[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67810-67896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26941]



[[Page 67809]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 660



Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 67810]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100804324-0489-01]
RIN 0648-BA01


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed action would establish the 2011-2012 harvest 
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 
California consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 
Plan (PCGFMP). This action revises the collection of management 
measures in the groundfish fishery regulations that are intended to 
keep the total catch of each groundfish species or species complex 
within the harvest specifications. This action also includes 
regulations to implement Amendments 16-5 and 23 to the PCGFMP. 
Amendment 16-5 would revise existing rebuilding plans, create a new 
rebuilding plan for Petrale sole, which was declared overfished on 
February 9, 2010, and revise status determination criteria and a 
harvest control rule for flatfish. This action is consistent with and 
partially implements Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP. Amendment 23 would 
make the PCGFMP consistent with the revised National Standard 1 
Guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009).

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on 
December 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the RIN number 0648-
BA01, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko.
     Mail: William Stelle, Administrator, Northwest Region, 
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky 
Renko.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will accept anonymous 
comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS), a regulatory impact review 
(RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are 
available for public review during business hours at the office of the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE. Ambassador 
Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280. Copies of additional 
reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the 
Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko, phone: 206-526-6110, fax: 
206-526-6736, or e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the 
Federal Register Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the 
NMFS Northwest Region Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfm and at the Council's 
Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is managed under the PCGFMP. 
The PCGFMP was prepared by the Council, approved on July 30, 1984, and 
was implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations at 
50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, implement the provisions of the 
PCGFMP.
    The amount of each Pacific Coast groundfish species or species 
complex that is available for harvest in a specific year is referred to 
as a harvest specification. The PCGFMP requires the harvest 
specifications and management measures for groundfish to be set at 
least biennially. This proposed rule, which proposes the Council's 
preferred alternative, would set 2011-2012 harvest specifications and 
management measures for the 90-plus groundfish species or species 
complexes managed under the PCGFMP. The groundfish fishery regulations 
include a collection of management measures intended to keep the total 
catch of each groundfish species or species complex within the harvest 
specifications. The management measures would be revised by this 
action.
    The following groundfish species have been declared as overfished 
and are currently being managed under rebuilding plans: Bocaccio south 
of 40[deg]10' north latitude; canary rockfish; cowcod south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude; darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch 
(POP), widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. This action also updates 
the existing overfished species rebuilding plans.
    Petrale sole was declared overfished on February 9, 2010. The 
proposed action adds a new rebuilding plan for petrale sole under 
Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP. In addition, also under Amendment 16-5, 
the proposed action modifies status determination criteria in the 
PCGFMP for flatfish and adds to the PCGFMP a new precautionary harvest 
control rule for flatfish.
    On January 16, 2009, NMFS adopted revisions to its guidelines 
implementing Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 (74 FR 3178) to 
prevent and end overfishing and rebuild fisheries. The proposed action 
would implement a new fishery specification framework under Amendment 
23 to the PCGFMP including: Overfishing limits (OFLs), an acceptable 
biological catch (ABC) that incorporates a scientific uncertainty 
buffer in specifications, annual catch limits (ACLs), and annual catch 
targets (ACTs). These new specifications are designed to better account 
for scientific and management uncertainty and to prevent overfishing. 
Amendment 23 also removes dusky and dwarf-red rockfish from the list of 
species in the groundfish fisheries.
    On April 29, 2010, the District Court for the Northern District of 
California ruled that the 2009-2010 harvest specifications for three 
overfished species (cowcod, darkblotched, and yelloweye) violated the 
MSA and ordered that NMFS apply its 2008 harvest levels for these 
species in 2010. (Natural Resources Defense Council v.

[[Page 67811]]

Locke (N.D. Cal., 2010) here after refered to as NRDC v. Locke.) On 
July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the harvest specifications for yelloweye 
rockfish, cowcod and darkbloched rockfish to be consistent with the 
court order (75 FR 38030). The court further ordered NMFS to publish 
new specifications within one year of its ruling.
    This proposed rule is based on the Council's final decisions on the 
2011 and 2012 biennial specifications and management measures, and on 
Amendment 23 and Amendment 16-5 at its June 2010 meeting. The 
supporting rationale described in this proposed rule is based on the 
DEIS prepared by the Council and other documents developed as part of 
the Council's decision process. NMFS has not made its final 
determination regarding its approval of the two amendments or whether 
the proposed specifications are consistent with the PCGFMP, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, including the April 29, 
2010 Court Order on Remedy in NRDC v. Locke.

Specification and Management Measure Development Process

    The process for setting the 2011 and 2012 biennial harvest 
specifications began in 2009 with the preparation of stock assessments. 
A stock assessment is the scientific and statistical process where the 
status of a fish population or subpopulation (stock) is assessed in 
terms of population size, reproductive status, fishing mortality, and 
sustainability. In the terms of the PCGFMP, stock assessments generally 
provide: (1) An estimate of the current biomass (reproductive 
potential); (2) an FMSY or proxy (a default harvest rate for 
the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the maximum 
sustainable yield), translated into exploitation rate; (3) an estimate 
of the biomass that produces the maximum sustainable yield 
(BMSY); and, (4) a precision estimate (e.g., confidence 
interval) for current biomass estimate. Each stock assessment is 
prepared by a stock assessment scientist then reviewed by the Council's 
stock assessment review panel (STAR--The STAR panel is a key part of a 
process designed to review the technical merits of stock assessments 
and is responsible for determining if a stock assessment document is 
sufficiently complete) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC).
    In each biennial period, the Council and NMFS consider a number of 
full stock assessments, where each stock assessment model is critically 
examined and possibly updated. They also use stock assessment updates 
to update an existing assessment by incorporating the most recent data. 
A stock assessment update must carry forward the fundamental structure 
from the model that was previously reviewed and endorsed by a STAR 
panel. Stock assessment updates are prepared for stocks that have been 
determined to have a stable model approach to data analysis and 
modeling.
    For overfished stocks a rebuilding analysis is also prepared. The 
rebuilding analysis is used to project the status of the overfished 
resource into the future under a variety of alternative harvest 
strategies to determine the probability of recovering to 
BMSY (or its proxy) within a specified time-frame. Minimum 
requirements for rebuilding analyses for routine situations have been 
established by the SSC and are applied with computer package developed 
by Dr Andr[eacute] Punt (University of Washington). The SSC encourages 
analysts to explore alternative calculations and projections that may 
more accurately capture uncertainties in stock rebuilding and which may 
better represent stock-specific concerns. In the event of a discrepancy 
between the calculations resulting from Dr Andr[eacute] Punt's program, 
the SSC groundfish subcommittee will review the issue and recommend 
which results to use. The SSC also encourages explicit consideration of 
uncertainty in projections of stock rebuilding, including comparisons 
of alternative states of nature using decision tables to quantify the 
impact of model uncertainty. The rebuilding analyses include: An 
estimation of B0 (the unfished biomass and hence 
BMSY or its proxy); the selection of a method to generate 
future recruitment; the specification of the mean generation time; a 
calculation of the minimum possible rebuilding time (TMIN); 
and, the identification and analysis of alternative harvest strategies 
and rebuilding times.
    At the Council's June, September and November 2009 meetings, new 
stock assessments, stock assessment updates and rebuilding analyses 
were made available to the Council as was an SSC report on whether the 
SSC considered the documents to be the ``best available science'' 
suitable for use in setting biennial harvest specifications. The 
Council considered the information brought forward from its advisory 
bodies and public comment before approving the new stock assessments, 
stock assessment updates and rebuilding analyses for setting the 2011 
and 2012 biennial harvest specifications.
    The biennial harvest specifications and management measures are 
developed over the course of three Council meetings. At its November 
2009 meeting the Council recommended an initial range of harvest 
specifications and management measures based on the new stock 
assessments, new rebuilding analyses, recommendations of its advisory 
bodies, and public comment. Using the Council's initial harvest 
specifications and management measure recommendations, the Council's 
advisory bodies developed initial alternatives for a draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    A holistic or integrated approach was taken in the development of 
alternatives in the Draft EIS for this action. The newly adopted 
rebuilding analyses were used to develop a range of alternatives driven 
by the annual catch limits (ACLs) for overfished species. The 
interrelated nature of the Pacific Coast groundfish stocks makes the 
consideration of holistic alternatives necessary. The degree of 
interaction between overfished species and other stocks is such that 
``rebuilding as quickly as possible while taking into account the needs 
of fishing communities'' is not possible based solely on a species-by 
species approach.
    At its April 2010, meeting, the Council made recommendations on 
overfishing limits (OFLs) for all groundfish stocks and stock 
complexes. At this same meeting, the Council made recommendations on 
preferred 2011 and 2012 acceptable biological catches (ABCs) that 
incorporate scientific uncertainty buffers for all groundfish stocks 
and stock complexes, and preferred 2011 and 2012 ACLs for all non-
overfished groundfish stocks and stock complexes. A preliminary 
analysis of the holistic alternatives relative to the biological and 
socio-economic environment and consistent with the requirements of NEPA 
was further developed and made available to the public, the Council, 
and the Council's advisory bodies prior to the June 2010 meeting. 
Additional information that further refined the analysis was provided 
at the Council's June meeting. At its June 2010 meeting, the Council 
considered the holistic alternatives, the analysis, reports provides by 
its advisory bodies and public comment before making final 
recommendations on the groundfish harvest specifications, rebuilding 
plan revisions for overfished groundfish species, and groundfish 
fishery management measures.
    The alternative actions considered by the Council were consistent 
with the harvest specification framework proposed under Amendment 23 to 
the PCGFMP, which contemplates setting an OFL, an ABC that incorporates 
a scientific uncertainty buffer, and an ACL for each groundfish stock 
and stock

[[Page 67812]]

complex. A final decision regarding approval of Amendment 23 is 
expected by January 1, 2011. The alternative actions considered by the 
Council were also consistent with Amendments 20 and 21 to the PCGFMP 
which were approved August 9, 2010 and which are expected to be fully 
implemented by January 1, 2011. The components of these PCGFMP 
amendments and the relationship of each to the biennial harvest 
specifications are further discussed below.

