[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10491-10525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5302]



[[Page 10489]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Parts 600 and 660



Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States and in 
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual 
Specifications and Management Measure

[[Page 10490]]

s; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 660

[Docket No.011231309-2090-03;I.D. 121301A]
RIN 0648-AO69


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States 
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual 
Specifications and Management Measures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the 2002 fishery 
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and state waters off the coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Final specifications include the 
levels of the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and optimum yields 
(OYs). Commercial OYs (the total catch OYs reduced by tribal 
allocations and by amounts expected to be taken in recreational and 
compensation fisheries) described herein are allocated between the 
limited entry and open access fisheries. Management measures for 2002 
are intended to prevent overfishing; rebuild overfished species; 
minimize incidental catch and discard of overfished and depleted 
stocks; provide equitable harvest opportunity for both recreational and 
commercial sectors; and, within the commercial fisheries, achieve 
harvest guidelines and limited entry and open access allocations to the 
extent practicable.

DATES: Effective 0001 hours local time (l.t.) March 1, 2002 until the 
2003 annual specifications and management measures are effective, 
unless modified, superseded, or rescinded through a publication in the 
Federal Register. Section 660.323, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is effective 
0001 hours l.t. March 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental assessment/regulatory impact 
review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this 
action are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 
Portland, OR 97220. Copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis 
(FRFA) and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available from D. 
Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region (Regional Administrator), 
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Send 
comments regarding the reporting burden estimate or any other aspect of 
the collection-of-information requirements in this final rule, 
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk 
Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne deReynier or Becky Renko 
(Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736; and 
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] or Svein 
Fougner (Southwest Region, NMFS), phone: 562-980-4000; fax: 562-980-
4047; and e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office 
of the Federal Register's website at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/ su--
docs/aces/ aces140.htm. Background information and documents are 
available at the NMFS Northwest Region website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 1sustfsh/ gdfsh01.htm and at the Council's website at 
http://www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    A proposed rule to implement the 2002 specifications and management 
measures for Pacific Coast groundfish was published on January 11, 2002 
(67 FR 1555). NMFS requested public comment on the proposed rule 
through February 11, 2002. During the comment period on the proposed 
rule, NMFS received 5 letters of comment, which are addressed later in 
the preamble of this final rule. Background information on the Pacific 
Coast groundfish fishery is found in the preamble to the proposed rule 
and is not repeated here.
    The FMP requires that fishery specifications for groundfish be 
annually evaluated and revised, as necessary, that OYs be specified for 
species or species groups in need of particular protection, and that 
management measures designed to achieve the OYs be published in the 
Federal Register and made effective by January 1, the beginning of the 
fishing year. To ensure that new 2002 fishery management measures were 
effective January 1, 2002, NMFS published an emergency rule announcing 
final management measures for January-February 2002 (67 FR 1540, 
January 11, 2002). Annual specifications for 2002 and management 
measures for March-December 2002 were proposed in a separate rule, also 
published on January 11, 2002.
    Specifications and management measures announced in this rule for 
2002 are designed to rebuild overfished stocks through constraining 
direct and incidental mortality, to prevent overfishing, and to achieve 
as much of the OYs as practicable for healthier groundfish stocks 
managed under the FMP.
    NMFS and the Council are preparing three new stock assessments in 
2002. These stock assessments use data from the 2001 resource surveys 
and will not be ready until April 2002 when they will be reviewed by 
the standard Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panels scheduled for April 
2002. The first Council meeting after the STAR panels is in June 2002, 
with the next meeting in September 2002. The Council needs at least two 
meetings during which it reviews the data, takes public comment, and 
adopts preliminary and then final specifications and management 
measures. NMFS then needs 5 months to review and implement these 
measures through a proposed and final rule. Because of the timing of 
the preparation and review of the stock assessments, the necessity for 
at least two Council meetings and the time necessary for Federal 
rulemaking to implement the specifications and management measures for 
2003, it is likely that the rulemaking cannot be completed by January 
1, 2003. In that case, the specifications and management measures for 
2002 would remain in effect for the first two months of 2003, until the 
new measures are implemented.

Comments and Responses

    During the comment period for the 2002 specifications and 
management measures, which ended on February 11, 2002, NMFS received 5 
letters of comment. Three letters were received opposing different 
portions of the rule: one from a non-governmental organization 
representing environmental interests, one from an association of 
seafood processors, and one from a central California longline 
fisherman. A trawl gear manufacturer wrote a letter of comment 
requesting clarification on a portion of the gear regulations. The 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission also sent a notice during the 
comment period on changes to Washington State recreational fishing 
regulations on yelloweye rockfish, along with a request from the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to make regulations 
in Federal

[[Page 10491]]

waters compatible with the Commission's recommendations.

Comments on Harvest Specifications and Overfished Species Rebuilding

    Comment 1: The proposed specifications would dramatically lengthen 
the period of time it will take to rebuild darkblotched rockfish. The 
increased darkblotched harvest associated with this lengthened 
rebuilding period would violate the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 
to prevent overfishing and to rebuild overfished species as quickly as 
possible. NMFS has also failed to consider the effects of lengthening 
the rebuilding periods on darkblotched rockfish and on species that may 
co-occur with darkblotched rockfish. Additionally, NMFS has not 
explained why the tables of trip limits do not include darkblotched 
rockfish.
    Response: The goals of rebuilding programs are to achieve the 
population size and structure that will support the maximum sustainable 
yield (MSY) within a specified time period. The statute requires this 
time period to be ``as short as possible, taking into account the 
status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, the needs of 
fishing communities, * * * and the interaction of the overfished stock 
of fish within the marine ecosystem.'' The period shall not exceed 10 
years, ``except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, other 
environmental conditions * * * dictate otherwise.'' NMFS has further 
interpreted this in its National Standard Guidelines found at 50 CFR 
600.310(e)(iv)(2). Under these guidelines, if the minimum possible time 
to rebuild is 10 years or greater, as is the case with darkblotched 
rockfish, then the specified time period for rebuilding may be adjusted 
upward to address the needs of fishing communities and recommendations 
from international organizations, providing the maximum time to rebuild 
does not exceed the minimum time to rebuild plus one mean generation 
time. The minimum possible time to rebuild a stock in the absence of 
fishing is determined by the status and biology of the stock and its 
interaction with other components of the ecosystem. NMFS guidance on 
rebuilding plans specifies that the minimum possible time to rebuild is 
the elapsed time until the MSY biomass level would be achieved with a 
50 percent probability. (Technical Guidance On the Use of Precautionary 
Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-## July 17, 1998) For 
darkblotched rockfish the minimum time to rebuild is 14 years (2014). 
The mean generation time for darkblotched rockfish is 33 years, 
therefore the maximum allowable time to rebuild would be 47 years 
(2047).
    A draft rebuilding analysis was prepared in May 2001 and presented 
to the Council at its June 2001 meeting. This draft analysis was 
revised by NMFS in August 2001 and was adopted by the Council at its 
September 2001 meeting. The Council's SSC reviewed the revised 
rebuilding analysis and concluded that it was technically sound. Unlike 
the preliminary analysis, the final analysis incorporated survey data 
from 2000 and addressed assessment concerns identified by the author of 
the draft analysis. The new analysis indicated that the stock was more 
depleted than originally estimated (12 percent of virgin biomass vs 22 
percent of virgin biomass). It also indicated that the stock could not 
be rebuilt within 10 years, even in the absence of all fishing 
mortality. Therefore, based on the new analysis, and consistent with 
the National Standard Guidelines, the rebuilding period could be 
lengthened from what had originally been anticipated, within the 
constraints set by the statute and the National Standard Guidelines. 
The Council recommended a rebuilding period longer than the minimum, 
but shorter than the maximum period allowed under the Guidelines, 
because of the severe adverse economic impacts to the fishing 
communities, described below, that would result from a lower OY for 
darkblotched rockfish.
    The 2002 OY of 168 mt, based on the revised rebuilding analysis, is 
expected to provide a high probability of preventing further stock 
declines while maintaining a high probability (70 percent) of 
rebuilding the stock within the maximum allowable time period. The 
target rebuilding time associated with an OY of 168 mt can be expressed 
as a 70 percent probability of rebuilding the stock within the maximum 
allowable time or as 50 percent probability of rebuilding to the target 
level in the target rebuilding time of 34 years (2034).
    Fishing communities have suffered severe declines in groundfish 
revenue over the past several years. Although the fishing communities 
are not heavily dependent on revenue from darkblotched rockfish 
directly, they have a strong dependence on revenue from species with 
which darkblotched rockfish co-occur. The DTS (Dover sole-thornyheads-
sablefish) fishery, which targets Dover sole, and the deep-water 
flatfish fishery, comprise the major sources of estimated darkblotched 
bycatch. Bycatch modeling conducted as part of the 2002 specification 
process addressed the bycatch interaction between these species and 
darkblotched rockfish. In order to constrain the projected bycatch of 
darkblotched rockfish to remain within the adopted total catch OY of 
168 mt, trawl landing limits for these species were shifted 
substantially to periods of the year in which bycatch of darkblotched 
rockfish was expected to be relatively low.
    The Council and NMFS also considered the likely financial effects 
on the trawl fleet and these communities that would be associated with 
lowering the darkblotched rockfish OY from 168 mt to the 130 mt 
specified for 2001. Darkblotched rockfish bycatch rates in the DTS 
fishery that were used in the bycatch modeling of the preferred suite 
of management alternatives range from 1.5 percent to 2.65 percent, 
depending on the season. Using these endpoints to bound the effect on 
the DTS fishery, achieving a reduction of 38 mt of darkblotched from 
the 168 mt level would require foregoing between 1,400 mt (18 percent) 
and 2,500 mt (31 percent) of projected DTS landings. Since DTS 
targeting opportunities were already shifted substantially away from 
the highest bycatch periods, it is unlikely that the effect on DTS 
landings would fall towards the low end of this range. This loss would 
amount to between $1.9 million and $3.3 million in ex-vessel revenues. 
Because of the importance of these species to the processing sector, 
this loss could accelerate the rate of plant closures and unemployment 
in the region.
    On August 20, 2001, the Federal magistrate ruled in National 
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Evans (N.D. Cal. 2001) that 
rebuilding plans under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 
Plan (FMP) must be in the form of plan amendments or proposed 
regulations, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) at 16 U.S.C. 1854 (e)(3). As 
a result of the magistrate's decision, the Council and NMFS are 
developing FMP amendments that contain the rebuilding plans for species 
that have been declared overfished. The rebuilding measures and 
alternative rebuilding periods will be discussed in detail in the 
documents supporting these amendments.
    The effects on co-occurring species of the 2002 OY for darkblotched 
rockfish were considered in both the supporting analytical documents 
for the annual

[[Page 10492]]

specifications and management measures.
    As set out in IV.A.(21)(c), darkblotched rockfish is considered a 
slope rockfish and is listed as a minor slope rockfish in both the 
northern and southern areas on Table 2. Trip limits for commercial 
fisheries are set out in Tables 3-5, including trip limits for minor 
slope rockfish. This information, the minor rockfish table, and the 
trip limit tables were all published in the proposed rule. The 
separation of minor rockfish species into nearshore, shelf, and slope 
groups was first implemented in 2000, as documented in that year's 
annual specifications and management measures (65 FR 221, January 4, 
2000). The total harvest of darkblotched rockfish in 2002 will be 
constrained by management measures designed to limit the directed and 
incidental harvest of minor slope rockfish as a complex and of 
darkblotched rockfish in particular.
    Comment 2: The OYs associated with lingcod, Pacific ocean perch 
(POP), widow rockfish, bocaccio, and darkblotched rockfish, are based 
on overfished species rebuilding analysis and provide too high of 
probabilities (60 percent or greater) of rebuilding these stocks to the 
MSY biomass within the maximum allowable time periods. The Federal 
courts have twice ruled that the probability of rebuilding need only be 
50 percent.
    Response: As explained above in the response to Comment 1, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt in as 
short a time 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.'' NMFS guidance on rebuilding plans 
specifies that the minimum possible time to rebuild is the elapsed time 
until the MSY biomass level is achieved with a 50 percent probability. 
If the minimum possible time to rebuild is 10 years or greater, as is 
the case with POP, widow rockfish, and bocaccio, then the time period 
for rebuilding may be adjusted upward to address the needs of fishing 
communities and recommendations from international organizations, 
providing the maximum time to rebuild does not exceed the minimum time 
to rebuild plus one mean generation time. In determining the target 
rebuilding time period for a species with a minimum rebuilding time of 
10 years or greater, NMFS guidance recommends that the target fishing 
time be shorter than the maximum allowable time.
    The target rebuilding time associated with an OY can be expressed 
as a probability of rebuilding the stock within the maximum allowable 
time or as a target rebuilding time based on the median time to rebuild 
with a 50 percent probability. Setting the OYs at the 50 percent level 
would be equivalent to setting the rebuilding period to the maximum 
allowable time and is therefore not consistent with the NMFS technical 
guidance. Only under special circumstances detailed in 50 CFR 600.310 
(e)(4) of the National Standards Guidelines, can the target rebuilding 
time period be set equal to the maximum allowable rebuilding time. 
Because of the extreme economic hardship on commercial and recreational 
fishing industries associated with the rebuilding measures for canary 
rockfish, the Council recommended a target rebuilding period that was 
slightly less than the maximum allowable rebuilding time with a 52 
percent probability of rebuilding the canary rockfish stock to the MSY 
biomass within the maximum allowable rebuilding time.
    Because the minimum rebuilding time for lingcod was less than 10 
years, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that target rebuilding time 
period be 10 years or less. The 2002 OY of 577 mt is based on a 
constant fishing mortality rate rebuilding strategy recommended by the 
Council which is approximately 6 percent of the population per year 
(See Council documents: Revised Rebuilding Plan for West Coast lingcod 
Exhibit C.10 Attachment 5, June 2001). As noted in the response to 
Comment 1, the Council and NMFS are developing FMP amendments that 
contain the rebuilding plans for species that have been declared 
overfished. The rebuilding measures and alternative rebuilding periods 
will be discussed in detail in the documents supporting these 
amendments.
    Comment 3: NMFS has failed to justify and analyze increasing POP 
harvest levels; the proposed harvest level will not prevent overfishing 
and will fail to rebuild POP.
    Response: NMFS disagrees; the proposed harvest level is not 
expected to result in overfishing of POP. Overfishing is a rate or 
level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery 
to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. 
When setting the 2002 ABCs, the Council maintained a policy of using a 
default harvest rate as a proxy (also referred to as an MSY control 
rule) for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the 
MSY. The default harvest rate proxies used by the Council for rockfish, 
including POP, are fully described in the preamble to the 2001 annual 
specifications and management measures (66 FR 2338, January 11). The 
2002 OY for POP was then set at a level that is expected to prevent 
overfishing, substantially less than the ABC. In addition, the OYs for 
all overfished species were set at levels that are intended to rebuild 
those species.
    The original POP rebuilding analysis prepared in October, 1999 was 
based on a 1997 stock assessment. As stated above in the responses to 
Comments 1 and 2, the NMFS guidance on rebuilding plans specifies that 
the minimum possible time to rebuild in the absence of fishing is the 
elapsed time until the MSY biomass level is achieved with a 50 percent 
probability. The minimum time to rebuild POP to the MSY biomass level 
in the absence of fishing, with a 50 percent probability, was 
calculated to be 18 years (2017) in the original rebuilding analysis. 
The mean generation time was estimated to be 29 years. This resulted in 
the maximum allowable time being estimated at 47 years (2046). The 
rebuilding measures recommended by the Council beginning in 2000 (65 FR 
221, January 4, 2000) were expected to provide a high probability of 
preventing further stock declines while maintaining a high probability 
(79 percent) of rebuilding the stock within the maximum allowable time 
period. The target rebuilding time recommended in 2000 can also be 
expressed as 43 years (2042) for the median time (50 percent level) to 
rebuild.
    In 2001, the POP rebuilding analysis was updated with more recent 
scientific information. As a result of the new analysis, the minimum 
time to rebuild POP to the MSY biomass level in the absence of fishing, 
with a 50 percent probability, was 13 years (2014). The preferred POP 
OY of 350 mt for 2002, reflects a 70 percent probability of rebuilding 
by the year 2042. The target rebuilding time associated with the 350 mt 
OY for 2002 can also be expressed as 27 years (2028) for the median 
time (50 percent level) to rebuild. Therefore, the 2002 OY of 350 mt 
based on the revised rebuilding analysis is estimated to result in the 
stock being rebuilt 15 years earlier than originally estimated. The 
Council's SSC reviewed the revised rebuilding analysis and concluded 
that it was technically sound. A constant fishing mortality rate 
rebuilding strategy, where a constant proportion of the stock is 
removed over time, was recommended for POP rebuilding. In short, as the 
overfished stock biomass increases, the amount of fish harvested

