada (North) YRCA 

boundaries are specified at § 660.70, 

subpart C. Fishing with open access gear 

is prohibited within the Point Delgada 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.033</GPH>
67890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 § 660.70, 

subpart C. Fishing with open access gear 

is prohibited within the Point Delgada 

(South) YRCA, on dates when the 

closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take 

and retain, possess, or land groundfish 

taken with open access gear within the 

Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates 

when the closure is in effect. The 

closure is not in effect at this time. This 

closure may be imposed through 

inseason adjustment. Open access gear 

vessels may transit through the Point 

Delgada (South) YRCA, at any time, 

with or without groundfish on board. 

* * * * * 

26. Table 3 (North) and Table 3 

(South) to part 660, subpart F are 

revised to read as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67891 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.035</GPH>
67892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67893 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Subpart G—West Coast Groundfish— 

Recreational Fisheries 

27. In § 660.360, 

a. Remove paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(C), 

(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), and (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5), 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) as 

(c)(1)(iv), (c)(3)(i)(A)(6) as (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(D) through (J) as 

(c)(3)(i)(C) through (I), and paragraph 

(c)(3)(ii)(A)(6) as (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5), 

c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), 

(c)(3)(i)(C) through (H), and 

(c)(3)(ii)(A)(5), 

d. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) 

introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D) 

introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) and (2), 

(c)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(i)(A)(1) through (4), 

(c)(3)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4), 

(c)(3)(ii)(B), (c)(3)(iii)(A)(1) through (5), 

(c)(3)(iii)(C), and (c)(3)(iii)(D), 

d. Add paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D)(3) and 

(c)(1)(iii), to read as follows: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03NO10.037</GPH>
67894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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 sublimits 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, sublimits 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 

§ 660.71, subpart C. 

(2) Between the Queets River 

(47°31.70′ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point 

(46°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°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 § 660.71. 

(3) Between Leadbetter Point 

(46°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°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°10′ N. lat. (Cape 

Alava) and 46°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° N. lat. (California/ 

Oregon border) and 40°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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67895 

October 31, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is 

open); and is closed entirely from 

January 1 through May 13, 2011 and 

from November 1 through December 31, 

2011. Recreational fishing for 

groundfish is prohibited seaward of 20 

fm (37 m) from May 12, 2012 through 

October 31, 2012 (shoreward of 20 fm is 

open), and is closed entirely from 

January 1 through May 11, 2012 and 

from November 1, 2012 through 

December 31, 2012. 

(2) Between 40°10′ N. lat. and 

38°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°57.50′ N. lat. and 

37°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 

§ 660.71. 

(4) Between 37°11′ N. lat. and 34°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 § 660.71. 

(5) South of 34°27′ N. lat. (Southern 

Management Area), recreational fishing 

for all groundfish (except California 

scorpionfish as specified below in this 

paragraph (c)(3)(i) and in paragraph 

(c)(3)(v) of this section and ‘‘other 

flatfish’’ as specified in paragraph 

(c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited 

seaward of a boundary line 

approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth 

contour from March 1 through 

December 31 along the mainland coast 

and along islands and offshore 

seamounts, except in the CCAs where 

fishing is prohibited seaward of the 

boundary line approximating the 30 fm 

(55 m) depth contour when the fishing 

season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) 

of this section). Recreational fishing for 

all groundfish (except California 

scorpionfish and ‘‘other flatfish’’) is 

closed entirely from January 1 through 

February 28 (i.e., prohibited seaward of 

the shoreline). Recreational fishing for 

California scorpionfish south of 34°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 §§ 660.71 and 660.72. 

(B) Cowcod conservation areas. The 

latitude and longitude coordinates of 

the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs) 

boundaries are specified at § 660.70, 

subpart C. In general, recreational 

fishing for all groundfish is prohibited 

within the CCAs, except that fishing for 

‘‘other flatfish’’ is permitted within the 

CCAs as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) 

of this section. However, recreational 

fishing for the following species is 

permitted shoreward of the boundary 

line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) 

depth contour when the season for those 

species is open south of 34°27′ N. lat.: 

Minor nearshore rockfish, shelf rockfish, 

cabezon, kelp greenling, lingcod, 

California scorpionfish, and ‘‘other 

flatfish’’ (subject to gear requirements at 

paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section 

during January–February). 

Note to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B): California 

state regulations also permit recreational 

fishing for California sheephead, ocean 

whitefish, and all greenlings of the genus 

Hexagrammos shoreward of the boundary 

line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 

contour in the CCAs when the season for the 

RCG complex is open south of 34°27′ N. lat. 

It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or 

land groundfish within the CCAs, except for 

species authorized in this section. 

Coordinates for the boundary line 

approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 

contour is specified in § 660.71. 

(C) Cordell banks. Recreational fishing 

for groundfish is prohibited in waters 

less than 100 fm (183 m) around Cordell 

Banks as defined by specific latitude 

and longitude coordinates at § 660.70, 

subpart C, except that recreational 

fishing for ‘‘other flatfish’’ is permitted 

around Cordell Banks as specified in 

paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. 

Note to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C): California 

state regulations also prohibit fishing for all 

greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos, 

California sheephead and ocean whitefish. 

(D) Point St. George Yelloweye 

Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). 

Recreational fishing for groundfish is 

prohibited within the Point St. George 

YRCA, as defined by latitude and 

longitude coordinates at § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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° N. lat. (California/ 

Oregon border) and 40°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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
67896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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°10′ N. lat. and 

38°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°57.50′ N. lat. and 

37°11′ N. lat. (Bay Management Area), 

recreational fishing for the RCG 

complex is open from June 1 through 

December 31 (i.e. it’s closed from 

January 1 through May 31). 

(4) Between 37°11′ N. lat. and 34°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°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° N. lat. (California/ 

Oregon border) and 40°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°10’ N. lat. and 

38°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°57.50′ N. lat. and 

37°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°11′ N. lat. and 34°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°27′ N. lat. (Southern 

Management Area), recreational fishing 

for lingcod is open from March 1 

through December 31 (i.e. it’s closed 

from January 1 through February 28). 

* * * * * 

(C) Size limits. Lingcod may be no 

smaller than 22 in (56 cm) total length. 

(D) Dressing/filleting. Lingcod filets 

may be no smaller than 14 in (36 cm) 

in length. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–26941 Filed 10–26–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2