Decision Process

    To best inform the decision process, an analysis was prepared that 
contrasted the Council's preliminary preferred alternative against the 
other alternatives relative to the Council's stated goals and 
objectives for rebuilding. The Council's goals and objectives for 
rebuilding plans are identified in section 4.5.3.1 of the PCGFMP: ``The 
overall goals of rebuilding programs are to (1) achieve the population 
size and structure that will support the maximum sustainable yield 
within a specified time period that is as short as possible, taking 
into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing 
communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within the marine 
ecosystem; (2) minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse social 
and economic impacts associated with rebuilding, including adverse 
impacts on fishing communities; (3) fairly and equitably distribute 
both the conservation burdens (overfishing restrictions) and recovery 
benefits among commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors; 
(4) protect the quantity and quality of habitat necessary to support 
the stock at healthy levels in the future; and (5) promote widespread 
public awareness, understanding and support for the rebuilding 
program.'' These overall goals are derived from and consistent with the 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The first goal mirrors 
Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 and the requirements for 
rebuilding overfished stocks found at Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
304(e)(4)(A). The second goal, to minimize adverse impacts to fishing 
communities is required by Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 8. 
The third goal is required by Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
304(e)(4)(B). The fourth and fifth goals represent additional policy 
preferences of the Council that recognize the importance of habitat 
protection to the rebuilding of some fish stocks and the desire for 
public outreach and education on the complexities--biological, 
economic, and social issue--involved with rebuilding overfished stocks.
    Each rebuilding analysis is based on parameters from the stock 
assessment and projects the future status of the stock based on the 
rebuilding alternatives being considered by the Council using Monte 
Carlo simulation techniques. There is considerable scientific 
uncertainty involved with these projections, which the rebuilding 
analysis expresses as the probability of the stock being rebuilt in any 
given year. The rebuilding analysis estimates the shortest time to 
rebuild, referred to as TMIN. TMIN is the time it 
takes to rebuild the stock, with a 50 percent probability, if all 
fishing caused mortality is ceased. The Council's policy for rebuilding 
is established with a TTARGET. TTARGET is the 
year in which the Council expects the stock to rebuild with at least a 
50 percent probability under the chosen rebuilding strategy. A 
particular TTARGET is determined by the productivity of the 
stock, its current status (a.k.a, ``status and biology''), and the 
allowable harvest associated with a particular rebuilding strategy. The 
target abundance for rebuilding is the biomass level that produces 
maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
    Section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides: That any 
fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations for 
rebuilding an overfished fishery shall--``(A) specify a time period for 
rebuilding the fishery that shall--(i) be as short as possible, taking 
into account the status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, 
the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international 
organizations in which the United States participates, and the 
interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine 
ecosystem; and (ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the 
biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or 
management measures under an international agreement in which the 
United States participates dictates otherwise''.
    Because so many of the groundfish stocks are intermixed in 
different proportions, making adjustments to protect one stock may 
increase the impacts on other stocks. The Council's integrated 
rebuilding strategy, when taking into account the biology of the stocks 
and the needs of the fishing communities, centers on pushing fishing 
effort off of the more sensitive rebuilding species and on to the less 
sensitive rebuilding species (i.e., off of species with longer 
rebuilding times and onto species able to rebuild more quickly). This 
concept was adopted in Amendment 16-4 to the PCGFMP as the best way of 
taking into account the biology of the stocks and the needs of fishing 
communities in a holistic fashion that simultaneously considers all 
rebuilding species and groundfish sectors.
    Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP provides the following general 
guidance on the needs of the fishing communities: ``Fishing communities 
need a sustainable fishery that: Is safe, well-managed, and profitable; 
provides jobs and incomes; contributes to the local social fabric, 
culture, and image of the community; and helps market the community and 
its services and products.''
    The rockfish rebuilding plans are challenging as overfished 
rockfish indirectly affect fishing opportunities by constraining the 
harvest of target stocks; they affect multiple commercial and 
recreational fishery sectors; it is difficult to lessen fishing impacts 
on one rockfish species without affecting another; some rockfish 
populations are so slow growing that even small increases in the long-
term harvest rate can delay rebuilding for a number of years. The 
Council has approached this challenging situation using a comprehensive 
approach to analyzing rebuilding alternatives and impacts to fishing 
communities.
    Because the rebuilding results in revenue losses in the short-term 
and often in the medium-term, the communities that bear the greatest 
short-term and medium-term revenue impact are those most dependent on 
groundfish and the least resilient. To avoid disastrous short-term 
consequences for fishing communities, harvest levels above the 
TMIN level were considered. The harvest specifications and 
management measures in the Council's preliminary preferred and final 
preferred alternatives considered were generally similar to those in 
place at the start of 2010, with some increased opportunity to the 
California recreational and nearshore fixed gear fisheries south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude. The remaining alternatives recommended for 
analysis by the Council were more restrictive, to provide a meaningful 
analysis of the shortest time possible to rebuild overfished stocks.
    In its recommendations for overfished species rebuilding plans and 
groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for 2011 and 
2012, the Council was clear that it did not expect fishing community 
needs (described in Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP) could be met by the 
rebuilding plans and management measures being recommended. While the 
Council could not meet the needs of fishing

[[Page 67813]]

communities, the Council took them into account as directed by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and recommended harvest specifications and 
management measures that could allow fishing businesses and communities 
to operate at a level that could provide for the continued existence of 
fishing businesses and communities. Opportunities for economic growth 
or profit would only be allowed if they were consistent with the 
adopted rebuilding policies. The Council expressed particular interest 
in seeing the success of new trawl fishery management measures (trawl 
rationalization) and the expected long-term benefits. The supporting 
draft EIS for this action assesses, through the analysis of integrated 
rebuilding alternatives, the needs of groundfish fishing communities, 
the dependence of fishing communities on overfished species, and the 
vulnerability of fishing communities to further near-term reductions in 
groundfish harvest.
    The Council and fisheries science are just beginning to consider 
approaches for transitioning to ecosystem based fisheries management. 
Models for assessing impacts on the marine environment are being 
developed. Given that this area of marine science is in development, 
the respective impact of the rebuilding alternatives on ecosystem 
structure and function cannot be described by science at this time.
    At the start of each biennial management cycle, NMFS and the 
Council establish fishery management measures that are expected to 
allow as much harvest of the healthy species ACLs as possible without 
exceeding allowable harvest levels for co-occurring overfished species. 
At the start of the biennial period, the management measures are based 
on the best scientific information available at the time. However, as 
catch data and new scientific information become available during the 
fishing year, NMFS and the Council's knowledge may change. Catch data 
vary in quality and abundance both before and during the season, and 
catch of the most constraining overfished species may also occur in 
fisheries not managed under the PCGFMP.
    Managing a coastwide fishery to ensure that ACLs of overfished 
species are not exceeded is particularly difficult because of the low 
ACLs. If new information received during the season reveals that total 
catch is occurring at a faster pace than initially anticipated, 
management action would be needed to keep the harvest of healthy stocks 
and the incidental catch of overfished species at or below their 
specified ACLs. If these inseason adjustments to management measures 
are dramatic, such as an early closure of a fishery, then the effects 
of management actions on the fishing communities can be severe. To 
prevent major inseason changes in management measures, the 2011-2012 
overfished species ACLs account for management uncertainty in order to 
minimize the potential need for dramatic inseason measures. In other 
words, currently available scientific information is used to design 
management measures that are projected to result in overfished species 
harvest levels that are somewhat lower than their ACLs. In addition, 
for some overfished species (yelloweye rockfish and POP) annual catch 
targets (ACTs) have been proposed. ACTs provide an additional buffer to 
account for uncertainty and unexpected occurrences within the fishery. 
This additional measure helps prevent ACLs from being exceeded. Even 
with these safeguards, information that becomes available during the 
fishing year from activities within the fishery and from activities 
outside the fishery (i.e. research fishing mortality) may reveal that 
previously set management measures need to be revised inseason. If that 
is the case, management measures will be appropriately adjusted 
inseason.

District Court Ruling in NRDC v. Locke

    NRDC challenged the 2009-2010 groundfish harvest specifications (74 
FR 9,874, March 6, 2009), asserting that the harvest specifications for 
seven overfished species of Pacific groundfish: darkblotched rockfish, 
cowcod, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio, Pacific Ocean 
Perch, and widow rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801-1891, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 
U.S.C.A. 4321 et seq. The 2009-2010 harvest specifications revised the 
Amendment 16-4 rebuilding periods for four of the seven overfished 
species in accordance with the PCGFMP's rebuilding framework. The Court 
upheld the integrated approach, but determined that the 2009-2010 
harvest specifications for darkblotched rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye 
rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act by failing to rebuild the 
species in as short a time as possible and ordered the agency to 
develop, within one year of the Order, revised rebuilding plans for 
those species that are consistent with the MSA.
    With respect to yelloweye rockfish, the court vacated the OY of 17 
metric tons (mt) for 2009-2010 and established an OY of 14 mt for 2010, 
consistent with the ``ramp down'' strategy that the agency adopted in 
the 2007-2008 specifications. The court likewise vacated the 2009-2010 
cowcod OY of 4 mt and the darkblotched rockfish OYs of 285 mt and 291 
mt for 2009 and 2010 stating that they do not rebuild in time periods 
that are as short as possible. For these two species, the court 
established OY levels consistent with the most recent levels in 2007-
2008.
    On July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the harvest specifications for 
yelloweye rockfish, cowcod and darkblotched rockfish to be consistent 
with the court order (75 FR 38030) and projected impacts to 
darkblotched rockfish in 2010 are being actively managed to prevent 
exceeding 290 mt.
    The court also agreed with NRDC's argument that NMFS' decisions 
regarding the rebuilding plans were arbitrary and capricious because 
the agency relied on economic data from 1998, before any of the species 
at issue in the case were declared overfished, and did not use 2002 
data that was available to it. The court ruled that the 1998 data was 
not the best available scientific information, and distorted current 
revenue losses by comparing them to revenues resulting from fishing 
losses before fishing was constrained to rebuild overfished species. 
The use of the 1998 data, the court opined, ``weight[ed] the Agency's 
analysis in favor of short-term economic interests and against 
conservation, in violation of the MSA.'' NMFS used a different approach 
in this biennial cycle.