[[Page 10493]]

(including landed catch and discard) also increases, while still 
allowing overall the stock biomass to increase.
    Comment 4: The OYs for minor rockfish both north and south of 
40 deg.10' N. lat. have been reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary 
measure. There is no scientific justification for a reduction of this 
magnitude. This large reduction could exacerbate discard of minor 
rockfish caught incidentally in fisheries targeting other species. We 
recommend that the precautionary reduction be no more than 25 percent.
    Response: As described in footnotes x/ and y/ to Table 1a, minor 
rockfish include the ``remaining rockfish'' and ``other rockfish'' 
categories combined. The ``remaining rockfish'' category generally 
includes species that have been assessed by less rigorous methods than 
stock assessments, and the ``other rockfish'' category includes species 
that do not have quantifiable assessments. The Council's policy for 
setting ABCs and OYs for rockfish generally and for these minor 
rockfish in particular are based largely on the conclusions of the 
March 2000 West Coast Groundfish Harvest Policy Rate Workshop, which 
was sponsored by the Council's SSC. The panel report from that 
workshop, authored by several noted stock assessment scientists, 
recommended that the Council ``establish F= 0.75M as the default, risk-
neutral policy for (setting ABCs for) the remaining rockfish management 
category.'' This policy reduces the remaining rockfish ABCs by 25 
percent from the natural mortality rate (M) to derive a sustainable 
fishing mortality rate (F). To derive remaining rockfish total catch 
OYs, the remaining rockfish ABCs at F=0.75M are reduced by 25 percent. 
To derive other rockfish total catch OYs, the other rockfish ABCs are 
based on recent catch levels reduced by 50 percent. The Council first 
adopted these adjustments to minor rockfish ABCs and OYs for the 2001 
fishing years and based its recommendations on the advice of the 
Harvest Rate Policy Workshop's panel report and on the advice of its 
SSC. NMFS believes that these adjustments are appropriately 
precautionary and reasonable given the level of uncertainty associated 
with the stock assessments for these species and the practice of 
setting ABCs for some species based on historical landings levels.
    Comment 5: NMFS has considered only one harvest level per species 
for canary rockfish, bocaccio and cowcod. The National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) requires an analysis of a range of alternatives.
    Response: NMFS believes that the ABC/OY alternatives presented in 
the NEPA document represent a reasonable range of alternatives. Under 
each alternative, a full suite of ABC/OYs for all managed species were 
considered. For species such as canary, bocaccio and cowcod, where no 
new stock assessment information was available, the outcome and 
projections from the previous assessments and rebuilding analyses (the 
best available scientific information) were carried over into the new 
fishing year. (See Council documents: Appendix to the Status of Pacific 
Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1997 and Recommended Acceptable 
Biological Catches for 1998, Appendix to the Status of Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery Through 1998 and Recommended Acceptable Biological 
Catches for 1999, and Appendix to the Status of Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery Through 1999 and Recommended Acceptable Biological 
Catches for 2000.)
    It is not possible for NMFS and the Council to prepare a new stock 
assessment for every species each year. Therefore, a stock assessment 
is prepared with the anticipation that it will be used for a few years. 
A stock assessment will project the stock condition three years ahead 
under various harvests. Without new scientific information, there is no 
reason to reconsider the results of prior stock assessments and the 
harvest levels based on those assessments every year. The OYs for 
canary rockfish and bocaccio are based on rebuilding measures that 
include constant catch strategies for the initial OYs, where catch is 
held constant over time, and are established for multiple year periods. 
(For further information on the most recent stock assessments for these 
species see Council documents: Revised Rebuilding Plan for West Coast 
Canary Rockfish, September 2001, Exhibit C.5, Attachment 2; Revised 
Rebuilding Plan for West Coast Bocaccio Rockfish, September 2001, 
Exhibit C.5, Attachment 4.) The cowcod OY is based on a constant 
fishing mortality rate rebuilding strategy that is approximately 1 
percent of the population (See Council document: Revised Rebuilding 
Plan for West Coast Cowcod, June 2001, Exhibit C.10, Attachment 3). 
These OYs are consistent with the long-term rebuilding goals defined 
for the individual species and recommended by the Council. As noted 
earlier in the response to Comment 1, the Council and NMFS are 
developing FMP amendments that contain the rebuilding plans for species 
that have been declared overfished. As noted in the responses to 
Comments 1 and 2, rebuilding measures and alternative rebuilding 
periods will be discussed in detail in the documents supporting these 
amendments.
    Comment 6: A decision in Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. Daley by 
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is pending. We contend that the use of 
the ``sliding scale'' to determine whiting allocations is arbitrary and 
capricious and is not based on the scientific recommendations of NMFS' 
own scientists.
    Response. NMFS agrees that the Court has heard oral argument in the 
case of Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. Daley, and a decision is 
pending. NMFS does not, however, agree that using the sliding scale to 
determine the tribal whiting allocation is arbitrary and capricious. In 
U.S. v. Washington, 143 F.Supp.2d 1218 (W.D. Wash., Order on Summary 
Judgment Motions, April 5, 2001) the Court held that ``the sliding 
scale allocation method advocated by the Secretary and Makah shall 
govern the United States aspect of the Pacific whiting fishery until 
the Secretary finds just cause for alteration or abandonment of the 
plan, the parties agree to a permissible alternative, or further order 
issues from this court.''

Comments on Bycatch

    Comment 7: NMFS has failed to adequately account for bycatch and 
discard mortality in setting the harvest limits for overfished species 
and targeted stocks in the Pacific groundfish fishery. For five of the 
eight overfished species, NMFS has performed a new bycatch analysis 
that concludes that discard mortality is lower than NMFS has previously 
assumed for these species. Based on this analysis, NMFS has proposed to 
adopt the same discard-rate assumptions it has used previously, 16 
percent of landed catch for most species. NMFS has failed to consider 
whether this traditional discard rate assumption is adequately 
precautionary. NMFS has also failed to consider more protective discard 
rate assumptions. We have numerous disagreements with the validity of 
the underlying assumptions in the bycatch analysis and with the 
validity of the data analyzed.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as ``fish which 
are harvested in a fishery, which are not sold or kept for personal 
use, and include economic discards and regulatory discards.'' By 
contrast, Pacific Coast groundfish fishery management and many other 
fishery management regimes commonly use the term bycatch to describe 
non-targeted species that are caught in common with (co-occur with) 
target species, some of which are landed and sold or otherwise

[[Page 10494]]

used and some of which are discarded. The term ``discard'' is used to 
describe those fish harvested that are neither landed nor used. For the 
purposes of this rule, the term ``bycatch'' is used to describe a 
species' co-occurrence with a target species, regardless of that first 
species' disposition.
    In managing the groundfish fishery to ensure the timely rebuilding 
of an overfished stock, NMFS must ensure that the total catch (landed 
catch plus discard) of that stock does not exceed its rebuilding OY. 
While the National Standards call for the minimization of discard and 
discard mortality to the extent practicable, it makes no difference to 
stock health or productivity whether discard mortality comprises 0 
percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, or 100 percent of the total allowable 
catch. Discard, where avoidable, is undesirable from economic and 
social perspectives, and is discouraged by the statute. However, 
management measures that are needed to limit the total harvest of 
overfished groundfish species and to discourage the targeting of these 
overfished, but economically valuable, groundfish species may result in 
discard.
    NMFS' approach to bycatch management in the 2002 specifications and 
management measures is a radical departure from historic bycatch 
management practices. The primary emphasis of the bycatch modeling that 
NMFS used in the development of the 2002 management measures is the 
estimation of the total amounts of bycatch species that will be caught 
coincidentally with available target species. The new management 
approach structures the amount and timing of cumulative landings limits 
for target species so that the expected total catch of the five 
overfished species (canary rockfish, POP, lingcod, boccacio and 
darkblotched rockfish) will not exceed their allowable annual harvests. 
This new approach better accounts for the total mortality of the 
overfished stocks taken as bycatch than the previous method of applying 
estimated discard rates to the annual OY to calculate landed catch 
harvest guidelines.
    In the past, NMFS would assume that a certain percent of a species' 
total catch OY would be dead from fishery discard, rather than dead 
because it was caught and landed. This percent of assumed dead 
discarded fish would be deducted from a species annual OY at the 
beginning of the fishing year in order to calculate the species' landed 
catch OY for the year. The fishery would be managed throughout the year 
so that actual landings would not exceed the landed catch OY for each 
species. This approach can result in the annual OY for the bycatch 
species being exceeded if the amount of discards is not accurately 
estimated, and it may not account for the actual ratio of co-occurrence 
of target and bycatch species in the catch. Thus, NMFS believes that 
setting cumulative landing limits for both target and bycatch species 
based on their co-occurrence in the catch is a superior first line of 
defense in ensuring that annual OYs for bycatch species are not 
exceeded.
    Although no longer the first line of defense, calculating landed 
catch OYs based on estimated discard rates is still a strong second 
line of defense. NMFS' new modeling approach for 2002 provided insight 
into the expected level of discards that are associated with total 
amounts of catch. Results from the modeling were drawn upon as 
described later in this response to estimate landed catch OYs for the 
five overfished species in the commercial fishery. Should landings of 
any species progress at a pace that threatens to exceed its landed 
catch OY, inseason action will be taken to reduce fishing effort for 
one or more of the target species.
    The third line of defense is the revision of the procedures used 
for evaluating inseason progress of the fishery and for making 
management adjustments for the target species. In previous years, when 
inseason monitoring had revealed that landings of a target species, or 
complex, were progressing at a rate that was too fast or too slow, 
adjustments were made to the cumulative landings limits based primarily 
on achieving the annual OY for the target species with little 
consideration of the bycatch implications of changing those limits. For 
2002 inseason actions, the bycatch model will be used to evaluate the 
bycatch consequences of deviations from the projected target fishery 
landings that have occurred, and of any proposed changes in target 
species limits during the remainder of the year. Target species 
landings limits will not be adjusted upwards if an adjustment means 
that an associated bycatch species total catch OY will be exceeded, 
even if the annual OY for the target species will not be achieved. As 
in the 2000 and 2001 fisheries, trip limits for overfished species that 
are intended to provide for minimal bycatch retention of these species 
will not be increased during the year even if it appears that their 
landings will be less than their landed catch OYs.
    Since the early 1990s, discard estimates for West Coast groundfish 
have been derived from several different data sources. Recent rockfish 
discard estimates of 16 percent of a total catch OY were initially 
derived from a 1985-87 observed trawl study, commonly known as ``the 
Pikitch study'' for its principal investigator. Some discard estimates 
were updated with data from the 1995-1998 Experimental Data Collection 
Program (EDCP). NMFS began a significant new effort to quantify total 
catch and discards in the groundfish fishery in August 2001, when it 
introduced a mandatory observer program. Data from the new coastwide 
observer program will not be available for use until after the program 
has been operational for at least a full year. For the 2002 
specifications and management measures, NMFS new bycatch analysis and 
modeling compared data from the Pikitch study, the EDCP, and trawl 
logbooks in greater depth and more comprehensively than in the past.
    The NMFS bycatch modeling for 2002 provided an assessment of the 
amount of regulatory-induced discards (i.e., the amounts of catch that 
must be discarded because they exceed a vessel's cumulative landing 
limit). The model provided this assessment by applying uniform bycatch 
rates to projected target landings. The resulting implied discard rates 
are thought to underestimate the amount of discard that would occur 
with less uniform distributions of bycatch. However, the bycatch 
analysis also included additional simulation modeling intended to 
provide insight on the extent of this underestimation. It is important 
to note, however, that as long as the average bycatch rate applied to 
the target landings accurately reflects the overall average rate of 
bycatch in that fishery/region/time-period, the distribution of discard 
rates for individual tows or vessels around that average will not 
affect the accurate calculation of total bycatch. Because several 
different approaches were used in conducting the bycatch analysis, it 
was possible to compare bycatch rates under sets of assumptions that 
reflected both the bycatch uniformity of the model and a much more 
realistic non-uniform distribution of bycatch. Consequently NMFS 
reported a range of expected discards that is explained in more detail 
in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 1570-71). In all cases, 
except darkblotched rockfish, the upper ends of the ranges estimated 
for regulatory-induced discards were below the discard rates applied by 
NMFS in prior years. For darkblotched rockfish, the upper end was at 
the 16 percent rate applied in prior years.
    NMFS decided to continue to use the 16 percent discard estimate 
from prior years for canary rockfish, bocaccio, and

[[Page 10495]]

POP. For lingcod, NMFS used the 20 percent rate used in prior years, 
and for darkblotched rockfish, NMFS used a higher rate of 20 percent as 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule. All of these discard 
rates are higher than the ranges estimated from the new bycatch and 
discard analysis, as a precautionary measure for two basic reasons. 
First, the bycatch analysis which yielded lower discard rates is new 
and not yet validated by actual data from the new observer program. 
Second, the analysis does not take into account size- or market-related 
discards for which there is little existing data. Thus, NMFS believes 
that using the 16 percent and 20 percent discard estimates described 
above for the five overfished species covered by the new analysis in 
2002 is appropriately conservative and precautionary.
    Comment 8: The total catch OY for chilipepper rockfish has been 
artificially reduced to 2,000 mt to reflect alleged incidental catch of 
bocaccio rockfish. The data being used to support this reduction do not 
reflect changes in fishing gear and patterns. An OY reduction of this 
magnitude is unnecessary and additional harvest of chilipepper should 
be allowed.
    Response: As described in footnote n/ of Table 1a, the chilipepper 
rockfish ABC of 2,700 mt for the Monterey-Conception area is based on 
the 1998 chilipepper stock assessment with the application of an F50% 
Fmsy proxy. Because the unfished biomass is estimated to be above 40 
percent, the default OY could be set equal to the ABC. However, the OY 
is set at 2,000 mt, near the recent average landed catch, to discourage 
effort on chilipepper, which is known to have bycatch of overfished 
bocaccio rockfish. The OY is reduced by 15 mt for the amount estimated 
to be taken in the recreational fishery, resulting in a commercial OY 
of 1,985 mt.
    Reducing the chilipepper rockfish OY to protect co-occurring 
bocaccio is one of several measures the Council has recommended to 
protect and rebuild bocaccio. Bocaccio and chilipepper management 
measures for 2002 were based on the Council's initial adoption of 
bocaccio rebuilding measures in November 1999. (See Council documents: 
Draft Bocaccio Rebuilding Plan, November 1999, Attachment G.2.c.; Final 
Groundfish Management Team ABC and OY Recommendations for 2000, 
November 1999, Groundfish Management Team (GMT) Report G.3.(1); 
Scientific and Statistical Committee Report on Final Harvest Levels for 
2000, November 1999, Supplemental SSC Report G.3). During its November 
1999 meeting, the Council and its advisory entities discussed 
rebuilding measures for bocaccio rockfish and determined that reducing 
the chilipepper harvest target from an F50% OY of 2,700 mt to 2,000 mt 
would provide a measure of protection for bocaccio rockfish. This same 
adjustment was carried through into 2001 and 2002, based on the 
Council's adopted rebuilding measures for bocaccio. (Bocaccio 
rebuilding plan updated at: Revised Rebuilding Plan for Southern West 
Coast Bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis, September 2001, Exhibit C.5., 
Supplemental Attachment 4). The Council will likely re-consider this 
adjustment to the chilipepper rockfish OY when it re-considers overall 
bocaccio rebuilding measures as part of its FMP amendment for 
rebuilding plans, scheduled for Council consideration in April and June 
of 2002. For the 2002 specifications and management measures, NMFS 
notes that this adjustment to the chilipepper OY is based on the best 
available scientific information. Reducing fisheries effort on and 
harvest levels of healthy stock that co-occur with depleted stocks is 
one of the hallmarks of the Council's overall strategy for rebuilding 
overfished groundfish species.
    Comment 9: NMFS has failed to perform any bycatch analysis for 
widow rockfish, proposing instead to use the 16 percent discard rate 
assumption. NMFS has failed to consider whether the cumulative limits 
for widow rockfish and co-occurring species that have been lowered over 
time have resulted in an increase in the discard rate over time. In 
considering only this single bycatch rate for widow rockfish, NMFS has 
also violated NEPA.
    Response: NMFS's bycatch analysis for 2002 focused on lingcod, 
bocaccio, canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, and POP. NMFS has 
not, however, failed to consider the bycatch of widow rockfish in the 
groundfish fisheries. Historically, widow rockfish has been a target 
species, not a bycatch species. The 16 percent discard rate assumption 
for widow rockfish is based on a 1985-1987 observed trawl study of 
widow rockfish discard in trawl fisheries targeting widow rockfish as 
well as numerous other rockfish and non-rockfish species, commonly 
known as ``the Pikitch study'' for its principal investigator. NMFS's 
bycatch analysis for 2002 used data from the Pikitch study, the 1995-
1998 Experimental Data Collection Program (EDCP) and trawl logbooks. 
Preliminary evaluation of data from the EDCP and Pikitch studies in 
preparation for the bycatch analysis showed widow rockfish as having a 
discard rate in fisheries where it was a bycatch species that was far 
enough below the 16 percent assumed by the Pikitch study to conclude 
that the 16 percent discard rate assumption was reasonably conservative 
and precautionary. (See Draft Summary Minutes for August 6-10, 2001 GMT 
meeting).
    Directed fishing opportunities for widow rockfish have been 
eliminated in 2002. Directed fishing opportunities for yellowtail 
rockfish, which like widow rockfish can be targeted by mid-water trawl 
and often co-occurs with widow rockfish, have also been eliminated. In 
2002, widow rockfish retention will be permitted only in the mid-water 
trawl fisheries for whiting, which are full-retention fisheries and in 
small footrope trawl fisheries for flatfish and DTS species, where a 
1,000 lb (454 kg) per month limit is provided. Modest amounts of widow 
rockfish may also be taken in the hook-and-line fisheries for shelf 
rockfish; however, limits for the shelf rockfish group as a whole are 
set at incidental catch levels.
    Comment 10: The proposed rule does not account for bycatch of 
yelloweye rockfish and cowcod. For cowcod, the agency has only proposed 
setting the landed catch OY at zero, prohibiting cowcod retention, and 
closing certain waters off southern California to groundfish fishing. 
The agency does not discuss whether the proposed closures constrain 
discard mortality to the necessary levels. NMFS has violated NEPA in 
not considering alternative closed areas.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. As discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (see 67 FR 1572, 1574, and 1575), the 2002 management 
measures include several regulations intended to minimize yelloweye 
rockfish interception and retention. Yelloweye rockfish is not often 
intercepted in the trawl fisheries. Thus, yelloweye rockfish management 
focuses on eliminating commercial hook-and-line interception and 
reducing recreational fisheries opportunities for interception. Modest 
amounts of yelloweye rockfish retention are permitted in the trawl 
fisheries to ensure that if it is encountered, it will be available for 
scientific sampling. Yelloweye rockfish is caught incidentally in hook-
and-line sablefish fisheries and probably directly targeted in hook-
and-line rockfish fisheries. Yelloweye rockfish tend to sell for a 
higher price per pound than other co-occurring rockfish species, which 
makes them a likely target rockfish species. Thus, yelloweye rockfish 
retention has been prohibited entirely in the limited

[[Page 10496]]

entry fixed gear fisheries. Sablefish hook-and-line fishing has been 
structured with weekly limits to provide higher limits that are 
expected to encourage vessels to take the time to travel to continental 
slope waters, where yelloweye rockfish is less frequently encountered, 
for the larger and more valuable sablefish. Washington State has 
recommended prohibiting all yelloweye rockfish in recreational 
fisheries. Oregon State has recommended a 1-fish bag limit for 
yelloweye rockfish and prohibiting yelloweye rockfish retention when 
halibut are on board to discourage anglers on halibut fishing trips 
from targeting yelloweye rockfish as part of their fishing trips. All 
of these yelloweye rockfish protection measures are new in 2002.
    Cowcod management measures for 2002 were based on the Council's 
initial adoption of cowcod rebuilding measures in November 2000. (See 
Council documents: GMT Comments on Cowcod Management Measures for 2001, 
November 2000, Exhibit C.9.c., Supplemental GMT Report 2; Enforcement 
Consultants Comments on Cowcod Management Measures for 2001, Exhibit 
C.9.c., Supplemental Enforcement Consultants Report). During its 
November 2000 meeting, the Council and its advisory entities discussed 
alternative cowcod closed areas based on prime cowcod habitat described 
in the Council's November 2000 draft ``Initial Rebuilding Plan for West 
Coast Cowcod, Sebastes levis,'' Exhibit C.1., Attachment 2 (Later 
updated in May 2001, available as the Council's June 2001 Exhibit 
C.10., Attachment 3). The Council will likely re-consider these closed 
areas when it re-considers overall cowcod rebuilding measures as part 
of its FMP amendment for rebuilding plans, scheduled for Council 
consideration in April and June of 2002. If the Council again adopts 
closed areas to protect cowcod, it is unlikely that the Council would 
recommend an annual process of considering new changes to the 
dimensions of those closed areas.
    Comment 11: The proposed rule fails to provide a mechanism for 
accurately assessing bycatch in the groundfish fishery because the 
specifications do not provide for an observer program. By failing to 
consider inclusion of an adequate observer program (one that produces 
sufficient data to accurately assess the amount and type of bycatch 
occurring in the fishery), NMFS has violated the NEPA requirement to 
consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
    Response: The annual specifications and management measures 
regulations package is not intended to, and in fact does not, provide 
annual revisions to all of the Federal regulations and management 
programs that affect the West Coast groundfish fisheries. Observer 
program regulations for the West Coast groundfish fishery are found at 
50 CFR 660.360. An observer coverage plan describing the goals of and 
methodology used in the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program was 
announced in the Federal Register on January 10, 2002 at 67 FR 1329 and 
is available online at: http:// www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/Observer/ 
ObserverSamplingPlan.pdf or from the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science 
Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd., E., Seattle, WA 98112. Further information 
on the observer program is also available in the Small Entity 
Compliance Guide for the observer program regulations, found online at: 
http://www.nwr.noaa. gov/1sustfsh/ groundfish/ public2002/ 
compliance.pdf or from the Northwest Region (See ADDRESSES). Any future 
changes to observer program regulations or to the observer program 
coverage plan will continue to be developed and considered outside of 
the context of the annual specifications and management measures 
regulatory package.
    Comment 12: NMFS has not assessed the effect of the proposed 
increase in shortspine thornyhead harvest levels on the bycatch of co-
occurring overfished species.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Shortspine thornyhead is part of the DTS 
complex. As discussed earlier in the response to Comment 1, the 
cumulative limits for each of the species in that complex were 
primarily governed by the rates at which overfished species could be 
intercepted by the fishery targeting DTS.
    Comment 13: NMFS new bycatch analysis assumes that all fish caught 
by a trawl vessel are retained and landed until the vessel reaches its 
trip limit for that species, at which point (and only at which point) 
discard commences for that species. We disagree with this assumption. 
Fishers may begin discarding well before approaching a cumulative 
landing limit because of size- or market-related reasons or because 
they fear that landing a species with a very low OY will cause that OY 
to be exceeded early in the fishing year and result in closure of the 
fishery. Thus NMFS bycatch analysis underestimates discards.
    Response: As noted by the commenter, the new bycatch analysis does 
not quantitatively address the issue of size- or market-related 
discards. The two available sources of discard information that 
incorporated scientific observers (Pikitch study and EDCP) do not 
reliably identify the different reasons why discard occurred. NMFS has 
conducted an analysis of discard in the DTS fishery, based on data from 
EDCP, which correlates observed discard with the remaining trip limit 
for the vessel and its total catch of related species. However, the 
agency did not have enough time to conduct a similar analysis of these 
species in time for setting the 2002 specifications. As stated in the 
response to Comment 7, the agency adopted more precautionary landed 
catch OYs, by using the higher overfished species discard rates of 
2001, rather than the discard estimates generated by the new bycatch 
analysis. The only exception to this use of the more conservative 2001 
rates was darkblotched rockfish, for which NMFS used a 20 percent 
discard rate based on higher observed rates of discard for slope 
rockfish from EDCP observations. It should also be noted that the 
generally poor recruitments observed for these overfished stocks during 
the late 1990s suggest that the likelihood of encountering unmarketable 
small fish is probably lower now than it was in the past.
    In addition to the issue of size- or market-related discards, the 
commenter suggests that strategic behavior will lead fishers to discard 
species with low OYs prior to attaining their trip limits, so as to 
increase the likelihood of a full season for other species. For such a 
decision to make economic sense, individual fishers, would need to have 
considerable certainty that all or most other fishery participants will 
make the same choice, which is unlikely. If they do not, then the 
fisher will lose fishing time and the value of the catch that has been 
unnecessarily discarded. Given the high unit-value of these fish and 
the significant recent declines in fleet revenue, it is speculative to 
assume that this type of behavior would occur. With the NMFS observer 
program beginning trawl observation in September 2001, NMFS should be 
able to begin assessing the likelihood of such behavior by 2003. Until 
then, even in the unlikely event that all of the catch of these species 
were discarded, the estimated total amount of bycatch in the fishery 
will continue to be driven not by the lack of landed catch, but by 
estimates derived from the bycatch model, thus assuring that the annual 
OY for the bycatch species is not exceeded.
    Comment 14: NMFS new bycatch analysis considers only the limited 
entry commercial trawl fishery and omits all consideration of bycatch 
occurring in other portions of the

[[Page 10497]]

commercial fishery, in the open access fishery, and in the recreational 
fishery. The agency has failed to consider or address adequately how 
these omissions may affect both its bycatch analysis and the amount of 
bycatch that actually is occurring in the entire groundfish fishery. 
The shrimp trawl fishery alone has potential to cause substantial 
bycatch.
    Response: Quantitative estimates of bycatch occurring in other 
commercial, as well as sport, fisheries were not included in the 
quantitative bycatch modeling because there is little or no data 
available for bycatch rates in remaining target fisheries. For example, 
in line gear fisheries, landings receipts may reveal that certain 
species were landed together, but there is no counterpart to trawl 
logbooks in these fisheries to confirm that they were actually caught 
together.
    The potential bycatch effects of these other fishery sectors were 
not ignored in crafting of management recommendations for 2002. Because 
line gears are better suited for use in rocky habitat than is small 
footrope trawl gear, more restrictive trip limits for shelf rockfish 
species were set for these gears to discourage fishing in areas where 
bycatch of overfished species would most likely occur. Additionally, 
substantial time and area closures were set for shelf species in the 
southern management area for all sectors of the fishery except limited 
entry trawl. Recreational bag limits for combined rockfish have also 
been lowered coastwide in recent years, in conjunction with sublimits 
on overfished species, in order to reduce fishing effort in rockfish 
habitat on the shelf when these fisheries are open.
    Recreational and commercial fixed gear fleets have had only minor 
participation in slope rockfish fisheries. Since 1994, the minor slope 
rockfish landings of all non-trawl commercial gears in the northern 
area have amounted to less than 10 percent of the groundfish trawl 
landings, and line gears have contributed most of that. Since 1995, 
darkblotched rockfish has not comprised more than 2.5 percent or 2 mt 
of all northern minor slope rockfish landed by line gears. Only 0.6 mt 
of darkblotched rockfish has been landed during the entire 1999-2001 
period. Similarly, annual landings of POP by line gears have been less 
than 1 mt since 1996.
    NMFS and the Council do not have direct control over fishing 
practices in the West Coast pink shrimp trawl fishery. However, they 
have encouraged the three states to implement requirements that will 
limit the bycatch of rockfish in general and canary rockfish in 
particular during prosecution of that fishery. During the 2001 fishery, 
Oregon and Washington implemented mandatory use of finfish excluders. 
This action was triggered on August 1 when a limit of 2.5 mt of canary 
landings was reached and remained in effect throughout the remaining 
three months of the fishery. The same protocol for implementing this 
requirement will be in place for 2002. For procedural reasons, 
California was unable to implement similar requirements during the 2001 
fishery, but will be requiring the use of finfish excluders in its pink 
shrimp fishery from the beginning of its 2002 season on April 1.
    Comment 15: NMFS' assertion that the new cumulative limits 
requiring small footropes have reduced bycatch is unsubstantiated. NMFS 
also fails to adequately consider changes that have occurred since the 
data were generated that would tend to increase the amount of discard 
currently occurring in the fishery. Those changes include: the ever 
lower trip limits that tend to cause discard rates to go up, and the 
incentive fishers have to discard species earlier once those species 
are overfished.
    Response: The new bycatch analysis is not based on the presumption 
that small-footrope gear is more effective at avoiding rockfish. It 
uses bycatch data from fisheries where small-footrope gear was used 
because that is the gear that trawlers may now use to take and retain 
shelf groundfish species. There must be correspondence between the gear 
that is used in the current fishery and the gear that was used when 
data were collected for the studies that form the basis of the bycatch 
rates included in the modeling. Small footrope gear need be no more 
effective at avoiding bycatch in 2002 than it has been in the past for 
the analysis to be sound.
    There are, however, several reasons for believing that the 
requirement for small footrope usage has altered the distribution of 
aggregate fishing effort among locations and strategies on the shelf, 
and that this has had a beneficial effect on the fleet bycatch rates of 
overfished species. First, rockfish are so named because they frequent 
rocky habitat. This habitat can be extremely destructive to trawl gear 
that is not designed for use in such areas. Before implementation of 
the small footrope requirement, fishers were allowed to and did target 
this rocky habitat using gear configured with 2-3 ft (6096-9144 
m)diameter truck tires protecting the trawl footropes. This style of 
footrope allows the net to be towed through very rocky areas with far 
less chance of damaging, snagging, or losing the net completely, along 
with trawls doors and cables. Nets in this fishery typically cost about 
$5,000, with doors and cables costing about $7,000. Even minor damage 
to a net may result in hundreds of dollars in repair costs. A fisher 
trawling an 8-inch (20.3-cm)footrope through rocky habitat would be 
wagering the potential for thousands of dollars of gear repair or 
replacement against the limited economic returns afforded by the 
current groundfish limits. In the northern management area, the maximum 
return from the small footrope 2-month limits for widow, yellowtail, 
canary, minor shelf rockfish, and lingcod range from $1,850 in the 
winter to $2,350 in the summer.
    From a more empirical perspective, WDFW conducted a comparison of 
trawl fishing locations off Oregon and Washington, as reported in 
logbooks between 1999 and 2000--before and after implementation of the 
small footrope requirement. These data are limited in that they only 
identify the starting position of each tow. However, these logbooks 
represent the only comprehensive source of fishing locations for any 
West Coast groundfish fleet, commercial or sport. The analysis found 
substantial changes in fishing locations and in particular, a shift in 
trawl effort from areas of higher to lower canary rockfish bycatch.
    The commenter also criticized the lack of consideration given to 
``countervailing factors that could have increased bycatch in 
particular, the lower landing limits that have been established for 
various species since then.'' While lower trip limits may in some cases 
result in higher discards, there is no logical connection between lower 
retention limits and higher rates of bycatch. The dynamics by which the 
sizes of trip limits may affect the rate of discard are discussed on 
pages A-4 and A-5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA.
    Comment 16: We disagree with the NMFS assertion that the decrease 
in landings limits in recent years for all shelf rockfish species has 
resulted in fewer incentives for fishers to target those species than 
there were at the time of the Pikitch study and a decrease in the 
amount of bycatch in the fishery. What matters is not the absolute 
amount of fishing opportunity that is available for a given species, 
but the relative amount of fishing opportunity for co-occurring 
species. So long as there are fishing harvest limits for co-occurring 
species that are higher than the limits for one or more overfished 
species, there will be incentive for fishers to fish in a manner likely 
to result in bycatch and discard of the overfished species. We