PCGFMP Amendment 23

    On January 16, 2009, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal 
Register to implement new requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens 
Reauthorization Act by amending the National Standard Guidelines (50 
CFR 600.310) for National Standard 1. National Standard guidelines aid 
in the development and review of fishery management plans (plans), plan 
amendments, and regulations prepared by the regional Fishery Management 
Councils and the Secretary of Commerce. National Standard 1 establishes 
the relationship between conservation and management measures, 
preventing overfishing, and achieving OY from each stock, stock complex 
or fishery. The National Standard 1 guidelines also address the 
classification of stocks within a fishery management plan, and the new 
requirement in the MSRA that fishery management plans include annual 
catch limits (ACLs) to prevent overfishing. Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP 
is intended to modify the harvest specification framework in the PCGFMP

[[Page 67814]]

to be consistent with the revised National Standard 1 guidelines. An 
approval decision on Amendment 23 is expected prior to January 1, 2011. 
Therefore, the harvest specifications being considered for 2011 and 
2012 are consistent with the provisions of Amendment 23.
    To better account for scientific and management uncertainty and to 
prevent overfishing, the revised National Standard 1 guidelines 
introduced new fishery management concepts including: OFL, ACL, ACT, 
and accountability measures (AMs), and defined the term ABC. The 
concept of OY remains in the PCGFMP as revisions to National Standard 1 
did not alter the definition of OY.
    Under the Amendment 23 framework the OFL is an estimate of the 
maximum amount of annual catch of a stock or stock complex from all 
sources (includes landed and discarded catch) that does not result in 
overfishing. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is 
subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the 
stock's capacity to produce MSY (an estimate of the largest long-term 
average annual catch or yield that can be taken from each stock under 
prevailing ecological and environmental conditions) on a continuing 
basis. This level is also referred to as the maximum fishing mortality 
threshold (MFMT) in the PCGFMP. The OFL is comparable to the ABC 
specification used in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 1999 
through 2010.
    The term ABC is redefined under proposed Amendment 23 as an annual 
catch specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by 
an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. Proposed Amendment 23 
revises the descriptions of species categories used in the development 
of the ABC. The first category (category 1) includes those species 
where relatively data-rich quantitative stock assessment can be 
conducted on the basis of catch-at-age, catch-at-length or other data. 
OFLs and overfished/rebuilding thresholds can generally be calculated 
for these species. The second category (category 2) includes species 
for which some biological indicators are available, including a 
relatively data-poor quantitative assessment or non-quantitative 
assessments. The third category (category 3) includes minor species 
which are caught and where the only available information is on the 
landed biomass.
    For species that have had relatively data-rich quantitative stock 
assessments prepared (category 1 stocks), the Council chose to 
determine ABC based on the SSC-recommended framework for estimating the 
relative risk of overfishing the stock (referred to as the P* 
approach). The SSC quantified the scientific uncertainty in the 
estimate of OFL ([sigma]) and presented a range of probabilities of 
overfishing (P*). Each P* value links to a corresponding fraction that 
is used to reduce the OFL and to derive an ABC. As the P* value is 
reduced, the probability of the ABC being greater than the ``true'' OFL 
becomes lower. The Council then determines its preferred level of risk 
aversion by selecting an appropriate P* value. Amendment 23 provides 
that the P*-Sigma approach for quantifying scientific uncertainty will 
be the default approach for category 1 species unless an SSC-
recommended method is adopted by the Council during the biennial 
specification process.
    For stocks with data-poor stock assessments or no stock assessments 
(category 2 and 3 stocks), proposed Amendment 23 recognizes that there 
is greater scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. Therefore, 
the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that 
recommended for stocks with quantitative stock assessments. It may be 
determined using straight percentage reductions (25% for category 2 or 
50% for category 3) or using the P* approach with larger sigma values. 
The Council adopted an upper limit on P* for all three categories of 
0.45. For category 2 and 3 species, Amendment 23 provides that either 
the P*-Sigma approach or the straight percentage reduction from OFL 
will be used unless the Council adopts an SSC-recommended approach 
during the biennial specification process.
    The ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC 
threshold which considers conservation objectives, socio-economic 
concerns, management uncertainty and other factors. All sources of 
fishing-related mortality including landings, discard mortality, and 
catches in exempted fishing permit activities are counted against the 
ACL. In addition, research fishing catches are counted against the ACL. 
Sector-specific ACLs may be specified, particularly in cases where a 
sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of 
a stock or stock complex. The new ACL values are comparable to the OY 
specification used in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 1999 
through 2010.
    The ACTs are management targets set below the ACL to address 
management uncertainty. The term ``catch'' includes fish that are 
retained for any purpose, as well as mortality of fish that are 
discarded. Therefore, for fisheries where estimates are not available 
in a timely enough manner to manage retained and discarded catch 
(bycatch) inseason, targets may be specified. In addition, a sector-
specific ACT may serve as a harvest guideline for a sector or used 
strategically in a rebuilding plan to attempt to reduce mortality of an 
overfished stock more than the rebuilding plan limits prescribe. These 
targets account for landings and bycatch estimates such that the total 
of landings and bycatch will not exceed the stock or stock complex's 
ACL. Since the annual catch target is a target and not a limit it can 
be used in lieu of harvest guidelines or strategically to accomplish 
other management objectives. Sector-specific annual catch targets can 
also be specified to accomplish management objectives.
    The AMs are management controls that prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs 
from being exceeded, where possible, and correct or mitigate overages 
if they occur. If a stock or stock complex's catch exceeds its ACL, AMs 
will be invoked as specified in the PCGFMP. If ACLs are exceeded more 
often than 1 in 4 years, then AMs, such as catch monitoring and 
inseason adjustments to fisheries, need to improve or additional AMs 
may need to be implemented. The development of harvest specifications 
for 2011-2012 is discussed later in the preamble to this proposed rule, 
while the harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d.
    Amendment 23 adds an additional species category identified as 
ecosystem component (EC) species. These species are not ``in the 
fishery'' and therefore not actively managed. EC species are not 
targeted in any fishery and are not generally retained for sale or 
personal use. EC species are not determined to be subject to 
overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, or overfished, nor 
are they likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the 
absence of conservation and management measures. Amendment 23 does not 
propose that any species currently in the PCGFMP be designated as an EC 
species. Amendment 23 removes dusky rockfish and red-dwarf rockfish 
from the PCGFMP as there are no recorded landings of these species in 
the groundfish fishery.

PCGFMP Amendments 20 and 21

    Amendment 20 established a program to ``rationalize'' the 
groundfish limited entry trawl fishery. Rationalization of a fishery is 
designed to create a sustainable level of fishing from both the 
resources conservation and economic perspective through the use of 
harvest shares and cooperatives. The

[[Page 67815]]

program being implemented under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP uses quota 
shares, or catch allocation, to allow individuals to harvest specific 
amounts of groundfish. The trawl rationalization program is intended to 
increase net economic benefits, create individual economic stability, 
provide full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider 
environmental impacts, and achieve individual accountability of catch 
(retained and discarded). NMFS approved Amendment 20 on August 9, 2010, 
and expects to fully implement it prior to January 1, 2011, so the 
harvest specifications and management measures being considered for 
2011 and 2012 are consistent with the provisions of Amendment 20.
    For the purposes of Amendment 20, the limited entry trawl fishery 
has been divided into three distinct sectors (shoreside, mothership, 
and catcher/processor). An individual fishing quota (IFQ) program is 
created for the shoreside sector and harvester cooperatives are created 
for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors. Formal allocations 
(to and among the trawl sectors) necessary to support the trawl 
rationalization program have been adopted under Amendment 21 to the 
PCGFMP.
    Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP modifies the PCGFMP framework by 
specifying formal, long term allocations for the following species: 
Lingcod, Pacific cod, sablefish south of 36[deg] north latitude, 
Pacific ocean perch (POP), widow rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 
splitnose rockfish, yellowtail rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude, shortspine thornyhead (north and south of 34[deg]27' north 
latitude), longspine thornyhead north of 34[deg]27' north latitude, 
darkblotched rockfish, minor slope rockfish (north and south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude), Dover sole, English sole, petrale sole, 
arrowtooth flounder, starry flounder, and other flatfish. Because 
Amendment 21 has been approved, the harvest specifications being 
considered for 2011 and 2012 are consistent with the provisions of 
Amendment 21. Long term, formal allocations are expected to provide 
more stability to the trawl fishery sectors by reducing the risk of the 
trawl sector being closed as a result of a non-trawl or recreational 
fishery exceeding an allocation or harvest guideline.
    Species that are not formally allocated under Amendment 21 will 
continue to be addressed through short-term allocations that are to be 
decided through the biennial harvest specifications and management 
measure process. IFQ species with trawl and non-trawl allocations 
established through the biennial harvest specifications include the 
following species: canary rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod, yelloweye 
rockfish, and minor shelf rockfish north and south. In addition to 
allocations specified under the Amendment 21 provisions for 2011 and 
2012, trawl and non-trawl allocations are being specified through the 
biennial harvest specifications for the following: minor nearshore 
rockfish north and south, and longnose skate. Species being managed 
under trip limits and without trawl and non-trawl allocations are: 
Shortbelly rockfish, longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north 
latitude, black rockfish (Washington-Oregon), California scorpionfish, 
cabezon (California only), kelp greenling, and the ``other fish'' 
complex.
    Amendment 21 also provides for the use of fishery set-asides. 
Fishery set-asides are not formal allocations but rather amounts that 
are not available to the other fisheries during the fishing year. Set-
asides for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors of the at-sea 
Pacific whiting fishery are deducted from the limited entry trawl 
fishery allocation. Set-asides for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian 
tribal harvest, and exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are deducted from 
the ACL. Set-aside amounts could change through the biennial harvest 
specifications and management measures process. The set-aside amounts 
will be specified in the footnotes to Tables 1a through 2b of this 
subpart.
    In addition to a new groundfish allocation framework, Amendment 21 
would establish Pacific Halibut trawl mortality limits to restrict the 
incidental catch of Pacific halibut in limited entry trawl fisheries. 
The trawl mortality limit may be adjusted downward or upward through 
the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. 
Trawl individual bycatch quota (IBQ) for halibut will be issued for the 
Shorebased IFQ Program north of 40[deg]10' north latitude. A portion of 
the overall trawl mortality limit (10 mt) is a set-aside for the at-sea 
whiting fisheries (catcher/processor and mothership) and the Shorebased 
IFQ Program south of 40[deg]10' north latitude, where halibut IBQ is 
not required. The set-aside amount of Pacific halibut to accommodate 
the incidental catch in the trawl fishery south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude and in the at-sea whiting fishery may be adjusted in the 
biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The 
use of a trawl mortality limit for Pacific halibut in Area 2A trawl 
fisheries is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to 
minimize bycatch, while providing increased benefits to Area 2A fishers 
targeting Pacific halibut.
    Under Amendment 20, up to 10 percent of unused IFQ quota pounds in 
a vessel's account may be carried over for use in the next fishing 
year. Similarly, in order to cover an overage (landings that exceed the 
amount of quota pounds held in a vessel account) that is within 10 
percent of the quota pounds that have been in the vessel account during 
the year, the vessel owner may use that amount from the quota pounds he 
will receive in the following fishing year to account for the overage 
in the current year. The rationale for the carryover as presented in 
the Amendment 20 EIS is to provide increased flexibility to fishery 
participants. During the biennial harvest specification and management 
process the Council discussed how the carry-over provision works in 
relationship to the 2011-2012 harvest specifications, this provision is 
further discussed below.