[[Page 10498]]

also note that NMFS assumes that all overfished species are located on 
the shelf, which is not the case. Dark-blotched rockfish and POP are 
both slope species. Finally, there is still substantial fishing effort 
occurring on the shelf, as shown by Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife data. NMFS has failed to address this data and has failed to 
point to adequate data indicating that significant fishing is no longer 
occurring on the shelf.
    Response: The major reductions in trip limits for continental shelf 
species that have occurred over the past 10-15 years are well-
documented in the Federal Register and the Council's SAFE reports. 
These reductions have in turn led to major decreases in landings for 
shelf rockfish species. As an illustration, consider the combined 
landings of lingcod, yellowtail, chilipepper, widow, canary, bocaccio, 
and minor shelf rockfishes, along with flatfish other than Dover sole. 
Dover sole and other DTS species are not included, because significant 
amounts of these species are caught on the continental slope. In 1997, 
during the Pikitch study, landings of these species amounted to 34,000 
mt. By 1996, during the EDCP study, they had fallen to 22,800 mt. The 
largely complete data from the 2001 fishery show 10,800 mt of landings 
for these species.
    While it is true that much of this decline is attributable to 
species that are now under rebuilding plans, these trends are also 
apparent in the declining landings of healthy species for which limits 
have been reduced to afford greater protection to depleted stocks. For 
example, the species now assigned to the minor shelf rockfish group 
accounted for more than 1,200 mt of landings in 1987--and no less than 
900 mt from that year through 1996. Landings of these species had 
dropped to less than 100 mt by 2000. More than 12,000 mt of flatfish 
species other than Dover sole were landed in 1991, but less than 7,500 
mt by 2000. Landings of chilipepper rockfish, which co-occurs with 
bocaccio, have fallen from over 2,100 mt annually between 1989 and 
1991, to roughly 400 mt annually since 2000. Landings of yellowtail 
rockfish, often associated with canary rockfish, averaged 4,300 mt 
between 1987 and 1996 and fell to less than 2,800 mt in 2000 and 1,700 
mt in 2001. During the summer months, a significant percentage of 
fishing for Dover sole, shortspine thornyhead, and sablefish typically 
occurs on the shelf. Based on the 1999 logbook data for Oregon and 
Washington, roughly 60 percent of trawl sablefish and 70 percent of 
Dover sole were caught in shelf depths between July and September, as 
opposed to less than 5 percent of each during the first quarter. During 
the months from May through October, landings of these three species 
averaged 13,000 mt annually, from 1987 to 1993. During 2000 and 2001, 
their landings in these months have fallen to less than 5,500 mt.
    NMFS is well aware that darkblotched and POP are continental slope 
species, as indicated in IV.A.(21)(c) and Table 2 of the proposed rule 
and this final rule. NMFS has taken numerous actions to reduce overall 
trawl effort on the slope. For instance, trip limits for minor slope 
rockfish in the northern area, a complex that includes darkblotched 
rockfish, have been lowered for the express purpose of constraining 
darkblotched rockfish catch. During the 2001 fishery, only 203 mt of 
the 975 mt harvest guideline for these other slope rockfish were landed 
as a result of these restrictions. Similarly, 2001 landings of another 
slope species--longspine thornyhead--represented only 1,159 mt of its 
2,043 mt landed catch OY, due to trip limit reductions to protect other 
species.
    As in the shelf examples, trawl effort and catch of northern slope 
target species has declined significantly over the past decade. 
Landings of all slope rockfish in the northern area averaged over 3,200 
mt from 1991 to 1993. By 2001, that amount had fallen to just over 400 
mt. Removing darkblotched rockfish and POP from this group, landings of 
the remaining slope species fell from an average of 1,100 mt in 1991-93 
to 130 mt in 2001. Additionally, the deep-water harvest of DTS species 
during the winter months in the northern area has also dropped, from an 
average of 11,000 mt during 1988-93 to 4,100 mt in 2001.
    Finally, the commenter's assertion that ``so long as there exist 
fishing harvest limits for co-occurring species which are higher than 
the limits for one or more overfished species, there will be incentive 
for fishers to fish in a manner likely to result in bycatch and discard 
of the overfished species'' disregards the structure of the fisheries 
management regime, which allows the harvest of healthy target species 
while restraining the bycatch of overfished species to their annual 
OYs. The OYs of overfished stocks are set to rebuild those overfished 
stocks to their MSY levels within the constraints set by the national 
standard guidelines. Certainly, bycatch would be less if target species 
landing limits were no greater than the limits on bycatch species, but 
the fishery would forfeit millions of dollars of revenue derived from 
the harvest of healthy target species and likely suffer economic 
collapse. The structure of the 2002 fisheries management regime is to 
set the limits for target and bycatch species based on their actual 
ratio of co-occurrence in the catch, and at a level that ensures the 
total catch of the bycatch species does not exceed the annual catch OY.
    Comment 17: NMFS' new bycatch analysis fails to address adequately 
the limitations of the logbook data, particularly logbook data for 
fishing south of Cape Mendocino and for bocaccio. NMFS has failed to 
consider adequately and to correct for the inherent limitations of 
logbook data, most serious of which is that the fishers compiling the 
data have an incentive to skew the data. NMFS also fails to adequately 
address the fact that the logbook data do not include discard estimates 
and could, therefore, yield underestimates of total bycatch.
    Response: The NMFS analysis clearly acknowledges the limitations of 
reliance on logbook data as the sole source of southern bycatch 
information that captures only landings of bycatch species and not 
total catch (p. A-8 of the EA). However, until sufficient data are 
compiled by the NMFS observer program, this is the only available 
source of bycatch information from the trawl fishery in this region. 
Although the tow-level retained catches in logbooks are self-reported, 
as noted in the comments, these ``hailed'' weights are adjusted so that 
the total poundage corresponds to the amounts recorded on each trip's 
fish ticket. Additionally, all of the logbook data included in the 
analysis were screened so that only tows occurring prior to a vessel 
reaching its limit for a species were included in the calculation of a 
bycatch rate. This screening eliminates the downward bias in bycatch 
rates that would result from including tows where discard was 
necessitated by trip limits. The commenter also questions the use of 
these southern logbook rates as the midpoints of the considered bycatch 
range rather than the low end. This expectation that the bycatch rates 
from the 1999 logbook must represent the low end of the range is not 
supported by comparison of rates from all three sources where they are 
available in the northern area (Table 4a, pp A-17 to A-19 in EA).

Comments on Management Measures

    Comment 18: The Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission met 
on February 9, 2002, and recommended that the Washington State 
yelloweye rockfish bag limit be reduced from 1 yelloweye rockfish to 
zero yelloweye rockfish, basically prohibiting yelloweye rockfish 
retention in all

[[Page 10499]]

Washington recreational fisheries. In general, the Council manages 
recreational fisheries through the recommendations of the individual 
states. We ask that NMFS implement the Commission's new and more 
protective recommendation for yelloweye rockfish taken in Federal 
waters off Washington State to ensure that state and Federal 
regulations are compatible and equally protective of yelloweye 
rockfish.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has revised paragraph IV.D.(3)(a) for 
rockfish taken in recreational fisheries off Washington State to 
comport with these new recommendations of the State's Fish and Wildlife 
Commission.
    Comment 19: Why is the California coastline divided into three 
management sectors for commercial hook-and-line gears and only two 
management sectors for commercial trawl gear? And, why is fishing most 
restricted for commercial hook-and-line vessels operating between 
40 deg.10' N. lat. and Point Conception?
    Response: Management measures for West Coast commercial hook-and-
line fisheries are set for three different sub-areas: north of 
40 deg.10' N. lat. (near Cape Mendocino), between 40 deg.10' N. lat. 
and Point Conception (34 deg.27' N. lat.), and south of Point 
Conception. Management measures for West Coast commercial trawl 
fisheries are set for two different sub-areas: north and south of 
40 deg.10' N. lat. These division lines, 40 deg.10' N. lat. and Point 
Conception, were chosen because they represent approximate divisions in 
marine ecosystems, with different groundfish species mixes found north 
and south of the division lines. The main reason that there are only 
two sub-areas for trawlers is that there are very few groundfish trawl 
vessels operating south of Point Conception. Commercial hook-and-line 
fishing for rockfish between 40 deg.10' N. lat. and Point Conception is 
more restricted than fishing in the northern and southern areas because 
there is a relatively large number of commercial hook-and-line vessels 
targeting rockfish in that central area and there are several 
overfished rockfish found in the central area. Some overfished rockfish 
species, like darkblotched rockfish, are concentrated in the northern 
area, but also occur in the central area. Some overfished rockfish 
species, like bocaccio, are concentrated in the southern and central 
areas. This overlap between northern and southern species mixes, 
combined with the many vessels participating in that area, results in a 
need for more restrictive management measures for vessels operating in 
that central area.
    Comment 20: Why are commercial trawl vessels and recreational 
vessels allowed to retain canary rockfish when commercial hook-and-line 
vessels are not allowed to retain canary rockfish?
    Response: Commercial trawl vessels and recreational hook-and-line 
vessels are allowed a minimal amount of canary rockfish retention, so 
that canary rockfish that is taken incidentally in fisheries targeting 
other species may be retained. For the commercial hook-and-line 
fisheries, however, canary rockfish tend to be either directly targeted 
or caught in combination with yelloweye rockfish, another overfished 
species. To protect both canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish, 
fishing for canary rockfish has been prohibited for those commercial 
hook-and-line fisheries.
    Comment 21: Why is widow rockfish included in minor shelf rockfish 
for commercial hook-and-line trip limits while it is regulated 
separately from other rockfish for trawl vessels and not regulated at 
all for recreational vessels?
    Response: For 2002, widow rockfish has been included in overall 
shelf rockfish limits for both limited entry fixed gear and open access 
fisheries. The overall shelf rockfish limits apply to widow and 
yellowtail rockfish as well as to the minor shelf rockfish listed in 
Table 2. The main reason that these major and minor shelf rockfish have 
been grouped together for commercial hook-and-line fisheries management 
is that several shelf rockfish species are overfished (bocaccio, canary 
rockfish, cowcod, widow, yelloweye rockfish) and commercial hook-and-
line vessels have historically been successful at targeting shelf 
rockfish species. Although hook-and-line vessels are restricted from 
going out to target shelf rockfish, a small limit for shelf rockfish 
has been allowed in order to permit retention of the shelf species that 
are incidentally harvested when the vessels are targeting other 
species.
    Trawl fisheries and recreational hook-and-line fisheries are 
restricted to shelf rockfish limits that are intended to allow some 
retention of shelf rockfish caught incidentally to fisheries targeting 
other species. However, the primary mechanism for restricting shelf 
rockfish catch in the trawl fisheries, as discussed earlier in the 
Response to Comment 7, is the constraint of limits for target species 
such as flatfish and DTS complex species. Recreational fisheries, which 
are more likely to target nearshore rockfish, have a 1-fish canary 
rockfish limit to allow some retention of canary rockfish for anglers 
who may be targeting other rockfish species. Widow rockfish is seldom 
taken in the recreational fishery.
    Comment 22: Why do commercial trawl vessels have a 12-month season 
and much higher shelf rockfish limits than commercial hook-and-line 
vessels? It is unfair to restrict California commercial hook-and-line 
vessels to the same seasons as the recreational vessels. Limited entry 
fixed gear limits and seasons should be the same as those for limited 
entry trawlers.
    Response: As discussed earlier in the response to Comment 21, shelf 
rockfish limits for limited entry trawlers are set only high enough to 
allow the minimum retention of shelf rockfish caught incidentally in 
fisheries targeting other species, such as the flatfish fisheries. 
Similarly, shelf rockfish limits for limited entry fixed gear and open 
access fisheries are set at levels that should allow retention of some 
incidentally-caught shelf rockfish. Shelf and nearshore rockfish 
fishing opportunities are closed for commercial hook-and-line fisheries 
south of 40 deg.10' N. lat. during some months of the year both to 
discourage all fishing that might incidentally take shelf and nearshore 
rockfish during the closed months and to allow higher shelf and 
nearshore rockfish limits during the open months.
    Comment 23: Paragraph IV.A.(14)(b)(iii) states in part, ``If a 
vessel has landings attributed to both types of trawl (midwater and 
small footrope) during a cumulative limit period, all landings are 
counted toward the most restrictive gear specific cumulative limit.'' 
The wording of this regulation does not match the Council's intent, 
which was to allow trawlers to fish with both small footrope gear and 
midwater trawl gear in a single cumulative limit period as long as 
neither the gear-specific nor the larger of the two limits were 
exceeded.
    Response: NMFS agrees. That sentence has been corrected to read as 
follows: ``If a vessel uses both small footrope gear and midwater gear 
for a single species during the same cumulative limit period and the 
midwater gear limit is higher than the small footrope gear limit, the 
small footrope gear limit may not be exceeded with small footrope gear 
and counts toward the midwater gear limit. Conversely, if a vessel uses 
both small footrope gear and midwater gear for a single species during 
the same cumulative limit period and the small footrope gear limit is 
higher than the midwater gear limit, the midwater gear limit may not be 
exceeded with midwater gear and counts toward the small footrope gear 
limit.'' NMFS has additionally clarified a sentence in paragraph 
IV.A.(14)(b)(i) that read in the proposed rule, ``It is unlawful for 
any

[[Page 10500]]

vessel using large footrope gear to exceed large footrope gear limits 
for any species or to use large footrope gear to exceed small footrope 
gear or midwater gear limits for any species.'' This sentence has been 
clarified as follows: ``It is unlawful for any vessel with large 
footrope gear on board to exceed large footrope gear limits for any 
species, regardless of which type of trawl gear was used to catch those 
fish. If a species is subject to a large footrope gear per trip limit, 
it is unlawful for a vessel fishing with large footrope gear under the 
per trip limit to exceed the small footrope gear cumulative limit 
during the applicable cumulative limit period.''

Comments on the EA/RIR/IRFA

    Comment 24: The EA as a whole is insufficient to support a finding 
of no significant impact and fails to adequately consider the 
significant criteria established by the NEPA's implementing 
regulations. The EA acknowledges that there is uncertainty about the 
effects of the specifications and management measures on the human 
environment and that some of the effects of this action are unknown.
    Response: The precautionary approach in fisheries management is 
multi-faceted and broad in scope. In a fisheries context, the 
precautionary approach implements conservation measures even in the 
absence of scientific certainty. The EA/RIR/IRFA acknowledges the 
scientific uncertainty in setting specifications and management 
measures and discloses the precautionary measures taken to address the 
inherent uncertainty in fisheries management. For example, the EA's 
discussion on setting the POP total catch OY reads in part, ``While 
Alternatives 1.1 [290 mt total catch OY] and 1.3 [350 mt total catch 
OY] are lower and higher than the no action alternative [303 mt total 
catch OY,] respectively, the magnitude of difference between the 
numbers is small. However, the degree to which that difference might 
affect the POP stock is unknown.'' As discussed above in the response 
to Comment 3, the selected Alternative 1.3 has a 70 percent probability 
of rebuilding the POP stock within the time allowed. Precautionary 
measures to protect POP through constraining directed and incidental 
harvest are discussed in the EA under the evaluation of alternative 
bycatch and discard rate assumptions and under the evaluation of 
alternative fishery management measures.
    Although greater scientific certainty can improve management 
decisions, scientific uncertainty is an inherent part of fisheries 
management. Uncertainties must be acknowledged, as they are in the EA, 
and the agency must implement measures to protect the fishery resources 
against the harm that could result from those uncertainties. NMFS and 
the Council have taken action to protect groundfish stocks against harm 
from uncertainty in numerous policies, for example: the protective ABC 
policies, setting harvest as conservative as F55% for rockfish; the 
precautionary ``40-10'' OY policy, which reduces total catch for stocks 
that are below Fmsy but not overfished; the 2002 bycatch management 
program for overfished species. These policies and many other 
overfished species rebuilding measures are intended to acknowledge 
scientific uncertainty in fisheries management and to guard against 
potential negative effects of that uncertainty.
    Comment 25: NMFS has violated NEPA by failing to consider 
alternative management techniques beyond trip limit management. The 
only season closure alternative considered by NMFS was a 6-month season 
wherein all fisheries would be shut down for 6 months. The agency has 
not considered staggering season closures, which could optimize landed 
catch OYs for more cleanly targeted stocks, nor has the agency 
considered closures shorter than 6 months. Further, the EA considers 
only the socio-economic effects of different season structures and not 
the biological effects of those structures.
    Response: A primary focus of the EA in specifying management 
measures for considered season alternatives were areal and temporal 
variations in the co-occurrence of overfished species in a host of 
directed fisheries targeting healthy stocks. Trip limits and closures 
for all season alternatives were designed to minimize the bycatch of 
these overfished groundfish species and to constrain the fisheries so 
that the landed catch OYs of these species would not be exceeded. (See 
the EA/RIR/IRFA at pages T-6 through T-16.) Using the preferred 
alternative as an example, constraints to control the fishing-related 
mortality associated with the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries 
include: (1) Elimination of midwater trawl opportunities that would 
target widow and yellowtail rockfish to reduce mortality of widow and 
canary rockfish,(2) elimination of commercial line fisheries 
opportunities and seasonal closures for continental shelf fisheries 
that target shelf rockfish and prohibition of canary and yelloweye 
rockfish retention, and (3) seasonal closures of recreational and 
commercial hook-and-line groundfish fisheries off California to reduce 
the mortality of bocaccio, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. 
While the coastwide six month season alternative and other commercial 
season variations of that alternative were rejected on the basis of 
their socioeconomic effects, all of the seasonal alternatives were 
analyzed for their biological efficacy in controlling total mortality 
of overfished species.
    Comment 26: The EA does not consider potential cumulative effects 
of the rule, as required by the NEPA criteria for determination of an 
action's significance (40 CFR 1508.37(b)(7)).
    Response: NMFS agrees that the cumulative effects analysis in the 
EA/RIR/IRFA needs to be expanded. Therefore, the EA/RIR/IRFA was 
modified prior to the publication of this final rule to include a 
discussion of the cumulative effects of the 2002 specifications and 
management measures. The final EA/RIR/IRFA is available from the 
Council (See ADDRESSES).

Changes from the Proposed Rule

    In the 2002 specifications and management measures proposed rule, 
NMFS described changes to the primary sablefish season at Section III, 
``Management Measures,'' under ``Limited Entry Fixed Gear.'' As 
discussed in that proposed rule, the final rule to implement Amendment 
14 (August 7, 2001, 66 FR 41152) in 2001 did not include some of the 
more complex provisions of Amendment 14, such as a limited entry fixed 
gear permit stacking program. NMFS prepared a proposed and final rule 
to implement Amendment 14 as swiftly as possible in 2001 after 
receiving the amendment from the Council. However, due to the timing of 
the receipt of Amendment 14 from the Council, NMFS was unable to 
implement an April 1 through October 31 primary sablefish season as 
recommended by Amendment 14. Thus, the agency set the 2001 primary 
sablefish season as August 15 through October 31, with the expectation 
that the 2002 season would be held from April 1 through October 31.
    As discussed in the proposed rule for the 2002 specifications and 
management measures, NMFS expected to publish a proposed rule to 
implement the remaining portions of Amendment 14 to the FMP for 2002 
and beyond before April 1, 2002. The agency began drafting that 
proposed rule in January 2002, at which time the agency realized that 
several of the regulatory recommendations that the Council had made in 
association with Amendment 14 could be considered unnecessarily complex 
and burdensome to the public. These recommendations concern permit 
transferability and permit owner

[[Page 10501]]

restrictions and became apparent to the agency during implementation of 
the new permit stacking program in 2001. As a result of its experiences 
with permit stacking and its re-evaluation of these more complex 
provisions of Amendment 14, the agency has decided to bring several 
provisions back before the Council at its March and April 2002 
meetings.
    The length of the primary sablefish season is not linked to the 
issues that NMFS plans to bring before the Council this spring. In the 
proposed rule for the 2002 specifications and management measures, the 
agency proposed an April 1 through October 31 primary sablefish season 
at Section IV.B.(2)(b)(i). With this final rule, the agency is setting 
this April 1 through October 31 primary sablefish season in both 
Section IV.B.(2)(b)(i) of this document and amending Federal 
regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(2)(ii). NMFS would have proposed these 
changes to Federal regulations in the specifications proposed rule if 
it had known at the time of the publication of that proposed rule that 
it would need to bring the more complex Amendment 14 provisions back to 
the Council. By finalizing this change to Federal regulations with this 
final rule, NMFS ensures that the season dates announced in the season 
management measures are compatible with those announced in Federal 
regulations. This change is not expected to affect the sablefish 
resource, but is intended to improve safety and planning convenience 
for the limited entry fixed gear sablefish fleet. Without this change, 
the August 15 through October 31 season would remain in place, which is 
contrary to both the long-term goals of the FMP and to the public 
interest.
    In the proposed rule for the 2002 specifications and management 
measures, NMFS did not provide a proposed ABC or OY for Pacific 
whiting, because the whiting assessment was not expected to be complete 
until early 2002. At its March 11-15, 2002, meeting in Sacramento, CA, 
the Council will finalize its recommendation for a whiting ABC and OY. 
NMFS will then publish the whiting ABC and OY as an emergency rule to 
amend this final rule. In the interim, the whiting ABC and OY from 2001 
remain in place and are set out in Table 1a.
    During its February 4-7, 2002, meeting, the GMT commented to NMFS 
that it thought that the 1,000 lb (454 kg) per month limit for 
nearshore rockfish in the limited entry trawl fisheries, for May 
through October was unnecessarily high and may have been accidentally 
transposed from the shelf rockfish limit recommendation of 1,000 lb 
(454 kg) per month. While the GMT considered 1,000 lb (454 kg) an 
appropriate shelf rockfish limit, it did not consider that limit 
appropriate for nearshore rockfish taken in the trawl fisheries. 
Nearshore rockfish are usually only caught incidentally in limited 
entry trawl fisheries and higher limits could encourage targeting for 
nearshore rockfish. The GMT therefore recommended, and NMFS has 
implemented through this final rule, continuing the current 300 lb (136 
kg) per month nearshore rockfish limit throughout the year for the 
limited entry trawl fisheries.

I. Specifications

    Fishery specifications include ABCs, the designation of OYs, which 
may be represented by harvest guidelines (HGs) or quotas for species 
that need individual management, and the allocation of commercial OYs 
between the open access and limited entry segments of the fishery. 
These specifications include fish caught in state ocean waters (0-3 
nautical miles (nm) offshore) as well as fish caught in the EEZ (3-200 
nm offshore). The OYs and ABCs recommended by the Council and finalized 
in this document are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 
groundfish FMP.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 10502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.002


[[Page 10503]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.003


[[Page 10504]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.004


[[Page 10505]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.005


[[Page 10506]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.006


[[Page 10507]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.007


[[Page 10508]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.008


[[Page 10509]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.009

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 10510]]

II. Limited Entry and Open Access Fisheries

    Since 1994, the non-tribal commercial groundfish fishery has been 
divided into limited entry and open access sectors, each with its own 
set of allocations and management measures. Species or species group 
allocations between the two sectors are based on the relative amounts 
of a species or species group taken by each component of the fishery 
during the 1984-1988 limited entry permit qualification period (50 CFR 
660.332). The FMP allows suspension of this allocation formula for 
overfished species when changes to the traditional allocation formula 
are needed to better protect overfished species (Section 5.3.2).
    Groundfish species or species group allocations between the limited 
entry and open access sectors are detailed in Tables 1a and 1b. All 
OYs, and all limited entry and open access allocations are expressed in 
terms of total catch. The limited entry/open access allocations for 
canary, darkblotched, and yelloweye rockfish are suspended to allow the 
Council to better develop management measures that provide harvest of 
healthy stocks while protecting overfished stocks. Estimates of trip-
limit induced discards are taken ``off the top'' before setting the 
limited entry and open access allocations, except for estimates of 
sablefish discards as explained in the footnotes to Table 1a. Landed 
catch equivalents are the harvest goals used when adjusting trip limits 
and other management measures for target species during the season. 
Estimated bycatch of yellowtail, widow, canary, and darkblotched 
rockfish in the offshore whiting fishery is also deducted from the 
limited entry allocations before determining the landed catch 
equivalents for the target fisheries for widow and yellowtail rockfish.

III. 2002 Management Measures

    Management measures for the limited entry fishery are found in 
Section IV. Most cumulative trip limits, size limits, and seasons for 
the limited entry fishery are set out in Tables 3 and 4. However, the 
limited entry nontrawl sablefish fishery, the midwater trawl fishery 
for whiting, and the hook-and-line fishery for black rockfish off 
Washington are managed separately from the majority of the groundfish 
species and are not fully addressed in the tables. The management 
structure for these fisheries has not changed since 2001, except for 
the level of trip limits for sablefish and whiting and for the primary 
sablefish season dates, and is described in paragraphs IV.B.(2) through 
(4). Similarly, management measures for the open access exempted trawl 
fisheries (California halibut, sea cucumber, pink shrimp, spot and 
ridgeback prawns) are described in paragraph IV.C.(2), separately from 
the open access fisheries trip limits set out in Table 5.

IV. NMFS Actions

    For the reasons stated above, the Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NOAA (Assistant Administrator), concurs with the Council's 
recommendations and announces the following management actions for 
2002, including measures that are unchanged from 2001 and new measures.

A. General Definitions and Provisions

    The following definitions and provisions apply to the 2002 
management measures, unless otherwise specified in a subsequent Federal 
Register document:
    (1) Trip limits. Trip limits are used in the commercial fishery to 
specify the amount of fish that may legally be taken and retained, 
possessed, or landed, per vessel, per fishing trip, or cumulatively per 
unit of time, or the number of landings that may be made from a vessel 
in a given period of time, as follows:
    (a) A per trip limit is the total allowable amount of a groundfish 
species or species group, by weight, or by percentage of weight of 
legal fish on board, that may be taken and retained, possessed, or 
landed per vessel from a single fishing trip.
    (b) A daily trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in 24 consecutive hours, 
starting at 0001 hours l.t. Only one landing of groundfish may be made 
in that 24-hour period. Daily trip limits may not be accumulated during 
multiple day trips.
    (c) A weekly trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in 7 consecutive days, 
starting at 0001 hours l.t. on Sunday and ending at 2400 hours l.t. on 
Saturday. Weekly trip limits may not be accumulated during multiple 
week trips. If a calendar week includes days within two different 
months, a vessel is not entitled to two separate weekly limits during 
that week.
    (d) A cumulative trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken 
and retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in a specified period of 
time without a limit on the number of landings or trips, unless 
otherwise specified. The cumulative trip limit periods for limited 
entry and open access fisheries, which start at 0001 hours l.t. and end 
at 2400 hours l.t., are as follows, unless otherwise specified:
    (i) The 2-month periods are: January 1-February 28, March 1-April 
30, May 1-June 30, July 1-August 31, September 1-October 31, and 
November 1-December 31.
    (ii) One month means the first day through the last day of the 
calendar month.
    (iii) One week means 7 consecutive days, Sunday through Saturday.
    (2) Fishing ahead. Unless the fishery is closed, a vessel that has 
landed its cumulative or daily limit may continue to fish on the limit 
for the next period, so long as no fish (including, but not limited to, 
groundfish with no trip limits, shrimp, prawns, or other nongroundfish 
species or shellfish) are landed (offloaded) until the next period. As 
stated at 50 CFR 660.302 (in the definition of ``landing''), once the 
offloading of any species begins, all fish aboard the vessel are 
counted as part of the landing. Fishing ahead is not allowed during or 
before a closed period (see paragraph IV.A.(7)). See paragraph IV.A.(9) 
for information on inseason changes to limits.
    (3) Weights. All weights are round weights or round-weight 
equivalents unless otherwise specified.
    (4) Percentages. Percentages are based on round weights, and, 
unless otherwise specified, apply only to legal fish on board.
    (5) Legal fish. Legal fish means fish legally taken and retained, 
possessed, or landed in accordance with the provisions of 50 CFR part 
660, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, any document issued under part 660, and 
any other regulation promulgated or permit issued under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
    (6) Size limits and length measurement. Unless otherwise specified, 
size limits in the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries 
apply to the ``total length,'' which is the longest measurement of the 
fish without mutilation of the fish or the use of force to extend the 
length of the fish. No fish with a size limit may be retained if it is 
in such condition that its length has been extended or cannot be 
determined by these methods. For conversions not listed here, contact 
the state where the fish will be landed.
    (a) Whole fish. For a whole fish, total length is measured from the 
tip of the snout (mouth closed) to the tip of the tail in a natural, 
relaxed position.
    (b) ``Headed'' fish. For a fish with the head removed (``headed''), 
the length is measured from the origin of the first dorsal fin (where 
the front dorsal fin meets the dorsal surface of the body closest to 
the head) to the tip of the

[[Page 10511]]

upper lobe of the tail; the dorsal fin and tail must be left intact.
    (c) Filets. A filet is the flesh from one side of a fish extending 
from the head to the tail, which has been removed from the body (head, 
tail, and backbone) in a single continuous piece. Filet lengths may be 
subject to size limits for some groundfish taken in the recreational 
fishery off California (see paragraph IV. D.(1)). A filet is measured 
along the length of the longest part of the filet in a relaxed 
position; stretching or otherwise manipulating the filet to increase 
its length is not permitted.
    (d) Sablefish weight limit conversions. The following conversions 
apply to both the limited entry and open access fisheries when trip 
limits are effective for those fisheries. For headed and gutted 
(eviscerated) sablefish, the conversion factor established by the state 
where the fish is or will be landed will be used to convert the 
processed weight to round weight for purposes of applying the trip 
limit. (The conversion factor currently is 1.6 in Washington, Oregon, 
and California. However, the state conversion factors may differ; 
fishers should contact fishery enforcement officials in the state where 
the fish will be landed to determine that state's official conversion 
factor.)
    (e) Lingcod size and weight conversions. The following conversions 
apply in both limited entry and open access fisheries.
    (i) Size conversion. For lingcod with the head removed, the minimum 
size limit is 19.5 inches (49.5 cm), which corresponds to 24 inches (61 
cm) total length for whole fish.
    (ii) Weight conversion. The conversion factor established by the 
state where the fish is or will be landed will be used to convert the 
processed weight to round weight for purposes of applying the trip 
limit. (The states' conversion factors may differ, and fishers should 
contact fishery enforcement officials in the state where the fish will 
be landed to determine that state's official conversion factor.) If a 
state does not have a conversion factor for headed and gutted lingcod, 
or lingcod that is only gutted; the following conversion factors will 
be used. To determine the round weight, multiply the processed weight 
times the conversion factor.
    (A) Headed and gutted. The conversion factor for headed and gutted 
lingcod is 1.5.
    (B) Gutted, with the head on. The conversion factor for lingcod 
that has only been gutted is 1.1.
    (7) Closure. ``Closure,'' when referring to closure of a fishery, 
means that taking and retaining, possessing, or landing the particular 
species or species group is prohibited. (See 50 CFR 660.302.) Unless 
otherwise announced in the Federal Register, offloading must begin 
before the time the fishery closes. The provisions at paragraph 
IV.A.(2) for fishing ahead do not apply during a closed period. It is 
unlawful to transit through a closed area with the prohibited species 
on board, no matter where that species was caught, except as provided 
for in the CCA at IV. A.(20).
    (8) Fishery management area. The fishery management area for these 
species is the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California 
between 3 and 200 nm offshore, bounded on the north by the Provisional 
International Boundary between the United States and Canada, and 
bounded on the south by the International Boundary between the United 
States and Mexico. All groundfish possessed between 0-200 nm offshore 
or landed in Washington, Oregon, or California are presumed to have 
been taken and retained from the EEZ, unless otherwise demonstrated by 
the person in possession of those fish.
    (9) Routine management measures. Most trip, bag, and size limits in 
the groundfish fishery have been designated ``routine,'' which means 
they may be changed rapidly after a single Council meeting. (See 50 CFR 
660.323(b).) Council meetings in 2002 will be held in the months of 
March, April, June, September, and November. Inseason changes to 
routine management measures are announced in the Federal Register. 
Information concerning changes to routine management measures is 
available from the NMFS Northwest and Southwest Regional Offices (see 
ADDRESSES). Changes to trip limits are effective at the times stated in 
the Federal Register. Once a change is effective, it is illegal to take 
and retain, possess, or land more fish than allowed under the new trip 
limit. This means that, unless otherwise announced in the Federal 
Register, offloading must begin before the time a fishery closes or a 
more restrictive trip limit takes effect.
    (10) Limited entry limits. It is unlawful for any person to take 
and retain, possess, or land groundfish in excess of the landing limit 
for the open access fishery without having a valid limited entry permit 
for the vessel affixed with a gear endorsement for the gear used to 
catch the fish (50 CFR 660.306(p)).
    (11) Operating in both limited entry and open access fisheries. The 
open access trip limit applies to any fishing conducted with open 
access gear, even if the vessel has a valid limited entry permit with 
an endorsement for another type of gear. A vessel that operates in both 
the open access and limited entry fisheries is not entitled to two 
separate trip limits for the same species. If a vessel has a limited 
entry permit and uses open access gear, but the open access limit is 
smaller than the limited entry limit, the open access limit cannot be 
exceeded and counts toward the limited entry limit. If a vessel has a 
limited entry permit and uses open access gear, but the open access 
limit is larger than the limited entry limit, the smaller limited entry 
limit applies, even if taken entirely with open access gear.
    (12) Operating in areas with different trip limits. Trip limits for 
a species or a species group may differ in different geographic areas 
along the coast. The following ``crossover'' provisions apply to 
vessels operating in different geographical areas that have different 
cumulative or ``per trip'' trip limits for the same species or species 
group. Such crossover provisions do not apply to species that are 
subject only to daily trip limits, or to the trip limits for black 
rockfish off Washington (see 50 CFR 660.323(a)(1)). In 2002, the 
cumulative trip limit periods for the limited entry and open access 
fisheries are specified in paragraph IV.A(1)(d), but may be changed 
during the year if announced in the Federal Register.
    (a) Going from a more restrictive to a more liberal area. If a 
vessel takes and retains any groundfish species or species group of 
groundfish in an area where a more restrictive trip limit applies 
before fishing in an area where a more liberal trip limit (or no trip 
limit) applies, then that vessel is subject to the more restrictive 
trip limit for the entire period to which that trip limit applies, no 
matter where the fish are taken and retained, possessed, or landed.
    (b) Going from a more liberal to a more restrictive area. If a 
vessel takes and retains a groundfish species or species group in an 
area where a higher trip limit or no trip limit applies, and takes and 
retains, possesses or lands the same species or species group in an 
area where a more restrictive trip limit applies, that vessel is 
subject to the more restrictive trip limit for the entire period to 
which that trip limit applies, no matter where the fish are taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed.
    (c) Minor rockfish. Several rockfish species are designated with 
species-specific limits on one side of the 40 deg.10' N. lat. 
management line, and are included as part of a minor rockfish complex 
on the other side of the line.
    (i) If a vessel takes and retains minor slope rockfish north of 
40 deg.10' N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess or land splitnose rockfish