OFL Policy

    The OFL is the MSY harvest level associated with the current stock 
abundance. When setting the 2011 and 2012 OFLs for category 1 species, 
the FMSY harvest rate or a proxy was applied to the 
estimated exploitable biomass. A policy of using a default harvest rate 
as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve 
the maximum sustainable yield is also referred to as the 
FMSY control rule or maximum fishing mortality threshold 
(MFMT) harvest rate. For category 2 species, OFLs are typically set at 
a constant level and monitoring is necessary to determine if this level 
of catch is causing a slow decline in stock abundance. It is difficult 
to estimate overfished and overfishing thresholds for the category 2 
species a priori, but indicators of long-term, potential overfishing 
can be identified. Average catches are generally used to determine the 
OFL for category 3 species.%
    For 2011 and 2012, the Council maintained a policy of using a 
default harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is 
expected to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). A 
proxy is used because there is insufficient information for most 
Pacific Coast groundfish stocks to establish a species-specific 
FMSY. In 2011 and 2012, the following default harvest rate 
proxies, based on the Council's SSC recommendations, were used: 
F30% for flatfish, F40% for Pacific Whiting, 
F50% for rockfish (including thornyheads), and F45% 
for other groundfish such as

[[Page 67816]]

sablefish and lingcod. The OFL for groundfish species with stock 
assessments are derived by multiplying the harvest rate proxy by the 
current estimated biomass. A rate of F40% is a more 
aggressive rate than F45% or F50%.
    The PCGFMP allows default harvest rate proxies to be modified as 
scientific knowledge improves for a particular species. A fishing 
mortality or harvest rate will mean different things for different 
stocks, depending on the productivity of a particular species. For fast 
growing species (those with individuals that mature quickly and produce 
many young that survive to an age where they are caught in the fishery) 
a higher fishing mortality rate may be used. Fishing mortality rate 
policies must account for several complicating factors, including the 
capacity of mature individuals to produce young over time and the 
optimal stock size necessary for the highest level of productivity 
within that stock.
    For flatfish, a new proxy of F30% is being used for the 
2011-2012 specifications. Following the 2009 scientific peer review of 
the petrale sole assessment by the Council's stock STAR panel, the STAR 
panel prepared a report which recommended that the SSC review the 
estimates of FMSY and BMSY produced by the 
petrale sole assessment and investigate alternatives to the proxies of 
F40% and B40%. The SSCs groundfish sub-committee 
further considered the proxies produced by the petrale sole assessment 
and recommended that proxies of B25% for BMSY and 
F30% for FMSY be established for all west coast 
flatfish.
    The overfished threshold or minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is 
the estimated biomass level of the stock relative to its unfished 
biomass (i.e., depletion level) below which the stock is considered 
overfished. The current default proxy MSST for all the actively managed 
groundfish stocks and stock complexes, other than the assessed flatfish 
species, is 25 percent of the unfished biomass (B25%), which 
is 62.5 percent of the BMSY target of B40%. The 
default proxy MSST for the assessed flatfish species is being revised 
from B25% to B12.5% which is 50 percent of the 
BMSY target of B25%.
    The full SSC endorsed the groundfish subcommittee's recommendation 
to establish new proxies of B25% for BMSY and 
F30% for FMSY for flatfish. The values were based 
on a number of considerations, including evaluation of information on 
flatfish productivity (steepness) for assessed west coast flatfish, 
published meta-analyses of other flatfish stocks, and recommendations 
on appropriate proxies for FMSY and BMSY in the 
scientific literature. The SSC however did not endorse the use of a 
species-specific estimate of BMSY and FMSY for 
petrale sole because of high variability in the estimates between 
repeat assessments for other stocks and the sensitivity of the 
estimates to assumptions concerning stock structure.
    For the 2011-2012 biennial specification process, two new 
methodologies were evaluated for determining OFL from data-poor stocks 
(unassessed category 2 species and category 3 species). In January 
2010, the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee and Groundfish Management Team 
(GMT) examined yield estimates from the Depletion-Corrected Average 
Catch (DCAC) and the Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis (DB-SRA) 
for 31 groundfish stock assessments. The DCAC and DB-SRA were developed 
by stock assessment scientists from the Northwest Fishery Science 
Center (NWFSC) and the Southwest Fishery Science Center. The DCAC 
provides an estimate of sustainable yield (the OFL) for data-poor 
stocks of uncertain status. DCAC adjusts historical average catch to 
account for one-time ``windfall'' catches that are the result of stock 
depletion, producing an estimate of yield that was likely to be 
sustainable over the same time period. Advantages of the DCAC approach 
to determining sustainable yield for data-poor stocks include: (1) 
Minimal data requirements, (2) biologically-based adjustment to catch-
based yield proxies with transparent assumptions about relative changes 
in abundance, and (3) simplicity in computing. The DB-SRA extends the 
DCAC by (1) restoring the temporal link between production and biomass 
and (2) evaluating and integrating alternative hypotheses regarding 
changes in abundance during the historical catch period. This method 
combines DCAC's distributional assumptions regarding life history 
characteristics and stock status with the dynamic models and simulation 
approach of stochastic stock reduction analysis. The SSC Groundfish 
Subcommittee endorsed application of DCAC and DB-SRA to derive the OFL 
for unassessed groundfish stocks. Although the Council would like 
further analysis, the Council did recognize that the DB-SRA and the 
DCAC methods used by the GMT were the best available scientific 
information for determining OFLs for category 2 and 3 stocks.

Proposed OFLs for 2011 and 2012

    For the 2011 and 2012 biennial specification process, 8 stock 
assessments and 4 stock assessment updates were prepared. Full stock 
assessments, those that consider the appropriateness of the assessment 
model and that revise the model as necessary, were prepared for the 
following stocks: Bocaccio, widow rockfish, lingcod, cabezon, yelloweye 
rockfish, petrale sole, splitnose rockfish and greenstriped rockfish. 
Stock assessment updates, those that run new data through an existing 
model without changing the model, were prepared for: Canary rockfish, 
cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, and POP. Each new stock assessment 
includes a base model and two alternative models. The alternative 
models are developed from the base model by bracketing the dominant 
dimension of uncertainty (e.g., stock-recruitment steepness or 
R0, natural mortality rate, survey catchability, recent 
year-class strength, weights on conflicting CPUE series, etc.) and are 
intended to be a means of expressing uncertainty within the model for 
decision makers by showing the contrast in management implications. 
Once a base model has been bracketed on either side by alternative 
model scenarios, capturing the overall degree of uncertainty in the 
assessment, a 2-way decision table analysis (states-of-nature versus 
management action) is used to present the repercussions of uncertainty. 
As noted above, the SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the 
appropriateness of using the different stock assessments for management 
purposes, after which the Council considers adoption of the stock 
assessments, use of the stock assessment for the development of 
rebuilding analysis, and the OFLs resulting from the base model runs of 
the stock assessments. Tables 1a and 2a present the specifications for 
each stock while the footnotes to these tables describe how the 
proposed specifications were derived.
    For species that did not have new stock assessments or updates 
prepared, the Council considered an OFL derived from the most recent 
stock assessment or update, the results of rudimentary stock 
assessments, or the historical landings data approved by the Council 
for use in setting harvest specifications. Detailed information on how 
the OFLs for species without any new stock assessments were derived are 
provided in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a. The stock 
assessment cycle and the process for adoption of final OFLs for Pacific 
whiting are detailed below.
    Species that are not overfished and for which new stock assessments 
or stock assessment updates were prepared and recommended for use in 
setting harvest specifications by the Council include: Lingcod, 
greenstriped rockfish,

[[Page 67817]]

splitnose rockfish, Cabezon. Specific information on the OFLs for 
species associated with these new stock assessments and assessment 
updates are provided in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a.
    For the overfished species, new assessments were prepared for 
bocaccio, petrale sole, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish and stock 
assessment updates were prepared for canary rockfish, cowcod, 
darkblotched, POP. The following stock assessment summaries pertain to 
the new stock assessments or stock assessment updates for stocks that 
have been declared overfished.

Bocaccio (Sebastes Paucispinis)

    A new stock assessment was prepared for the bocaccio stock between 
the U.S.-Mexico border and Cape Blanco, OR, using the Stock Synthesis 
3.03a model. Changes in the model from the prior assessment include: A 
northern expansion of the modeled area from Cape Mendocino, CA, to Cape 
Blanco, OR; and the extension of the catch history from 1950 to 1892. 
Assessment scientists have treated bocaccio as independent stocks north 
and south of Cape Mendocino. The southern stock, which has been 
declared overfished, occurs south of Cape Mendocino. Although the range 
extends considerably further north, there is some evidence that there 
are two demographic clusters of bocaccio. The northern stock is found 
north of 48[deg] north latitude in northern Washington and Canada, with 
a relative rarity of bocaccio (particularly smaller fish) in the region 
between Cape Mendocino and the Columbia River mouth.
    Since the early 2000s, the bocaccio spawning output has been 
increasing steadily. Spawning output in 2009 was estimated at 2,209,900 
mt (~95 percent confidence: 1,546,440--2,873,360 mt). Bocaccio 
depletion was estimated to be 28.12 percent (0.18--0.37 percent) of its 
unfished biomass in 2009. There are clear signs that the stock is 
rebuilding at a relatively rapid rate. Recovery may be taking place 
more rapidly in the south, and recovery in the central/northern 
California region may be dependent on an influx of fish from the 
southern area.
    Model uncertainty regarding natural mortality rates and estimates 
of selectivity for the NMFS triennial trawl survey continue to be 
problematic. Since 2001, large scale area closures have affected the 
spatial distribution of fishing mortality and truncated several 
abundance indices (recreational CPUE indices), confounding the 
interpretation of survey indices as well as fishery dependent and 
independent length frequency data. Data from relatively recent, short-
term surveys do not yet appear to be informative with respect to trends 
in abundance, although they are informative with respect to cohort 
strength.
    At the September 2009 Council meeting, the SSC endorsed the use of 
the 2009 bocaccio assessment for status determination and management in 
the Council process. The SSC supported the extension of the assessment 
area as biologically appropriate given the current understanding of 
stock structure, but also recognized that the boundary extension raises 
issues with respect to area management. Approximately 6 percent of the 
coastwide bocaccio catch has occurred historically between Cape 
Mendocino and Cape Blanco while only 1 percent has been taken from the 
California/Oregon border to Cape Blanco. The SSC indicated that there 
was no conservation issue north of the 40[deg]10' north latitude 
management boundary at Cape Mendocino, based on these low bocaccio 
catches in the area. Therefore, the SSC did not recommend changing the 
area where bocaccio are designated as overfished. The SSC indicated 
that management should be based on a pro-rata allocation using the 
historical catch distribution north and south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. The bocaccio OFL of 737 mt for 2011 and 732 mt for 2012 was 
based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass 
from the 2009 stock assessment. For setting harvest specifications, six 
percent of the assessed biomass was estimated to occur north of 
40[deg]10' north latitude. The projected OFLs from the assessment were 
adjusted accordingly.

Canary Rockfish (Sebastes Pinniger)

    A stock assessment update was prepared for the coastwide canary 
rockfish stock using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. Consistent with 
the Terms of Reference for Groundfish Stock Assessments, fishery and 
survey data were updated through 2008. Data updates for earlier years 
were also made with most of the updates being minor, with the exception 
of historical catch estimates (< 1981) that were substantially revised 
by NMFS and CDFG scientists. The historical catch revisions resulted in 
a 24 percent reduction in the total estimated canary rockfish catch 
from 1916 to 2006, with most of this reduction occurring prior to 1968. 
The new data resulted in a rebuilding trajectory that was overall lower 
than previous projections. Although the stock has continued to progress 
towards the rebuilding threshold (B40), the overall 
lowering of the trajectory means that it would take more time to reach 
the B40. The new assessment estimated the 2007 
depletion level for canary rockfish to have been 21.7 percent (below 
the estimate of 32.4 percent for 2007 from the 2007 assessment with 95 
percent confidence bounds of 24-41 percent) and the 2009 depletion 
level to have been 23.7 percent with 95 percent confidence bounds of 
17-30 percent). The SSC indicated that the broad confidence interval on 
the depletion level was due to a high degree of uncertainty in the 
parameter estimates, especially steepness. The change in the depletion 
level is largely due to the revised historical catch time-series for 
California. At the Council's September meeting, the SSC indicated that 
revised catches reflected the best available data, and were consistent 
with the Terms of Reference for Stock Assessment Documents.
    The assessment update estimated the unfished spawning stock biomass 
to be 25,993 mt (down from the 2007 estimate of 32,561 mt). After a 
period of above average recruitments, recent year-class strengths 
(1997-2008) have generally been low, with only 4 of the 12 years (1999, 
2001, 2006, and 2007) estimated to have produced larger recruitments. 
Because of the limited number of years they have been observed, the 
strengths of the 2006-2007 year classes are subject to greater 
uncertainty. As the larger recruitments from the late 1980s and early 
1990s move through the population, the rate of recovery to 
BMSY in future projections is estimated to slow. Because the 
species has a patchy distribution it is difficult to sample well with 
the bottom trawl gear used in the trawl survey.
    The base case assessment model explicitly captures parameter 
uncertainty in the asymptotic confidence intervals for key parameters 
and management quantities. Uncertainty around the base model results is 
considered through integration of rebuilding trajectories over two 
alternate states of nature corresponding to lower and higher stock-
recruitment steepness, the parameter largely governing productivity and 
recent rebuilding trajectory. At the Council's September meeting the 
SCC indicated that the canary rockfish stock assessment update 
represented the ``best available science,'' and was suitable to use for 
Council management decisions. The canary rockfish OFL of 614 mt for 
2011 and 622 mt for 2012 was based on the FMSY harvest rate 
proxy of F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable 
biomass from the 2009 stock assessment update.

[[Page 67818]]

Cowcod (Sebastes Levis)

    A stock assessment update was prepared for cowcod in the Southern 
California Bight (U.S. waters south of Point Conception--34[deg]27' 
north latitude) using an age-structured production model (Stock 
Synthesis 2 model). The assumption of an isolated stock is untested, 
and no information is available regarding stock structure or dispersal 
across the assumed stock boundaries. No new data sources were available 
for this update assessment.
    Cowcod is a long lived species with a mean generation time 
estimated at 38 years. Relative depletion was estimated at 4.5 percent 
in 2009 for the base model. The cowcod stock shows a slowly increasing 
trend in stock biomass, but given that no new data are available, this 
result is little more than a stock projection. Cowcod remain on a 
multi-decadal rebuilding timeline. Management actions since 2001, that 
include large scale area closures specifically to reduce fishery 
interactions with cowcod, have truncated data used in the assessment. 
Due to uncertainty in total mortality since no-retention regulations 
took effect, recreational and commercial mortalities have been assumed 
to be 0.25 metric tons per year, per fishery. A major source of 
uncertainty in the assessment was the assumed value of the steepness 
parameter in the spawner-recruit relationship. In addition, the 
percentage of cowcod in total rockfish landings in years prior to the 
1980s is not well understood. At the Council's June 2009 meeting the 
SSC indicated that the updated assessment for cowcod represented the 
``best available science,'' and was suitable as the basis for Council 
management decisions. The 2011 and 2012 cowcod OFL contribution for the 
Conception area (south of 36[deg]00' north latitude) was determined 
from the 2009 stock assessment update with an FMSY proxy harvest rate 
of F50% applied to the estimated exploitable biomass for the assessed 
portion of the stock in the Conception area. The OFLs for the Monterey 
area were determined using a DB-SRA approach. The OFLs for the 
Conception and the Monterey areas were summed to determine an OFL 
specification of 13 mt for 2011 and 2012 for the entire stock south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude.

Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes Crameri)

    In 2009, a stock assessment update was prepared for darkblotched 
rockfish the U.S. Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka and Monterey areas using 
the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. During the previous assessment cycle, 
The SSC indicated that changes to the darkblotched rockfish stock 
assessment model in 2007 (same model used for 2009 update) represented 
a substantial advancement over previous stock assessments.
    The fishing mortality rate on darkblotched rockfish has been 
greatly reduced, and darkblotched rockfish appear to be rebuilding 
gradually, relatively consistent with previous rebuilding projections. 
The point estimate for the depletion of the spawning output at the 
start of 2009 is 27.5 percent. In 2009, the biomass (1+ age fish) is 
estimated at 12,836 mt, as compared to 5,862 mt in 2000. The 
recruitment pattern for darkblotched rockfish is highly variable 
between years. Recruitment levels between the 1980's and 1990's were 
generally poor when compared with average historical recruitment 
levels, with the exceptions being the 1999 and 2000 year-classes which 
appear to be two of the four largest years since 1975. The estimated 
increase in stock size is driven primarily by the assumption that 
darkblotched productivity is analogous to that of other similar 
species, and not on survey and fishery data indicating an upward trend.
    A number of sources of uncertainty were explicitly included in the 
assessment. Allowance was made for uncertainty in natural mortality and 
the parameters of the stock recruitment relationship. Sources of 
uncertainty not included in the current model, included: The degree of 
connection between the stocks of darkblotched rockfish off British 
Columbia and those in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); the effect of 
climatic variables on recruitment, growth and survival of darkblotched 
rockfish; and gender based differences in survival. At the Council's 
June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated that the updated assessment for 
darkblotched rockfish represented the ``best available science,'' and 
was suitable as the basis for Council management decisions. The 
darkblotched rockfish OFL of 508 mt for 2011 and 497 mt for 2012 was 
based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass 
from the 2009 stock assessment update.

Petrale Sole (Eopsetta Jordani)

    A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for petrale sole 
using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. There is currently no genetic 
evidence suggesting distinct biological stocks of petrale sole off the 
U.S. coast. Given the lack of clear information regarding the status of 
distinct biological populations, the assessment treats the U.S. petrale 
sole resource from the Mexican border to the Canadian border as a 
single coastwide stock.
    Petrale sole were lightly exploited during the early 1900s. By the 
1950s, the petrale sole fishery was well developed and showing clear 
signs of depletion and declines in catches and biomass. The base model 
indicates that the spawning biomass has been below 
B25 continuously since 1953. The petrale sole 
spawning stock biomass is estimated to have increased slightly from the 
late 1990s, peaking in 2005, in response to above average recruitment. 
However, this increasing trend has reversed since the 2005 assessment 
and the stock has been declining, most likely due to strong year 
classes having passed through the fishery. The estimated relative 
depletion level for 2009 is 11.6 percent. Unfished spawning stock 
biomass was estimated to be 25,334 mt.
    The base case assessment model includes within model uncertainty 
(assessment parameter uncertainty) from a variety of sources, but it 
likely underestimates the uncertainty in recent trend and current stock 
status. For this reason, in addition to asymptotic confidence 
intervals, results from models that reflect alternate states of nature 
regarding the estimate of 2009 spawning biomass are presented as a 
decision table within the stock assessment document.
    At the Council's June 2009 meeting, the SSC reviewed the new 
petrale sole assessment and, based on a number of concerns, was unable 
to endorse the assessment at that time. While the petrale sole 
assessment appeared to be technically sound and thoroughly reviewed by 
the STAR panel, the SSC was concerned that certain assessment results 
were so extreme that the overall plausibility of the assessment was 
called into question. Attention focused primarily on the estimated 
catchability of the NWFSC survey, the estimate of stock-recruit 
steepness (0.95), and confounding of estimated model parameters. The 
Council's STAR Panel recommended that the estimates of FMSY 
and BMSY produced by the petrale sole assessment be 
investigated as alternatives to the currently used proxies for 
F40 and B40. The SSC developed a 
list of analytical requests for the Council's petrale sole Stock 
Assessment Team to address. The SSC's groundfish subcommittee and the 
Council's Stock Assessment Team reviewed the model and proxies of 
F40 and B40. After further 
consideration by the SSC's groundfish subcommittee, the full SSC 
endorsed the petrale sole stock

[[Page 67819]]

assessment model approved by the Council's STAR panel, and recommended 
that proxies of B25 for BMSY and 
F30 for FMSY be established for all 
flatfish not only petrale sole.
    The SSC agreed that the base petrale sole model represents the best 
available scientific information, and endorsed its use for status 
determination and management in the Council process. The SSC concluded 
that there is no basis for rejecting the assessment based on the 
estimated catchability coefficient (q) for NWFSC trawl survey. However 
the SSC encouraged further investigation of the catchability 
coefficient of the survey by experimental evaluation of trawl 
performance, quantification of trawlable and untrawlable habitat off 
the west coast, or by synthesis of available information and expert 
knowledge through development of an informative prior, as had been 
anticipated from the 2008 survey catchability workshop. The SSC also 
endorsed further evaluation of fishery CPUE data in the next petrale 
sole assessment. The petrale sole OFL of 1,021 mt for 2011 and 1,279 mt 
for 2012 was based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 
F30 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass 
from the 2009 stock assessment.

POP (Sebastes Alutus)

    A stock assessment update was prepared for POP in the combined U.S. 
Vancouver and Columbia areas using the same forward projection age-
structured model used in the previous stock assessment. Consistent with 
the Terms of Reference for Groundfish Stock Assessments, fishery, 
survey, and observer data were updated to include the years since the 
last assessment. Only minor updates to the data from earlier years were 
made.
    There were no significant changes in the view of stock status 
between the 2007 and 2009 assessment updates. The estimate of depletion 
of the spawning biomass at the start of 2009 is estimated to be 28.6 
percent. The POP biomass shows an increasing trend. Poor recruitment 
has been seen in recent years, compared with the 1950s and 1960s, 
although the 1999 year class appears to be larger than any other since 
the 1960's. The 2000 year class also appears to be relatively large; 
however, this may be due to some small amount of overall bias in 
ageing.
    A number of sources of uncertainty are explicitly included in this 
assessment such as uncertainty in natural mortality, the parameters of 
the stock-recruitment relationship, and the survey catch ability 
coefficients. There are also other sources of uncertainty that are not 
included in the current model. These include the degree of connection 
between the U.S. and Canadian stocks; the effect of climatic variables 
on recruitment, growth and survival; gender differences in growth and 
survival; and the relationship between individual spawner biomass and 
effective spawning output and age and maturity.
    At the Council's June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated that the 
updated assessment for POP represented the ``best available science,'' 
and would be suitable as the basis for Council management decisions. 
The POP OFL of 1,026 mt for 2011 and 1,007 mt for 2012 was based on the 
FMSY harvest rate proxy of F50 as applied 
to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment 
update.