[[Page 10512]]

up to its cumulative limit south of 40 deg.10' N. lat., even if 
splitnose rockfish were a part of the landings from minor slope 
rockfish taken and retained north of 40 deg.10' N. lat. [Note: A vessel 
that takes and retains minor slope rockfish on both sides of the 
management line in a single cumulative limit period is subject to the 
more restrictive cumulative limit for minor slope rockfish during that 
period.]
    (ii) If a vessel takes and retains minor slope rockfish south of 
40 deg.10' N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess or land POP up to its cumulative limit north of 40 deg.10' N. 
lat., even if POP were a part of the landings from minor slope rockfish 
taken and retained south of 40 deg.10 N. lat. [Note: A vessel that 
takes and retains minor slope rockfish on both sides of the management 
line in a single cumulative limit period is subject to the more 
restrictive cumulative limit for minor slope rockfish during that 
period.]
    (iii) If a vessel takes and retains minor shelf rockfish north of 
40 deg.10' N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess, or land chilipepper rockfish and bocaccio up to their 
respective cumulative limits south of 40 deg.10' N. lat., even if 
either species is part of the landings from minor shelf rockfish taken 
and retained north of 40 deg.10' N. lat. [Note: A vessel that takes and 
retains minor shelf rockfish on both sides of the management line in a 
single cumulative limit period is subject to the more restrictive 
cumulative limit for minor shelf rockfish during that period.]
    (iv) If a vessel takes and retains minor shelf rockfish south of 
40 deg.10' N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess, or land yellowtail rockfish up to its respective cumulative 
limits north of 40 deg.10' N. lat., even if yellowtail rockfish is part 
of the landings from minor shelf rockfish taken and retained south of 
40 deg.10' N. lat. [Note: A vessel that takes and retains minor shelf 
rockfish on both sides of the management line in a single cumulative 
limit period is subject to the more restrictive cumulative limit for 
minor shelf rockfish during that period.]
    (d) ``DTS complex.'' For 2002, there are differential trip limits 
for the ``DTS complex'' (Dover sole, shortspine thornyhead, longspine 
thornyhead, sablefish) north and south of the management line at 
40 deg.10' N. lat. Vessels operating in the limited entry trawl fishery 
are subject to the crossover provisions in this paragraph IV.A.(12) 
when making landings that include any one of the four species in the 
``DTS complex.''
    (13) Sorting. 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, quota, or 
harvest guideline, if the vessel fished or landed in an area during a 
time when such trip limit, size limit, harvest guideline, or quota 
applied. This provision applies to both the limited entry and open 
access fisheries. (See 50 CFR 660.306(h).) The following species must 
be sorted in 2002:
    (a) For vessels with a limited entry permit:
    (i) Coastwide--widow rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, minor nearshore 
rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, minor slope rockfish, shortspine and 
longspine thornyhead, Dover sole, arrowtooth flounder, rex sole, 
petrale sole, other flatfish, lingcod, sablefish, and Pacific whiting 
[Note: Although both yelloweye and darkblotched rockfish are considered 
minor rockfish managed under the minor shelf and minor slope rockfish 
complexes, respectively, they have separate OYs and therefore must be 
sorted by species.]
    (ii) North of 40 deg.10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, and, 
for fixed gear, black rockfish and blue rockfish;
    (iii) South of 40 deg.10' N. lat.--chilipepper rockfish, bocaccio 
rockfish, splitnose rockfish, and Pacific sanddabs (trawl only.)
    (b) For open access vessels (vessels without a limited entry
    permit):
    (i) Coastwide--widow rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish, minor shelf 
rockfish, minor slope rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, other flatfish, 
lingcod, sablefish, Pacific whiting, and Pacific sanddabs;
    (ii) North of 40 deg.10' N. lat. -black rockfish, blue rockfish, 
POP, yellowtail rockfish;
    (iii) South of 40 deg.10' N. lat.--chilipepper rockfish, bocaccio 
rockfish, splitnose rockfish;
    (iv) South of Point Conception--thornyheads.
    (14) Limited Entry Trawl Gear Restrictions. Limited entry trip 
limits may vary depending on the type of trawl gear that is on board a 
vessel during a fishing trip: large footrope, small footrope, or 
midwater trawl gear.
    (a) Types of trawl gear. (i) Large footrope trawl gear is bottom 
trawl gear, as specified at 50 CFR 660.302 and 660.322(b), with a 
footrope diameter larger than 8 inches (20 cm) (including rollers, 
bobbins or other material encircling or tied along the length of the 
footrope).
    (ii) Small footrope trawl gear is bottom trawl gear, as specified 
at 50 CFR 660.302 and 660.322(b), with a footrope diameter 8 inches (20 
cm) or smaller (including rollers, bobbins or other material encircling 
or tied along the length of the footrope), except chafing gear may be 
used only on the last 50 meshes of a small footrope trawl, measured 
from the terminal (closed) end of the codend. Other lines or ropes that 
run parallel to the footrope may not be augmented or modified to 
violate footrope size restrictions.
    (iii) Midwater trawl gear is pelagic trawl gear, as specified at 50 
CFR 660.302 and 660.322(b)(5). The footrope of midwater trawl gear may 
not be enlarged by encircling it with chains or by any other means. 
Ropes or lines running parallel to the footrope of midwater trawl gear 
must be bare and may not be suspended with chains or other materials.
    (b) Cumulative trip limits and prohibitions by trawl gear type--(i) 
Large footrope trawl. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess or 
land any species of shelf or nearshore rockfish (defined at IV.A.(21) 
and Table 2 except chilipepper rockfish south of 40 deg.10' N. lat. (as 
specified in Table 3) from a fishing trip if large footrope gear is on 
board; this restriction applies coastwide from January 1 to December 
31. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess or land petrale sole, 
rex sole, or arrowtooth flounder from a fishing trip if large footrope 
gear is onboard and the trip is conducted at least in part between May 
1 and October 31; cumulative limits for ``all other flatfish'' (all 
flatfish except those with cumulative trip limits in Table 3 to section 
IV) are lower for vessels with large footrope gear on board throughout 
the year (See Table 3). It is unlawful for any vessel with large 
footrope gear on board to exceed large footrope gear limits for any 
species, regardless of which type of trawl gear was used to catch those 
fish. If a species is subject to a large footrope gear per trip limit, 
it is unlawful for a vessel fishing with large footrope gear under the 
per trip limit to exceed the small footrope gear cumulative limit 
during the applicable cumulative limit period. The presence of rollers 
or bobbins larger than 8 inches (20 cm) in diameter on board the 
vessel, even if not attached to a trawl, will be considered to mean a 
large footrope trawl is on board. Dates are adjusted for the ``B'' 
platoon (See IV.A.(16)).
    (ii) Small footrope or midwater trawl gear. Cumulative trip limits 
for canary rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, bocaccio, 
minor shelf rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish, and lingcod,

[[Page 10513]]

and higher cumulative trip limits for chilipepper rockfish and 
flatfish, as indicated in Table 3 are allowed only if small footrope 
gear or midwater trawl gear is used, and if that gear meets the 
specifications in paragraph IV.A.(14)(a).
    (iii) Midwater trawl gear. Higher cumulative trip limits are 
available for limited entry vessels using midwater trawl gear to 
harvest widow or chilipepper rockfish. Each landing that contains widow 
or chilipepper rockfish is attributed to the gear on board with the 
most restrictive trip limit for those species. Landings attributed to 
small footrope trawl must not exceed the small footrope limit, and 
landings attributed to midwater trawl must not exceed the midwater 
trawl limit. If a vessel uses both small footrope gear and midwater 
gear for a single species during the same cumulative limit period and 
the midwater gear limit is higher than the small footrope gear limit, 
the small footrope gear limit may not be exceeded with small footrope 
gear and counts toward the midwater gear limit. Conversely, if a vessel 
uses both small footrope gear and midwater gear for a single species 
during the same cumulative limit period and the small footrope gear 
limit is higher than the midwater gear limit, the midwater gear limit 
may not be exceeded with midwater gear and counts toward the small 
footrope gear limit.
    (iv) More than one type of trawl gear on board. The cumulative trip 
limits in Table 3 must not be exceeded. A fisher may have more than one 
type of limited entry trawl gear on board, but the most restrictive 
trip limit associated with the gear on board applies for that trip and 
will count toward the cumulative trip limit for that gear. [Example: If 
a vessel has large footrope gear on board, it cannot land yellowtail 
rockfish, even if the yellowtail rockfish is caught with a small 
footrope trawl. If a vessel has both small footrope trawl and midwater 
trawl gear on board, the landing is attributed to the most restrictive 
gear-specific limit, regardless of which gear type was used.]
    (c) Measurement. The footrope will be measured in a straight line 
from the outside edge to the opposite outside edge at the widest part 
on any individual part, including any individual disk, roller, bobbin, 
or any other device.
    (d) State landing receipts. Washington, Oregon, and California will 
require the type of trawl gear on board with the most restrictive limit 
to be recorded on the State landing receipt(s) for each trip or an 
attachment to the State landing receipt.
    (e) Gear inspection. All trawl gear and trawl gear components, 
including unattached rollers or bobbins, must be readily accessible and 
made available for inspection at the request of an authorized officer. 
No trawl gear may be removed from the vessel prior to offloading. All 
footropes shall be uncovered and clearly visible except when in use for 
fishing.
    (15) Permit transfers. Limited entry permit transfers are to take 
effect no earlier than the first day of a major cumulative limit period 
following the day NMFS receives the transfer form and original permit 
(50 CFR 660.335(e)(3)). Those days in 2002 are January 1, March 1, May 
1, July 1, September 1, and November 1, and are delayed by 15 days 
(starting on the 16th of a month) for the ``B'' platoon.
    (16) Platooning--limited entry trawl vessels. Limited entry trawl 
vessels are automatically in the ``A'' platoon, unless the ``B'' 
platoon is indicated on the limited entry permit. If a vessel is in the 
``A'' platoon, its cumulative trip limit periods begin and end on the 
beginning and end of a calendar month as in the past. If a limited 
entry trawl permit is authorized for the ``B'' platoon, then cumulative 
trip limit periods will begin on the 16th of the month (generally 2 
weeks later than for the ``A'' platoon), unless otherwise specified.
    (a) For a vessel in the ``B'' platoon, cumulative trip limit 
periods begin on the 16th of the month at 0001 hours, l.t., and end at 
2400 hours, l.t., on the 15th of the month. Therefore, the management 
measures announced herein that are effective on January 1, 2002, for 
the ``A'' platoon will be effective on January 16, 2002, for the ``B'' 
platoon. The effective date of any inseason changes to the cumulative 
trip limits also will be delayed for 2 weeks for the ``B'' platoon, 
unless otherwise specified.
    (b) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon may take 
and retain, but may not land, groundfish from January 1, 2002, through 
January 15, 2002.
    (c) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon will have 
the same cumulative trip limits for the November 16, 2002, through 
December 31, 2002, period as a vessel operating in the ``A'' platoon 
has for the November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002 period.
    (17) Exempted fisheries. U.S. vessels operating under an exempted 
fishing permit issued under 50 CFR part 600 are also subject to these 
restrictions, unless otherwise provided in the permit.
    (18) Application of requirements. Paragraphs IV.B. and IV.C. 
pertain to the commercial groundfish fishery, but not to Washington 
coastal tribal fisheries, which are described in section V. The 
provisions in paragraphs IV.B. and IV.C. that are not covered under the 
headings ``limited entry'' or ``open access'' apply to all vessels in 
the commercial fishery that take and retain groundfish, unless 
otherwise stated. Paragraph IV.D. pertains to the recreational fishery.
    (19) Commonly used geographic coordinates.
    (a) Cape Falcon, OR--45 deg.46' N. lat.
    (b) Cape Lookout, OR--45 deg.20'15'' N. lat.
    (c) Cape Blanco, OR--42 deg.50' N. lat.
    (d) Cape Mendocino, CA--40 deg.30' N. lat.
    (e) North/South management line--40 deg.10' N. lat.
    (f) Point Arena, CA--38 deg.57'30'' N. lat.
    (g) Point Conception, CA--34 deg.27' N. lat.
    (h) International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC)
    subareas (for more precise coordinates for the Canadian and Mexican 
boundaries, see 50 CFR 660.304):
    (i) Vancouver--U.S.-Canada border to 47 deg.30' N. lat.
    (ii) Columbia--47 deg.30' to 43 deg.00' N. lat.
    (iii) Eureka--43 deg.00' to 40 deg.30' N. lat.
    (iv) Monterey--40 deg.30' to 36 deg.00' N. lat.
    (v) Conception--36 deg.00' N. lat. to the U.S.-Mexico border.
    (20) Cowcod Conservation Areas. Recreational and commercial fishing 
for groundfish is prohibited within the Cowcod Conservation Areas 
(CCAs), except that recreational and commercial fishing for rockfish 
and lingcod is permitted in waters inside 20 fathoms (36.9 m). It is 
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish inside the 
CCAs, except for rockfish and lingcod taken in waters inside the 20-
fathom (36.9 m) depth contour, when those waters are open to fishing. 
Commercial fishing vessels may transit through the Western CCA with 
their gear stowed and groundfish on board only in a corridor through 
the Western CCA bounded on the north by the latitude line at 
33 deg.00'30" N. lat., and bounded on the south by the latitude line at 
32 deg.59'30" N. lat.
    (a) The Western CCA is an area south of Point Conception that is 
bound by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the 
order listed:
    33 deg.50' N. lat., 119 deg.30' W. long.;
    33 deg.50' N. lat., 118 deg.50' W. long.;
    32 deg.20' N. lat., 118 deg.50' W. long.;
    32 deg.20' N. lat., 119 deg.30' W. long.;
    33 deg.00' N. lat., 119 deg.30' W. long.;
    33 deg.00' N. lat., 119 deg.50' W. long.;
    33 deg.30' N. lat., 119 deg.50' W. long.;
    33 deg.30' N. lat., 119 deg.30' W. long.;
    and connecting back to 33 deg.50' N. lat., 119 deg.30' W. long.
    (b) The Eastern CCA is a smaller area west of San Diego that is 
bound by

[[Page 10514]]

straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order 
listed:
    32 deg.40' N. lat., 118 deg.00' W. long.;
    32 deg.40' N. lat., 117 deg.50' W. long.;
    32 deg.36'42'' N. lat., 117 deg.50' W. long.;
    32 deg.30' N. lat., 117 deg.53'30'' W. long.;
    32 deg.30' N. lat., 118 deg.00' W. long.;
    and connecting back to 32 deg.40' N. lat., 118 deg.00' W. long.;
    (21) Rockfish categories. Rockfish (except thornyheads) are divided 
into categories north and south of 40 deg.10' N. lat., depending on the 
depth where they most often are caught: nearshore, shelf, or slope. 
(Scientific names appear in Table 2.) Trip limits are established for 
``minor rockfish'' species according to these categories (see Tables 3-
5).
    (a) Nearshore rockfish consists entirely of the minor nearshore 
rockfish species listed in Table 2.
    (b) Shelf rockfish consists of canary rockfish, shortbelly 
rockfish, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, 
bocaccio, chilipepper, cowcod, and the minor shelf rockfish species 
listed in Table 2.
    (c) Slope rockfish consists of POP, splitnose rockfish, 
darkblotched rockfish, and the minor slope rockfish species listed in 
Table 2.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 10515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.010