Widow Rockfish (Sebastes Entomelas)

    A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for widow rockfish in 
the U.S Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka, Monterey, and Conception areas. 
The 2009 assessment differed from the previous assessment in several 
respects: The assessment used the Stock Synthesis 3 model rather than 
an age-based population model; the catch history was revised and 
extended back to 1916; catch, age structure, and survey data were 
updated through 2008; and data from the NWFSC trawl survey were 
included in the assessment.
    The widow rockfish spawning biomass steadily declined from 1980 to 
2003, when widow rockfish was targeted in a major commercial fishery. 
Since 2003, spawning biomass has shown an increasing trend. For 2009 
spawning biomass is estimated at 15,625 mt (~95 percent confidence: 
5,984-25,266 mt). Depletion in 2009 is estimated at 38.5 percent (14.2-
62.9 percent) of unfished biomass. Because the biomass is below 
B40 it remains under a rebuilding plan.
    Uncertainty in estimation of widow rockfish recruitment remains 
high. The highest known widow rockfish recruitment occurred in 1970. 
When compared to the long-term average, recruitment was relatively low 
in the early 1990s and since 2001. The 2007 stock assessment update 
indicated that the 2000 recruitment was relatively strong; however, the 
new stock assessment did not confirm a strong 2000 recruitment. In 
general, estimates of recruitment for the most recent years are 
uncertain, and can have a considerable impact on the outcomes of 
rebuilding projections.
    The SSC endorsed the use of the 2009 widow rockfish stock 
assessment for status determination and management in the Council 
process. The widow rockfish OFLs of 5,097 mt for 2011 and 4,923 mt for 
2012 were based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass 
from the 2009 stock assessment.

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes Ruberrimus)

    A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for yelloweye 
rockfish in 2009 using the Stock Synthesis 3.03b model. The 2009 
assessment differed from previous assessments in terms of assumed 
population structure and the data used to fit the model. The 2009 
assessment was based on three regions (California, Oregon and 
Washington) under the assumptions that: Adults are sedentary; density-
dependence is a function of coastwide egg production; and the 
proportion of recruits settling in each area is constant over time. 
This spatial structure is consistent with our understanding of the 
behavior of yelloweye rockfish, and reflects a compromise between a 
coastwide assessment and separate assessments for each state.
    Even with a large number of changes to data inputs, the results 
from the 2009 yelloweye rockfish assessment are consistent with those 
from the 2006 and 2007 assessments. All of these assessments suggest 
that yelloweye rockfish experienced a substantial decline in abundance 
between 1980 and 2000, with increased catches. Large reductions in 
harvest have been in place since 2000. The best estimate of depletion 
in 2009 from the current assessment is 20.3 percent of unfished biomass 
(states of nature: 17.3-23.5 percent). This represents an increase from 
the 2007 updated assessment, which estimated depletion in 2007 to be 
16.4 percent.
    In contrast to the 2006 and 2007 assessments, the 2009 assessment 
makes use of data from the NWFSC and triennial trawl surveys as well as 
data on discarded yelloweye rockfish collected by observers in the 
Oregon recreational charter fishery. However, the International Pacific 
Halibut Commission (IPHC) survey data remain the most important index 
in the assessment, although IPHC survey data are only available for 
Washington and Oregon and not California, where the largest potential 
biomass of yelloweye rockfish is estimated to occur.
    Data for yelloweye rockfish are sparse and relatively 
uninformative, especially regarding current trends. Yelloweye rockfish 
catches are very uncertain due to the relatively small contribution to 
rockfish market categories and the

[[Page 67820]]

relatively large scale of recreational removals. In addition, since 
2001, management restrictions have required nearly all yelloweye 
rockfish caught by recreational and commercial fishers to be discarded 
at sea. Currently available fishery-independent indices of abundance 
are imprecise and not highly informative. It is unclear whether 
increased rates of recovery (or lack thereof) will be detectable 
without more precise survey methods applied over broad portions of the 
coast. Fishery data are also unlikely to produce conclusive information 
about the stock for the foreseeable future, due to retention 
prohibitions and active avoidance of yelloweye rockfish among all 
fleets. Considerable uncertainty regarding the time-series of 
historical catches was identified as a key source of uncertainty in the 
stock assessment.
    At the Council's September 2009 meeting, the SSC cautioned against 
using the stock assessment estimates of trends in abundance by region 
as the sole basis for the spatial allocation because the trend in 
abundance at the coastwide level was much more robust than at the 
regional level. The SSC emphasized the value of collecting biological 
data, such as age-length and maturation information, for yelloweye 
rockfish during the IPHC surveys.
    The SSC endorsed the approach used to quantify uncertainty, which 
forms the basis for the yelloweye rockfish rebuilding analysis and they 
endorsed the use of the 2009 yelloweye rockfish assessment as the best 
available science for status determination and management in the 
Council process. The yelloweye rockfish OFL of 48 mt for 2011 and 2012 
was based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass 
from the 2009 stock assessment.

ABC Policy

    The proposed ABCs are consistent with the harvest specification 
framework proposed for Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP. Under Amendment 23, 
the term ABC is redefined to be an annual catch specification that is 
the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount associated with 
scientific uncertainty. Under the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act National 
Standard 1 guidelines, scientific advice that is relatively uncertain 
will result in ABCs that are relatively lower, all other things being 
equal, i.e., a precautionary reduction in catch will occur due purely 
to scientific uncertainty. The ABC is the catch level that ACLs may not 
exceed. As explained in more detail below, the SSC recommended a two-
step approach referred to as the P* approach initially for stocks with 
relatively data-rich stock assessments and ultimately for other stocks. 
In this approach, the SSC determines the amount of scientific 
uncertainty in a stock assessment, referred to as sigma. Then the 
Council determines the level of risk aversion to use, which is 
designated as the P*. The scientists then apply the P* value to the 
sigma value to determine the amount by which the OFL is reduced to 
establish the ABC.
    In January 2009, the SSC's Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species 
Subcommittees met to discuss the new Magnuson-Stevens Act 
reauthorization requirements, including the development of a 
methodology for estimating scientific uncertainty in stock assessments. 
At this meeting, two types of uncertainty in biomass estimation were 
considered. The first was ``within'' assessment variability, which is 
presented in each stock assessment or stock assessment update and 
represented by the coefficient of variation for the terminal year 
biomass estimate. The second type of uncertainty is ``among'' 
assessment variation, resulting from a wide variety of factors, many of 
which represent a significant model or structural uncertainty. Reasons 
for ``among'' assessment variations in stock size estimation, includes 
differences in: The modeling software; the makeup of the analytical 
team doing the assessment; the composition of the review panel; changes 
in data availability; altered ``priors'' for the parameters; and 
changes in overall model structure. The SSC evaluated three methods of 
quantifying these types of scientific uncertainty, but also recognized 
that numerous other unaccounted for factors exist for which there is 
currently no method for meaningful analysis, including for example, the 
effects of climate and/or ecosystem interactions on the estimation of 
an OFL.
    The general methodology used by the SSC subcommittees to assess 
among-assessment uncertainty was to compare previous stock assessments 
and stock assessment updates, and consider the logarithms of the ratios 
of the biomass estimates for each pair of assessments and their 
reciprocals using the last 20 years from an assessment. This provides a 
distribution of stock size differences in log-space and, if this 
variation is averaged over species, provides a general view of total 
biomass variation (represented as sigma--[sigma]) that emerges among 
repeat assessments of stocks, while embracing a wide range of factors 
that affect variability in results. During their consideration of 
Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP, in March 2010, the SSC recommended the use 
of this methodology, but recognized that it was only the first step in 
the process of developing methods for estimating uncertainty in OFL, in 
part, because it only considers uncertainty in biomass and likely 
underestimates total variance. Going forward, the SSC indicated that it 
will be important to consider other sources of uncertainty, such as 
FMSY. While biomass is most likely the dominant source of 
uncertainty, it is anticipated that other factors will need to be 
considered in the future.
    The SSC recommended the biomass variance statistic of sigma=0.36, 
from the analysis of stock assessments and stock assessment updates 
from 17 data rich stocks (meta-analysis). To set ABCs, the Council 
recommended using an approach where the SSC determines a value of sigma 
and the GMT uses the recommended formulation to translate sigma to a 
range of P* values (the probability of overfishing). Each P* is then 
mapped to its corresponding buffer fraction. The Council then 
determines the preferred level of risk aversion by selecting an 
appropriate P* value.
    In cases where the P* approach is used, the upper limit of P* 
values considered will be 0.45. Since estimated OFLs are median 
estimates, there is a 50 percent probability that the OFL is 
overestimated or underestimated. A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional 
reduction for scientific uncertainty. In other words, the ABC is set 
equal to the OFL.
    For the purposes of using the P* approach, the SSC assigned stocks 
to species categories. Using the P* approach, a scientific uncertainty 
buffer against overfishing can generally be determined for data rich 
species that have had quantitative stock assessments prepared (category 
1 species). Since there is greater scientific uncertainty for category 
2 and 3 stocks relative to category 1 stocks, the scientific 
uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that recommended for 
category 1 stocks. The SSC indicated that ideally the approach 
recommended for setting ABCs for category 1 stocks should also be 
applied to category 2 and 3 stocks. However, there is presently no 
analysis available for determining the appropriate value of sigma 
([sigma]) to represent scientific uncertainty for stocks in these 
categories, unlike the situation for category 1 stocks. In the absence 
of an analysis for category 2 and 3 stocks, the SSC suggested two 
interim approaches for computing ABCs from OFLs: Use 25 percent and 50 
percent reductions from the OFL for deciding the ABC for category 2 and 
3 stocks (similar to status quo), respectively; or use the P* approach 
using the [sigma] values