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 10516]]

B. Limited Entry Fishery

    (1) General. Most species taken in limited entry fisheries will be 
managed with cumulative trip limits (see paragraph IV.A.(1)(d),) size 
limits (see paragraph IV.A.(6)), and seasons (see paragraph IV.A.(7)). 
The trawl fishery has gear requirements and trip limits that differ by 
the type of trawl gear on board (see paragraph IV.A.(14)). Cowcod 
retention is prohibited in all fisheries and groundfish vessels 
operating south of Point Conception must adhere to CCA restrictions 
(see paragraph IV.A.(20)). Yelloweye rockfish retention is prohibited 
in the limited entry fixed gear fisheries. Most of the management 
measures for the limited entry fishery are listed previously and in 
Tables 3 and 4, and may be changed during the year by announcement in 
the Federal Register. However, the management regimes for several 
fisheries (nontrawl sablefish, Pacific whiting, and black rockfish) do 
not neatly fit into these tables and are addressed immediately 
following Tables 3 and 4.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 10517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.011


[[Page 10518]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.012

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 10519]]

    (2) Sablefish. The limited entry sablefish allocation is further 
allocated 58 percent to trawl gear and 42 percent to nontrawl gear. See 
footnote e/ of Table 1a.
    (a) Trawl trip and size limits. Management measures for the limited 
entry trawl fishery for sablefish are listed in Table 3.
    (b) Nontrawl (fixed gear) trip and size limits. To take, retain, 
possess, or land sablefish during the primary season for the limited 
entry fixed gear sablefish fishery, the owner of a vessel must hold a 
limited entry permit for that vessel, affixed with both a gear 
endorsement for longline or trap (or pot) gear, and a sablefish 
endorsement. (See 50 CFR 663.323(a)(2)(i).) A sablefish endorsement is 
not required to participate in the limited entry daily trip limit 
fishery.
    (i) Primary season. The primary season begins at 12 noon l.t. on 
April 1, 2002, and ends at 12 noon l.t. on October 31, 2002. There are 
no pre-season or post-season closures. During the primary season, each 
vessel with at least one limited entry permit with a sablefish 
endorsement that is registered for use with that vessel may land up to 
the cumulative trip limit for each of the sablefish-endorsed limited 
entry permits registered for use with that vessel, for the tier(s) to 
which the permit(s) are assigned. For 2002, the following limits are in 
effect: Tier 1, 36,000 lb (16,329 kg); Tier 2, 16,500 lb (7,484 kg); 
Tier 3, 9,500 lb (4,309 kg). All limits are in round weight. If a 
vessel is registered for use with a sablefish-endorsed limited entry 
permit, all sablefish taken after April 1, 2002, count against the 
cumulative limits associated with the permit(s) registered for use with 
that vessel. A vessel that is eligible to participate in the primary 
sablefish season may participate in the daily trip limit fishery for 
sablefish once that vessel's primary season sablefish limit(s) have 
been taken or after October 31, 2001, whichever occurs first. No vessel 
may land sablefish against both its primary season cumulative sablefish 
limits and against the daily trip limit fishery limits within the same 
24 hour period of 0001 hour l.t. to 2400 hours l.t. [For example, if a 
vessel lands the last of its primary sablefish season tier limit at 
1100 hours on a Tuesday, that vessel may not take, retain, possess or 
land sablefish against the daily or weekly trip limits until after 0001 
hours on Wednesday.]
    (ii) Daily trip limit. Daily and/or weekly sablefish trip limits 
listed in Table 4 apply to any limited entry fixed gear vessels not 
participating in the primary sablefish season described in paragraph 
(i) of this section. North of 36 deg. N. lat., the daily and/or weekly 
trip limits apply to fixed gear vessels that are not registered for use 
with a sablefish-endorsed limited entry permit, and to fixed gear 
vessels that are registered for use with a sablefish-endorsed limited 
entry permit when those vessels are not fishing against their primary 
sablefish season cumulative limits. South of 36 deg. N. lat., the daily 
and/or weekly trip limits for taking and retaining sablefish that are 
listed in Table 4 apply throughout the year to all vessels registered 
for use with a limited entry fixed gear permit.
    (3) Whiting. Additional regulations that apply to the whiting 
fishery are found at 50 CFR 660.306 and at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(3) and 
(a)(4). All allocations described in this section and in the tribal 
fisheries allocation description at paragraph V. will not be finalized 
until the Council finalizes the 2002 whiting ABC and OY at its March 
2002 meeting.
    (a) Allocations. Whiting allocations will be based on the 
percentages detailed in 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(4)(i), and will be announced 
inseason when the final OY is announced.
    (b) Seasons. The 2002 primary seasons for the whiting fishery start 
on the same dates as in 2001, as follows (see 50 CFR 660.323(a)(3)):
    (i) Catcher/processor sector--May 15;
    (ii) Mothership sector--May 15;
    (iii) Shore-based sector--June 15 north of 42 deg. N. lat.; April 1 
between 42 deg.-40 deg.30' N. lat.; April 15 south of 40 deg.30' N. 
lat.
    (c) Trip limits--(i) Before and after the regular season. The ``per 
trip'' limit for whiting before and after the regular season for the 
shore-based sector is announced in Table 3, as authorized at 50 CFR 
660.323(a)(3) and (a)(4). Any whiting caught shoreward of 100 fathoms 
(183 m) in the Eureka area counts towards this limit.
    (ii) Inside the Eureka 100 fm (183 m) contour. No more than 10,000 
lb (4,536 kg) of whiting may be taken and retained, possessed, or 
landed by a vessel that, at any time during a fishing trip, fished in 
the fishery management area shoreward of the 100 fathom (183 m) contour 
(as shown on NOAA Charts 18580, 18600, and 18620) in the Eureka area.
    (4) Black rockfish. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(1) state: 
``The trip limit for black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) for commercial 
fishing vessels using hook-and-line gear between the U.S.-Canada border 
and Cape Alava (48 deg.09'30'' N. lat.) and between Destruction Island 
(47 deg.40'00'' N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point (46 deg.38'10'' N. lat.), 
is 100 lb (45 kg) or 30 percent, by weight of all fish on board, 
whichever is greater, per vessel per fishing trip.'' These ``per trip'' 
limits apply to limited entry and open access fisheries, in conjunction 
with the cumulative trip limits and other management measures listed in 
Tables 4 and 5 of Section IV. The crossover provisions at paragraphs
    IV.A.(12) do not apply to the black rockfish per-trip limits.

C. Trip Limits in the Open Access Fishery

    (1) General. Open access gear is gear used to take and retain 
groundfish from a vessel that does not have a valid limited entry 
permit for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery with an endorsement for 
the gear used to harvest the groundfish. This includes longline, trap, 
pot, hook-and-line (fixed or mobile), set net and trammel net (south of 
38 deg. N. lat. only), and exempted trawl gear (trawls used to target 
non-groundfish species: pink shrimp or prawns, and, south of Pt. Arena, 
CA (38 deg.57'30'' N. lat.), California halibut or sea cucumbers). 
Unless otherwise specified, a vessel operating in the open access 
fishery is subject to, and must not exceed any trip limit, frequency 
limit, and/or size limit for the open access fishery. Groundfish 
species taken in open access fisheries will be managed with cumulative 
trip limits (see paragraph IV.A.(1)(d),) size limits (see paragraph 
IV.A.(6)), and seasons (see paragraph IV.A.(7)). Cowcod retention is 
prohibited in all fisheries and groundfish vessels operating south of 
Point Conception must adhere to CCA restrictions (see paragraph 
IV.A.(20)). Yelloweye rockfish retention is prohibited in all open 
access fisheries. The trip limits, size limits, seasons, and other 
management measures for open access groundfish gear, except exempted 
trawl gear, are listed in Table 5. The trip limit at 50 CFR 
660.323(a)(1) for black rockfish caught with hook-and-line gear also 
applies. (The black rockfish limit is repeated at paragraph IV.B.4.)
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 10520]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR02.013

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 10521]]

    (2) Groundfish taken with exempted trawl gear by vessels engaged in 
fishing for spot and ridgeback prawns, California halibut, or sea 
cucumbers.-(a) Trip limits. The trip limit is 300 lb (136 kg) of 
groundfish per fishing trip. Limits in Table 5 also apply and are 
counted toward the 300 lb (136 kg) groundfish limit. In any landing by 
a vessel engaged in fishing for spot and ridgeback prawns, California 
halibut, or sea cucumbers with exempted trawl gear, the amount of 
groundfish landed may not exceed the amount of the target species 
landed, except that the amount of spiny dogfish (Squalas acanthias) 
landed may exceed the amount of target species landed. Spiny dogfish 
are limited by the 300 lb (136 kg) per trip overall groundfish limit. 
The daily trip limits for sablefish coastwide and thornyheads south of 
Pt. Conception and the overall groundfish ``per trip'' limit may not be 
multiplied by the number of days of the fishing trip. The closures 
listed in table 5 also apply, except for the species subsequently 
listed in subparagraphs (i) through (v). The following sublimits also 
apply and are counted toward the overall 300 lb (136 kg) per trip 
groundfish limit:
    (i) Shelf rockfish (including minor shelf rockfish, widow and 
yellowtail)-
    (A) Between 40 deg.10' N. lat. and 34 deg.27' N. lat.: 200 lb (91 
kg) per month.
    (B) South of 34 deg.27' N. lat.: 500 lb (227 kg) per month.
    (ii) Bocaccio south of 40 deg. 10' N. lat. - 200 lb (91 kg) per 
month.
    (iii) Chilipepper--
    (A) Between 40 deg.10' N. lat. and 34 deg.27' N. lat.: 500 lb (227 
kg) per month.
    (B) South of 34 deg.27' N. lat.: 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per month.
    (iv) Minor nearshore rockfish south of 40 deg. 10' N. lat.: 1,200 
lb (544 kg) per 2 months.
    (v) Lingcod south of 40 deg. 10' N. lat. - May 1 through October 
31, 2002: 300 lb (136 kg) per month, otherwise closed.
    (b) State law. These trip limits are not intended to supersede any 
more restrictive state laws relating to the retention of groundfish 
taken in shrimp or prawn pots or traps.
    (c) Participation in the California halibut fishery. A trawl vessel 
will be considered participating in the California halibut fishery if:
    (i) It is not fishing under a valid limited entry permit issued 
under 50 CFR 660.333 for trawl gear;
    (ii) All fishing on the trip takes place south of Pt. Arena; and
    (iii) The landing includes California halibut of a size required by 
California Fish and Game Code section 8392(a), which states: ``No 
California halibut may be taken, possessed or sold which measures less 
than 22 inches (56 cm) in total length, unless it weighs 4 lbs (1.8144 
kg) or more in the round, 3 and one-half lbs (1.587 kg) or more dressed 
with the head on, or 3 lbs (1.3608 kg) or more dressed with the head 
off.'' Total length means ``the shortest distance between the tip of 
the jaw or snout, whichever extends farthest while the mouth is closed, 
and the tip of the longest lobe of the tail, measured while the halibut 
is lying flat in natural repose, without resort to any force other than 
the swinging or fanning of the tail.''
    (d) Participation in the sea cucumber fishery. A trawl vessel will 
be considered to be participating in the sea cucumber fishery if:
    (i) It is not fishing under a valid limited entry permit issued 
under 50 CFR 660.333 for trawl gear;
    (ii) All fishing on the trip takes place south of Pt. Arena; and
    (iii) The landing includes sea cucumbers taken in accordance with 
California Fish and Game Code, section 8396, which requires a permit 
issued by the State of California.
    (3) Groundfish taken with exempted trawl gear by vessels engaged in 
fishing for pink shrimp. (a) The trip limit is 500 lb (227 kg) of 
groundfish per day, multiplied by the number of days of the fishing 
trip, but not to exceed 1,500 lb (680 kg) of groundfish per trip. The 
following sublimits also apply and are counted toward the overall 500 
lb (227 kg) per day and 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip groundfish limits:
    (i) Canary rockfish--
    (A) April 1 through 30, 2002: 50 lb (23 kg) per month
    (B) Starting May 1, 2002 through October 31, 2002: 200 lb (91 kg) 
per month
    (ii) Lingcod--April 1 through October 31, 2002: 400 lb (181 kg) per 
month, with a minimum size limit (total length) of 24 inches (61 cm).
    (iii) Sablefish--April 1, 2002 through October 31, 2002: 2,000 lb 
(907 kg) per month.
    (iv) Thornyheads--Closed north of Pt. Conception (34 deg.27' N. 
lat.)
    (b) All other groundfish species taken with exempted trawl gear by 
vessels engaged in fishing for pink shrimp are managed under the 
overall 500 lb (227 kg) per day and 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip 
groundfish limits. Landings of these species count toward the per day 
and per trip groundfish limits and do not have species-specific limits.
    (c) In any trip in which pink shrimp trawl gear is used, the amount 
of groundfish landed may not exceed the amount of pink shrimp landed.
    (d) Operating in pink shrimp and other fisheries during the same 
cumulative trip limit period. Notwithstanding section IV.A.(11), a 
vessel that takes and retains pink shrimp and also takes and retains 
groundfish in either the limited entry or another open access fishery 
during the same applicable cumulative limit period that it takes and 
retains pink shrimp (which may be 1 month or 2 months, depending on the 
fishery and the time of year), may retain the larger of the two limits, 
but only if the limit(s) for each gear or fishery are not exceeded when 
operating in that fishery or with that gear. The limits are not 
additive; the vessel may not retain a separate trip limit for each 
fishery.

D. Recreational Fishery

    (1) California. (Note: California law provides that, in times and 
areas when the recreational fishery is open, there is a 20-fish bag 
limit for all species of finfish, within which no more than 10 fish of 
any one species may be taken or possessed by any one person.) For each 
person engaged in recreational fishing seaward of California, the 
following seasons and bag limits apply:
    (a) Rockfish. (i) Cowcod Conservation Areas. Recreational fishing 
for groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, as described above at 
IV.A.(20), except that fishing for rockfish is permitted in waters 
inside the 20-fathom (37 m) depth contour within the CCAs from March 1 
through October 31, 2002, subject to the bag limits in paragraph (iii) 
of this section.
    (ii) Seasons. North of 40 deg.10' N. lat., recreational fishing for 
rockfish is open from January 1 through December 31. South of 
40 deg.10' N. lat. and north of Point Conception (34 deg.27' N. lat.), 
recreational fishing for rockfish is closed from March 1 through April 
30, and from November 1 through December 31. This area is also closed 
to recreational rockfish fishing from May 1 through June 30 and from 
September 1 through October 31, except that fishing for rockfish is 
permitted inside the 20 fathom (37 m) depth contour, subject to the bag 
limits in paragraph (iii) of this section, except that bocaccio, canary 
rockfish and yelloweye rockfish retention is prohibited. South of Point 
Conception (34 deg.27' N. lat.), recreational fishing for rockfish is 
closed from January 1 through February 28 and from November 1 through 
December 31. Recreational fishing for cowcod is prohibited all year in 
all areas.
    (iii) Bag limits, boat limits, hook limits. In times and areas when 
the recreational season for rockfish is open, there is a 2-hook limit 
per fishing line,

[[Page 10522]]

and the bag limit is 10 rockfish per day, of which no more than 2 may 
be bocaccio, no more than 1 may be canary rockfish, and no more than 1 
may be yelloweye rockfish. No more than 2 yelloweye rockfish may be 
retained per vessel. Cowcod may not be retained. Bocaccio, canary 
rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish may not be retained, and no more than 
2 shelf rockfish may be retained, in the area between 40 deg.10' N. 
lat. and Point Conception (34 deg.27' N. lat.) from May 1 through June 
30, or September 1 through October 31. (Note: California scorpionfish, 
are subject to California's 10 fish bag limit per species, but are not 
counted toward the 10 rockfish bag limit.) 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.
    (iv) Size limits. The following rockfish size limits apply: 
bocaccio may be no smaller than 10 inches (25 cm), and California 
scorpionfish may be no smaller than 10 inches (25 cm).
    (v) Dressing/Fileting. Rockfish skin may not be removed when 
fileting or otherwise dressing rockfish taken in the recreational 
fishery. The following rockfish filet size limits apply: bocaccio 
filets may be no smaller than 5 inches (12.8 cm); California 
scorpionfish filets may be no smaller than 5 inches (12.8 cm); and 
brown-skinned rockfish filets may be no smaller than 6.5 inches (16.6 
cm). ``Brown-skinned'' rockfish include the following species: brown, 
calico, copper, gopher, kelp, olive, speckled, squarespot, and 
yellowtail.
    (b) Roundfish (Lingcod, cabezon, kelp greenling)-(i) Cowcod 
Conservation Areas. Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited 
within the CCAs, as described above at section IV.A.(20), except that 
fishing for lingcod is permitted in waters inside the 20 fathom (37 m) 
depth contour within the CCAs from March 1 through October 31, 2002, 
subject to the bag limits in paragraph (iii) of this section. Fishing 
for cabezon and kelp greenling is allowed in waters inside the 20 
fathom (37 m) depth contour within the CCAs year round.
    (ii) Seasons. North of 40 deg.10' N. lat., recreational fishing for 
lingcod is open from January 1 through December 31. South of 40 deg.10' 
N. lat. and north of Point Conception (34 deg.27' N. lat.), 
recreational fishing for lingcod is closed from March 1 through April 
30, and from November 1 through December 31. This area is also closed 
to recreational lingcod fishing from May 1 through June 30 and from 
September 1 through October 31, except that fishing for lingcod is 
permitted inside the 20 fathom (36.9 m) depth contour, subject to the 
bag limits in paragraph (iii) of this section. South of Point 
Conception (34 deg.27' N. lat.), recreational fishing for lingcod is 
closed from January 1 through February 28 and from November 1 through 
December 31.
    (iii) Bag limits, boat limits, hook limits. In times and areas when 
the recreational season for lingcod is open, there is a 2-hook limit 
per fishing line, and the bag limit is 2 lingcod per day. 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.
    (iv) Size limits. The following roundfish size limits apply: 
lingcod may be no smaller than 24 inches (61 cm) total length, cabezon 
may be no smaller than 15 inches (38 cm); and kelp greenling may be no 
smaller than 12 inches (30 cm).
    (v) Dressing/Fileting. Cabezon and kelp greenling taken in the 
recreational fishery may not be fileted at sea. Lingcod filets may be 
no smaller than 15 inches (38.1 cm).
    (2) Oregon. The bag limits for each person engaged in recreational 
fishing seaward of Oregon are 1 lingcod per day, which may be no 
smaller than 24 inches (61 cm) total length; and 10 rockfish per day, 
of which no more than 1 may be canary rockfish and no more than 1 may 
be yelloweye rockfish. During the all-depth recreational fisheries for 
Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolopis), vessels with halibut on 
board may not take, retain, possess or land yelloweye rockfish.
    (3) Washington. For each person engaged in recreational fishing 
seaward of Washington, the following seasons and bag limits apply:
    (a) Rockfish. There is a rockfish bag limit of no more than 10 
rockfish per day, of which no more than 2 may be canary rockfish. 
Taking and retaining yelloweye rockfish is prohibited off the Coast of 
Washington.
    (b) Lingcod. Recreational fishing for lingcod is closed between 
January 1 and April 15, and between October 16 and December 31. When 
the recreational season for lingcod is open, there is a bag limit of 2 
lingcod per day, which may be no smaller than 24 inches (61 cm) total 
length.

V. Washington Coastal Tribal Fisheries

    The Assistant Administrator (AA) announces the following tribal 
allocations for 2002, including those that are the same as in 2001. 
Trip limits for certain species were recommended by the tribes and the 
Council and are specified here with the tribal allocations.

A. Sablefish

    The tribal allocation is 424 mt, 10 percent of the total catch OY, 
less 3 percent estimated discard mortality.

B. Rockfish

    (1) For the commercial harvest of black rockfish off Washington 
State, a harvest guideline of: 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) north of Cape Alava 
(48 deg.09'30'' N. lat.) and 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) between Destruction 
Island (47 deg.40'00'' N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point (46 deg.38'10'' N. 
lat.).
    (2) Thornyheads are subject to a 300 lb (136 kg) trip limit.
    (3) Canary rockfish are subject to a 300 lb (136 kg) trip limit.
    (4) Yelloweye rockfish are subject to a 100 lb (45 kg) trip limit.
    (5) Yellowtail rockfish taken in the tribal mid-water trawl 
fisheries are subject to a cumulative limit of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) 
per two-month period. Landings of widow rockfish must not exceed 10 
percent of the weight of yellowtail rockfish landed in any two-month 
period. These limits may be adjusted by an individual tribe inseason to 
minimize the incidental catch of canary rockfish and widow rockfish.
    (6) Other rockfish, including minor nearshore, minor shelf, and 
minor slope rockfish groups are subject to a 300 lb (136 kg) trip limit 
per species or species group, or to the non-tribal limited entry trip 
limit for those species if those limits are less restrictive than 300 
lb (136 kg) per trip.
    (7) Rockfish taken during open competition tribal commercial 
fisheries for Pacific halibut will not be subject to trip limits.

C. Lingcod

    Lingcod are subject to a 300 lb (136 kg) daily trip limit and a 900 
lb (408 kg) weekly limit.

D. Pacific whiting

    Whiting allocations will be announced when the final OY is 
announced.

Classification

    These final specifications and management measures for 2002 are 
issued under the authority of, and are in accordance with, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and 50 CFR parts 600 and 660 subpart G 
(the regulations implementing the FMP).
    This package of specifications and management measures is intended 
to protect overfished and depleted groundfish stocks while also 
allowing as much harvest of healthy stocks as

[[Page 10523]]

possible over the course of the year. A 30-day delay in effectiveness 
for these rules would in fact be a 60-day delay, because most of the 
trip limits are two-month limits, so most fishers could land the entire 
two month limit before the rules went into effect in 30 days. Delay in 
implementation of these regulatory measures could cause harm to some 
stocks, as fishing would continue using the less restrictive March-
December 2001 management measures until the implementation of these 
2002 regulations. For example, limits for dover sole are substantially 
larger for March and April in 2001 than during March and April in 2002. 
Also, the 2002 regulations allow no mid-water fishing for widow 
rockfish above the small footrope limit, but the 2001 regulations allow 
20,000 lb in March and April. Delay in publishing these measures could 
also require unnecessarily restrictive measures, including possible 
closures, later in the year to make up for the excessive harvest 
allowed by late implementation of these regulations, causing economic 
harm to the fishing industry and fishing communities. For these 
reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to determine that 
delaying the effectiveness of this rule for 30 days would be contrary 
to the public interest.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
     NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
describing the impact of this action on small entities. The IRFA was 
summarized in the proposed rule published on January 11, 2002 (67 FR 
1555). The following is the summary of the FRFA. The need for and 
objectives of this final rule are contained in the SUMMARY and 
Background section of the preamble. NMFS did not receive any comments 
on the IRFA or on the proposed rule regarding the economic effects of 
this final rule.
     Approximately 2,000 vessels participate in the West Coast 
groundfish fisheries. Of those, about 500 vessels are registered with 
limited entry permits issued for either trawl, longline, or pot gear. 
About 1,500 vessels land groundfish against open access limits while 
either directly targeting groundfish or taking groundfish incidentally 
in fisheries directed at non-groundfish species. All but 10-20 of those 
vessels are considered small businesses by the Small Business 
Administration. There are also about 700 groundfish buyers on the West 
Coast, approximately 250 of which annually purchased at least $33,000 
of groundfish in 2000. In the 2001 recreational fisheries, there were 
106 charter vessels engaged in salt water fishing outside of Puget 
Sound, 232 charter vessels active on the Oregon coast and 415 charter 
vessels active on the California coast.
    In developing the 2002 specifications and management measures, the 
Council considered three issues, each with several alternatives and 
sub-options, and ultimately recommended a management package that 
balanced the conservation and socioeconomic risks and benefits 
associated with all aspects of the 2002 Pacific Coast groundfish 
fishery. The three issues were harvest levels, bycatch and discard rate 
assumptions, and season structuring. Each issue had several 
alternatives with varying degrees of potential risks and benefits to 
the groundfish fishery, as described in the EA/RIR/IRFA. Less 
restrictive alternatives tend to buffer, but not necessarily 
ameliorate, the continued downward trend in economic benefits and 
fishing opportunities. However, the short term benefits of less 
restrictive alternatives were weighed against longer term stock 
conservation risks. The Council adopted alternatives modeled in the EA/
RIR/IRFA that encompass a reasonable range of options for the 2002 
groundfish fishery, given anticipated short and long term risks and 
benefits.
    Alternative harvest levels were developed for the seven stocks that 
were subject to new stock assessments or rebuilding strategies in 2001: 
sablefish, Pacific ocean perch (POP), widow rockfish, shortspine 
thornyhead, darkblotched rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, and Dover sole. 
Four alternatives were considered: the status quo, a low level of 
acceptable biological catch (ABC) and OY, high levels of ABC/OY, and 
the recommended action. The recommended action sets ABCs/OYs between 
the high and low levels, with the ABCs/OYs of the seven stocks at lower 
levels than the status quo alternative except for shortspine 
thornyheads and darkblotched rockfish, and represents a 21-percent 
reduction in commercial exvessel value from the status quo and a 
commensurate reduction in recreational catch. Neither the status quo 
alternative nor the high level alternative were recommended because 
they were not considered to sufficiently reduce the effects of 
incidental catches of overfished species in fisheries targeting healthy 
stocks. The low level alternative would reduce commercial exvessel 
value by 34 percent of the value of the status quo fishery, with a 
commensurate reduction in recreational catch. While this alternative 
would have provided more risk averse stock protection, it was rejected 
because its effects on the fishery would likely have caused even more 
severe economic disruptions, particularly in the limited entry trawl 
and fixed gear fisheries.
    The bycatch and discard rate estimation issue arose from the need 
to accurately account for total groundfish mortality and from recent 
legal challenges of past bycatch and discard rate assumptions. The 
Council used a synthesis of several scientific studies to provide a 
low-to-high range of bycatch rates for lingcod, bocaccio, canary 
rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, and POP for the limited entry trawl 
fishery. Four alternatives were considered, the status quo, a low end 
range of bycatch rates, a high end range of bycatch rates, and species-
specific bycatch rates, which were low-, mid-, or high, depending on 
the data availability and analytical fit for the relationship between 
each target fishery and bycatch species. The Council chose the 
individual species bycatch rates that were best supported by the 
available data. In choosing the preferred alternative the Council 
considered the legal requirements and the biological and economic 
consequences of over- or underestimating the bycatch rates. The Council 
rejected using the status quo bycatch and discard rate assumptions of 
2001 because the new analysis required by the Court provided a better 
basis for bycatch and discard management. Applying the low end 
alternative would not have been as constraining on the fishery, but 
represented a greater risk of overfishing depleted stocks if bycatch 
rates and total mortality were underestimated. Applying the high end 
alternative would have entailed less risk of overfishing, but would 
have been the most constraining on the fishery and would have incurred 
unnecessary economic losses if the total mortality were overestimated 
and for some species did not appear to use the best available data.
    The alternative season options considered area and time closures to 
allow higher trip limits and lessen regulatory discard of groundfish 
during open times and areas. Six alternatives were considered for the 
commercial seasons: the status quo, a year-round GMT recommended 
season, a coastwide 6-month season, a year-round Groundfish Advisory 
Panel (GAP) recommended season based on the preferred OYs, a year-round 
GAP recommended season based on the high end OYs, and the recommended 
action, which shaped seasons based on allowing harvest of the preferred 
OYs of healthy stocks during times and in areas

[[Page 10524]]

when bycatch of overfished stocks would be reduced. The status quo 
alternative was rejected because it would not have used the best 
available science (i.e., new stock assessments,) and would have 
violated the legal mandate to reconsider bycatch and discard mortality 
rate assumptions. The year-round GMT recommended season was rejected 
because it did not consider the restrictions needed for managing 
overfished species. The coastwide 6-month season was rejected because 
of the potential of processors and vessels to lose skilled workers, 
loss of markets, and weather constraints leading to inequitable fishing 
opportunities for different fishing sectors. The two year-round GAP 
recommended seasons were rejected because the landing limits for these 
seasons would have resulted in a higher bycatch of constraining stocks 
than would have been allowed under the range of harvest levels 
considered, possibly exceeding the OYs for those stocks.
    The fisheries agencies of the states of Oregon, Washington, and 
California presented several options for recreational fisheries off 
their respective states. In each case the Council adopted a preferred 
alternative that considered the preferred ABC/OY level and the bycatch 
constraints for their state- and area-specific fisheries.
    Allowable commercial catches of many groundfish are even lower than 
in 2001, but the Council has tried to restructure the timing of 
differential trip limits to provide commercial fisheries with greater 
flexibility in their fishing patterns while not increasing the overall 
catches. This restructuring is intended to limit the extent to which 
businesses such as tackle suppliers and gear shops that supply and 
support the fishing industry would suffer. Many commercial groundfish 
fishers have other fishing opportunities during the year, and these 
opportunities were taken into account. For example, the small-scale 
commercial fishers (and recreational fishers) in southern California 
would (under state regulations) still be able to fish for certain 
species in nearshore waters while the shelf is closed to protect 
overfished species. Nonetheless, the effects of these 2002 management 
measures on some fishers and communities will be severe, particularly 
for those without other opportunities. A copy of this analysis is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This rule does not propose any new reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements; however, the proposed rule was used in part as a vehicle 
to announce exempted fishing permits (EFPs) for 2002, which include 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Permit requirements relevant 
to the EFPs discussed in the proposed rule have been approved by OMB 
under control number 0648-0203 for Federal fisheries permits. The 
public reporting burden for applications for exempted fishery permits 
is estimated at 1 hour per response; the burden for reporting by 
exempted fishing permittees is estimated at 30 minutes per response. 
These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and revising the collection of information. EFP permittees 
would be owners or captains of West Coast groundfish fishing vessels, 
most of which are classified as small entities. No professional skills 
are needed for any of the reporting requirements of the EFP programs.
     A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 requires a 
plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this 
rule. In order to comply with this requirement, NMFS has produced a 
public notice labeled a Small Business Entity Compliance Guide for the 
2002 fishing season that includes trip limit tables and descriptions of 
2002 management measures. Contact NMFS to request a copy of this public 
notice (see ADDRESSES) or see the NMFS Northwest Region's groundfish 
website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 1sustfsh/ gdfsh01.htm.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this rule was developed after 
meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from 
the area covered by the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 
U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In 
addition, regulations implementing the FMP establish a procedure by 
which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the 
FMP request new allocation or regulations specific to the tribes, in 
writing, before the first of the two autumn groundfish meetings of the 
Council. The regulation at 50 CFR 660.324(d) further states ``the 
Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations under this 
paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as 
possible, with tribal consensus.'' The tribal management measures in 
this final rule have been developed following these procedures. The 
tribal representative on the Council made a motion to adopt the tribal 
management measures, which was passed by the Council, and those 
management measures, which were developed and proposed by the tribes, 
are included in this final rule.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) under the Endangered Species 
Act 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 groundfish fishery 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, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California 
coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal, Oregon coastal), 
chum salmon (Hood Canal, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, 
Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, 
Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, 
California Central Valley, south-central California, northern 
California, southern California). NMFS has concluded that 
implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is 
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 has re-
initiated consultation on the Pacific whiting fishery associated with 
the (whiting BO) issued on December 15, 1999. During the 2000 whiting 
season, the whiting fisheries exceeded the chinook bycatch amount 
specified in the BO's incidental take statement's incidental take 
estimates, 11,000 fish, by approximately 500 fish. In the 2001 whiting 
season, however, the whiting fishery's chinook bycatch was well below 
the 11,000 fish incidental take estimates. The re-initiation will focus 
primarily on additional actions that the whiting fisheries would take 
to reduce chinook interception, such as time/area management. NMFS is 
gathering data from the 2001 whiting fisheries and expects that the re-
initiated whiting BO will be complete by April 2002. During the 
reinitiation, fishing under the FMP is within the scope of the December 
15, 1999, BO, so long as the annual incidental take of chinook stays 
under the 11,000 fish bycatch limit. NMFS has concluded that 
implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is 
not expected to jeopardize the

[[Page 10525]]

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the 
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. This action is within the scope of 
these consultations.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 1, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN 
PACIFIC

    l. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 660.323, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 660.323  Catch restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Primary season-limited entry, fixed gear sablefish fishery-(A) 
Season dates. North of 36 deg. N. lat., the primary sablefish season 
for limited entry, fixed gear vessels begins at 12 noon l.t. on April 1 
and ends at 12 noon l.t. on October 31, unless otherwise announced by 
the Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-5302 Filed 3-1-02; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S