[[Page 67821]]

for category 2 and 3 stocks recommended by the SSC. The SSC noted that 
their approach allows the Council to express their views on overfishing 
risk aversion. With a P* approach for deciding the ABC for category 2 
and 3 stocks, the SSC recommended setting the value of sigma ([sigma]) 
for category 2 and 3 stocks to 0.72 and 1.44 respectively (i.e., two 
and four times the [sigma] for category 1 stocks). The difference 
between buffers determined using sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44 
corresponds fairly closely to the difference between the buffers 
previously used for category 2 and 3 stocks (25 percent versus 50 
percent) when P* is in the range 0.3 ~ 0.35. Although, the specific 
values of 0.72 and 1.44 are recommended by the SSC and considered to be 
the best available scientific information, the values are not based on 
a formal analysis of assessment outcomes and could change substantially 
when the SSC reviews additional analyses in future management cycles.
    The Council approved the SSC-recommended [sigma] values for each 
species category. For category 1 species the Council adopted a P* of 
0.45, which combined with a sigma ([sigma]) value of 0.36, corresponds 
with a reduction of 4.4 percent from the OFL when deriving the ABC. For 
healthy stocks, the P* of 0.45 is more risk averse than the policy used 
in the previous biennial management cycle in which the OYs for most 
healthy stocks were set at 100 percent of the ABC. The Council adopted 
a general policy of using a P* of 0.4 for category 2 and 3 stocks. The 
buffers determined using sigma ([sigma]) values of 0.72 and 1.44 with a 
P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 16.7 percent, and 30.6 percent 
reductions, respectively. For the purpose of setting the ABCs in 2011 
and 2012 the following category 1 species had a P* of 0.45 applied to 
the OFL to determine the ABC: Bocaccio south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude, canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch, 
widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, petrale sole, lingcod north of 
42[deg] N latitude (Oregon and Washington), Pacific whiting (U.S./
Canada), sablefish (coastwide), chilipepper rockfish (coastwide), 
splitnose rockfish south of 40[deg]10' north latitude, yellowtail 
rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north latitude, shortspine thornyhead 
(coastwide), black Rockfish (Washington), black Rockfish (Oregon-
California), California scorpionfish, cabezon (California), cabezon 
(Oregon), Dover sole, and English sole. For the purpose of setting the 
ABCs in 2011-2012, the following category 2 species had a P* of 0.40 
and a sigma value of applied 0.72 applied to the OFL to determine the 
ABC: greenstriped rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, starry flounder, 
longspine thornyhead (coastwide), shortbelly rockfish, lingcod south of 
42[deg] north latitude (California), cowcod (Conception-Cowcod in the 
Monterey area are a category 3 stock) and longnose skate. For the 
purpose of setting the minor rockfish complex ABCs in 2011-2012, the 
ABCs for the sub-complexes are the sum of the component species ABCs. 
The SSC identified the appropriate species category for each component 
species: A sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (splitnose north, 
chilipepper rockfish north, gopher rockfish north of Pt. Conception, 
and blackgill rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (greenstriped 
rockfish, blue rockfish, and bank rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 
stocks. The P* value used to determine the ABCs for the component 
species in the minor rockfish complexes was 0.45. The resulting 2011 
and 2012 ABCs for minor rockfish north are reduced by 11 percent from 
the OFL (nearshore-15 percent, shelf-11 percent, and slope-9 percent) 
and for the minor rockfish south are reduced by 13 percent (nearshore-
14 percent, shelf-16 percent, and slope-8 percent). Like the minor 
rockfish complex ABCs, the ``other flatfish'' complex ABCs were derived 
from the sum of the component species, with all being category 3 
species ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.4). For the ``other fish'' complex the ABC 
is a 24 percent reduction from the OFL [sigma]=1.44/P*=0.4)for category 
3 species. Tables 1a and 2a present the specifications for each stock 
while the footnotes to these tables describe how the proposed 
specifications were derived.

Vulnerability to Overfishing and Organization of Stock Complexes

    The vulnerability of a stock to becoming overfished is defined in 
the National Standard 1 guidelines as a function of its productivity 
and its susceptibility to the fishery. The guidelines note that the 
``vulnerability'' of fish stocks should be considered when: (1) 
Deciding if a stock considered to be ``in the fishery'' or if it is an 
ecosystem component stock; (2) considering the management of stocks 
managed within complexes and the need to re-structure the stock 
complexes; and (3) creating management control rules. The GMT and the 
NMFS Vulnerability Evaluation Work Group considered the productivity 
and susceptibility of each groundfish stock by providing productivity 
and susceptibility (PSA) scores for each stock. A score of 1 to 3 was 
identified for a set of attributes related to productivity and 
susceptibility. Currently there are 10 attributes for productivity that 
reflect stock life history and 12 attributes that reflect 
susceptibility to the impacts of fishing and management. Stocks with a 
low productivity score and a high susceptibility score were considered 
to be more vulnerable, while stocks with a high productivity score and 
low susceptibility score were considered to be less vulnerable.
    In the consideration of stock complex structure, a four step 
approach for defining the relationship between fisheries and 
appropriate stock complexes was developed using the PSA score: (1) 
Calculate PSA scores for each species in the PCGFMP; (2) identify the 
overlap in distributions of each species based on latitude and depth 
range; (3) assign each species to the various fisheries; and (4) 
overlay the groupings onto the PSA plot. The GMT provided the PSA 
vulnerability scores for all of the Pacific coast groundfish and 
completed a cluster analysis based on latitude and depth to identify 
spatial overlaps. The results of the preliminary cluster analysis 
indicate that there is a need to adjust the assignment of PCGFMP stocks 
to complexes. The GMT concluded they could not complete the necessary 
analyses and discussion to fully implement the changes to stock 
complexes suggested by the National Standard 1 guidelines on the 
timeline for implementing Amendment 23 or these specifications.
    The GMT explored using catch information to consider whether 
species that are not in the PCGFMP should be considered for inclusion 
as ``in the fishery'' or as ``ecosystem component'' species. By using 
NWFSC West Coast Observer Program mortality reports on the non-whiting 
trawl fishery in 2007 and 2008, and a simple method for expanding total 
catch, the GMT was able to roughly compare the relative magnitude of 
total catch of PCGFMP species versus species not in the PCGFMP. Based 
on this preliminary analysis of total catch information, the potential 
vulnerability scores of these non-PCGFMP species may be 
indistinguishable from those scores of species currently in the PCGFMP. 
Therefore, further consideration may be warranted in the future to 
decide if any of these species should be included in the PCGFMP as ``in 
the fishery'' or as an ``ecosystem component'' species. The GMT 
recommended revisiting the ``in the fishery'' classification following 
this biennial cycle, with consideration of

[[Page 67822]]

changes to stock complexes in the 2013-2014 biennial cycle.

OY Policies

    The concept of OY remains in the PCGFMP, however, OYs will no 
longer be used as the annual limit on catch; instead, ACLs will be used 
for this purpose. As revisions to the National Standard 1 guidelines 
did not alter the definition of OY, which is defined as ``the amount of 
fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, 
particularly with respect to food production and recreational 
opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine 
ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the 
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological 
factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for 
rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY in such 
fishery,'' that definition remains unchanged in the PCGFMP. OY may be 
expressed numerically (as a harvest guideline, quota, or other 
specification) or non-numerically. Beginning with the 2011 and 2012 
harvest specifications, ACLs are intended to, over the long-term, meet 
the National Standard 1 guidelines of preventing overfishing while 
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield.

ACL Policy

    ACLs are specified for each stock and stock complex that is ``in 
the fishery'' as specified under the proposed Amendment 23 framework. 
An ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC to 
address conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management 
uncertainty or other factors necessary to meet any management 
objectives. Sector-specific ACLs may be specified in cases where a 
sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of 
a stock or stock complex. All sources of fishing related mortality 
(tribal, commercial groundfish and non groundfish, recreational, and 
EFP) retained and discard mortality, plus research catch is accounted 
for within an ACL. In general, when recommending ACLs, the Council 
follows a risk-averse policy by recommending an ACL that is below ABC 
when there is a perception the stock is below its BMSY, or 
to accommodate management uncertainty, socioeconomic concerns, or other 
considerations.
    Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level that produces MSY 
(BMSY) is defined as the precautionary threshold. When the 
biomass for a category 1 stock or stock complex falls below the 
precautionary threshold, the harvest rate will be reduced to help the 
stock return to the BMSY level. If a stock biomass is larger 
than BMSY, the ACL may be set equal to or less than ABC. 
Because BMSY is a long term average, the true biomass could 
be below BMSY in some years and above BMSY in 
other years. Even in the absence of overfishing, a biomass may decline 
to levels below BMSY due to natural fluctuations. Decreasing 
harvest rates below the ABC level when a biomass is estimated to be 
below BMSY, is a harvest control rule designed to prevent a 
stock or stock complex from becoming overfished.
    The PCGFMP defines ACL harvest policies for category 1 species. The 
40-10 harvest control rule has been applied to stocks with a 
BMSY proxy of 40 percent (B40) since 
2000. A new harvest control rule referred to as the 25-5 harvest 
control rule is proposed for stocks with a BMSY proxy of 25 
percent (B25). Consistent with the SSC 
recommendations, the new harvest control rule would be used for setting 
ACLs for flatfish species not managed under overfished species 
rebuilding plans when the biomass estimated from the stock assessment 
indicates that the stock has fallen below B25. The 
25-5 rule works exactly like the 40-10 rule except that the ACL 
adjustment begins when the stock's depletion drops below 
B25 and at B5, the ACL is set to 
zero. Like the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with an MSST proxy 
of B40, the 25-5 harvest control rule is designed to 
prevent stocks from becoming overfished. If a stock biomass is larger 
than the biomass needed to produce MSY (BMSY), the ACL may 
be set equal to or less than the ABC.
    Under these harvest policies, when a stock's depletion level falls 
below BMSY (or the proxy for BMSY), 
the stock is said to be in the ``precautionary zone'' or below the 
precautionary threshold. When a stock is below the precautionary 
threshold the harvest policies reduce the fishing mortality rate. The 
further the stock biomass is below the precautionary threshold, the 
greater the reduction in ACL relative to the ABC, until at 
B10 for a stock with a BMSY proxy of 
B40 or B5 for a stock with a 
BMSY proxy of B25, when the OY would be 
set at zero. These harvest policies foster a quicker return to the 
BMSY level and serve as an interim rebuilding policy for 
stock that are below the overfished threshold (Below MSST--below 
B25 for a stock with a BMSY proxy of 
B40 or B12.5 for a stock with a 
BMSY proxy of B25).
    The Council may recommend setting the ACL higher than what the 
default ACL harvest control rule specifies as long as the ACL: Does not 
exceed the ABC; complies with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act; and is consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. On a 
case-by-case basis, additional precautionary adjustments may be made to 
an ACL if necessary to address management uncertainty. The ACL serves 
as the basis for invoking AMs. If ACLs are exceeded more often than 1 
in 4 years, then AMs, such as catch monitoring and inseason adjustments 
to fisheries, need to improve or additional AMs may need to be 
implemented. Additional AMs may include setting an ACT, which is a 
specified level of harvest below the ACL. The use of ACTs may be 
especially important for a stock subject to highly uncertain inseason 
catch monitoring. A sector-specific ACT may serve as a harvest 
guideline for a sector or may be used strategically in a rebuilding 
plan to attempt to reduce mortality of an overfished stock more than 
the rebuilding plan limits prescribe.
    For category 2 and 3 species with only rudimentary stock 
assessments, the Council has the discretion to adjust the ACLs for 
uncertainty on a case-by-case basis. In cases where there is a high 
degree of uncertainty about the condition of the stock or stocks, the 
ACL may be reduced accordingly. Most category 3 species are managed in 
a stock complex (such as other flatfish, minor rockfish, and other 
fish) where harvest specifications are set for the complex in its 
entirety. For stock complexes, the ACL will be less than or equal to 
the sum of the individual component ABCs. The ACL may be adjusted below 
the sum of component ABCs as appropriate. For what are now being 
referred to as category 2 and 3 stocks, the Council's policy prior to 
this specification cycle was to set the OY at 75 percent of the ABC to 
account for stocks that have non-quantitative assessments and to set 
the OY at 50 percent of the ABC where the ABC is based on historical 
data. The previous adjustments were intended to address both scientific 
and management uncertainty. Because the ABC values for 2011 and 2012 
are the OFLs reduced by scientific uncertainty, adjustment to the ACLs 
for additional uncertainty was made on a case-by-case basis.
    If a stock is declared overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requires the Council to develop a rebuilding plan within one year from 
the declaration date. The policies for setting ACLs for overfished 
species managed under rebuilding plans is described below in the 
section titled ``Rebuilding Plan ACLs for Overfished Species''.

[[Page 67823]]

    As discussed above, the Council's development of the 2011 and 2012 
biennial harvest specifications began at Council's November 2009 
meeting. Because Amendment 23 was under development while the ACL 
alternatives were being developed, some early ACLs under consideration 
by the Council were not consistent with Amendment 23 and were removed 
after the ABCs were specified (i.e. ACLs that exceeded the ABC). Other 
viable ACLs though lower than the ABC's developed under the Amendment 
23 structure, are described in terms of pre-Amendment 23 language. The 
harvest specifications recommended by the Council and which are being 
implemented by this action are consistent with Amendments 23.

ACLS for ``Healthy'' and ``Precautionary Zone'' Species and Species 
Complexes

    As stated above, the PCGFMP provides guidance on setting harvest 
specifications for category 1 stocks depending on the stock's estimated 
biomass level. For the following species or species complexes where 
there was no new scientific information including stock assessments or 
a management guidance change in the harvest strategy, the Council only 
considered a single annual ACL for 2011 and 2012: Pacific cod; 
chilipepper rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, shortspine thornyhead north 
of 34[deg]27' north latitude, black rockfish (Washington), black 
rockfish (Oregon/California), longnose skate, other flatfish, and other 
fish. The Council recommended final adoption of the ABC/OYs values for 
these species at its June 2010 meeting. The information that serves as 
the basis for the ACLs for these species can be found in the footnotes 
to Table 1a and Table 2a. Because there were new policies applicable or 
new information available, the Council considered alternative ACLs for 
the following non-overfished species: lingcod north of 42[deg] north 
latitude; lingcod south of 42[deg] north latitude; sablefish; 
shortbelly rockfish; shortspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north 
latitude; longspine thornyhead north of 34[deg]27' north latitude; 
longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north latitude; California 
scorpionfish; cabezon (California); cabezon (Oregon); Dover sole; 
English sole; arrowtooth flounder; starry flounder; and minor rockfish 
complexes north and south of 40[deg]10' north latitude.
    Pacific whiting is managed consistent with the U.S.-Canada 
agreement for Pacific whiting. ACLs for Pacific whiting are adopted on 
an annual basis after a stock assessment is completed just prior to the 
Council's March meeting. Accordingly, the Council recommended a range 
of ACLs for 2011 and 2012, and delayed adoption of final 2011 and 2012 
OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs until the March 2011 and 2012 meetings, 
respectively. The DEIS for the 2011 and 2012 management measures 
considers a range for Pacific whiting ACLs and the resulting impacts.

Lingcod North and South

    A lingcod stock assessment was prepared in 2009. The stock 
assessment was conducted as two separate stock assessments, one for the 
northern portion and one for the southern portion of the stock. For 
lingcod off of Washington and Oregon (the northern portion of the 
coastwide stock) the biomass was estimated to be at 62 percent of its 
unfished biomass, and for lingcod off of California (the southern 
portion) the biomass was estimated to be at 74 percent of its unfished 
biomass. Three ACL alternatives were considered for the north stock. 
Alternative 1, with an ACL of 1,219 mt in 2011 and 1,126 mt in 2012 was 
based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with a 50 percent 
reduction from the OFL (48 percent reduction from the ABC) for 
assessment uncertainty and overfished species bycatch concerns. 
Alternative 2, with an ACL of 2,172 mt in 2011 and 2,020 mt in 2012 was 
based on the low mortality model in the 2009 assessment. Alternative 3, 
with an ACL of 2,330 mt in 2011 and 2,151 mt in 2012, was based on the 
2009 stock assessment base model with the ACL set equal to the ABC. 
Because lingcod is a healthy stock the Council recommended the ACL be 
set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3).
    For lingcod south, three ACLs were considered. Alternative 1, with 
an ACL of 1,262 mt in 2011 and 1,299 mt in 2012, was based on the 2009 
stock assessment base model with a 50 percent reduction from the OFL 
for assessment uncertainty and overfished species bycatch concerns. 
Alternative 2, with an ACL of 1,421 mt in 2011 and 1,531 mt in 2012, 
was based on the low mortality model in the 2009 assessment. 
Alternative 3, with an ACL of 2,102 mt in 2011 and 2,164 mt in 2012 was 
based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with the ACL set equal to 
the ABC. Because lingcod is a healthy stock, the Council recommended 
the ACL be set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3).
    The trawl rationalization program, as approved by NMFS in 
Amendments 20 and 21, lists lingcod as an IFQ species with a coastwide 
area designation. Because these harvest specifications for lingcod are 
being recommended north and south of 42[deg] north latitude as opposed 
to coastwide, NMFS anticipates that quota share for lingcod would need 
to be reallocated north and south of 42[deg] N. lat. once the 2011-2012 
harvest specifications and management measures are implemented through 
a final rule.

Sablefish

    Sablefish is one of the most important species to the trawl and 
limited entry fixed gear fisheries. Management uncertainty for 
sablefish and the risk of overharvesting is considered to be low. This 
is because of the increased monitoring of the trawl fisheries that will 
occur under rationalization and because the limited entry fixed gear 
sector tends to under harvest their allocation. Therefore, when 
recommending the sablefish ACLs, the Council focused primarily on 
conservation concerns and stock status.
    The 2007 coastwide sablefish stock assessment indicates the stock 
is at 36 percent of its unfished biomass and is therefore considered to 
be in the precautionary zone. The strength of the stock is reliant upon 
the strong 1999 and 2000 year classes, with the possibility of a strong 
incoming 2004 year class as well. The 2010 OY was previously set by 
applying a 40-10 harvest control rule to the coastwide ABC (in 2010 the 
ABC was equivalent to the OFL). The coastwide OY was then apportioned 
north and south of 36[deg] north latitude, using the average 2003-2006 
proportions of the swept-area biomass estimates of sablefish from the 
NWFSC shelf-slope trawl survey (72 percent north; 28 percent south). 
The OY south of 36[deg] north latitude was then reduced by 50 percent 
to account for greater assessment and survey uncertainty in that area.
    In determining the 2011-2012 ACLs for sablefish, the Council 
considered: (1) How to apply the 40-10 control rule since this stock is 
in the precautionary zone; (2) how to apportion the stock north and 
south of 36[deg] north latitude; and (3) whether precautionary 
reductions were needed to the southern ACL to account for greater 
conservation concerns. Options were considered for applying the 40-10 
harvest control rule directly to the OFL, resulting in coastwide ACLs 
of 8,485 in 2011 and 8,227 in 2012, and making the adjustment to the 
ABC resulting in ACLs of 7,296 mt in 2011 and 6,896 mt in 2012. The 
Council recommended the more risk-averse adjustment of applying the 40-
10 reduction to the ABC resulting in a coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt for 
2011 and 7,863 mt for 2012.
    Historically, the coastwide sablefish OY was apportioned north and 
south of 36[deg] North latitude by using historical

[[Page 67824]]

landings data (96.5 percent north and 3.5 percent south). However, 
beginning with the 2009-2010 harvest specifications and management 
measures process, the swept area biomass from the 2003-2006 combined 
NWFSC shelf/slope surveys were used to apportion the coastwide OY (72 
percent north and 28 percent south). The Council considered 
apportioning the coastwide ACLs for 2011 and 2012 using the same 
proportions as in 2009-2010. When applied to the 2011 coastwide ACL of 
8,110 mt this resulted in a 5,839 mt apportionment to the north and a 
2,271 mt apportionment to the south. When applied to the 2012 coastwide 
ACL 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,839 mt apportionment to the north and a 
2,271 mt apportionment to the south. Because new data were available 
from the 2007 and 2008 NWFSC shelf/slope surveys, the Council also 
considered apportioning the coastwide ACLs using averaged 2003-2008 
data (68 percent north and 32 percent south) and using a weighted 
average with more weighing given to recent years (64 percent north and 
36 percent south). When using averaged 2003-2008 data and applying it 
to the 2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a 5,515 mt to the 
north and 2,595 mt to the south and for 2012 when applied to the ACL of 
7,863 mt it resulted in 5,347 mt to the north and 2,516 mt to the 
south. When using the weighted average of the 2003-2008 data and 
applying it to the 2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a 
5,190 mt to the north and 2,920 mt to the south and for 2012 when 
applied to the ACL of 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,032 mt to the north and 
2,832 mt to the south. The apportionment of biomass using the trawl 
survey data incorporates the best available information on the 
sablefish stock distribution. The Council recommended apportioning the 
2011 and 2012 coastwide ACLs with 68 percent going to the north and 32 
percent going to the south, based on using averaged 2003-2008 data.
    To account for the uncertainty inherent in the abundance estimates 
of sablefish south of 36[deg] north latitude (due to the short time-
series of survey data from the southern area and advisory body advice), 
the Council recommended making a 50 percent reduction to the 2011 and 
2012 southern apportionment of the coastwide ACLs of 2,595 mt and 2,516 
mt, respectively, resulting in 2011 and 2012 ACLs for the area south of 
36[deg] north latitude of 1,298 mt and 1,258 mt, respectively. Even 
with the precautionary reduction in the southern area, the ACL is high 
relative to recent catches in the Conception Area. The Cowcod 
Conservation Area (CCA) closes a significant amount of the Conception 
Area to fishing and the area-swept biomass estimates for the Conception 
area are based on the assumption that catch rates outside of the CCAs 
are comparable to those inside (the survey does not sample within the 
CCAs).

Thornyheads

    Shortspine and longspine thornyhead stocks have been assessed 
coastwide and projected harvest levels in the stock assessments are 
coastwide values. However, since 2008 each of the stocks has been 
managed with separate OYs for the areas north and south of Point 
Conception (34[deg]27' north latitude). Separate ACLs are being adopted 
for shortspine thornyhead north and south of Point Conception, and 
longspine thornyhead north and south of Point Conception.
    Only one ACL alternative, based on projections from the 2005 stock 
assessment and representing 66 percent of the coastwide ACL (the 
portion of the biomass estimated to occur north of Point Conception) 
was considered for shortspine thornyhead. Due to conservation concerns 
in the Conception area and a new specifications structure under 
proposed Amendment 23, two ACL alternatives, based on projections from 
the 2005 stock assessment, were considered for shortspine thornyhead 
south. Alternative 1 represented 34 percent (the portion of the biomass 
estimated to occur south of Point Conception) of the coastwide ACL, 
reduced by 50 percent for conservation concerns. Under Alternative 1 
the ACLs were 405 mt in 2011 and 401 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs 
represented 34 percent of the coastwide ACL with no conservation 
reductions and were 811 mt in 2011 and 802 mt in 2012. The Council 
recommended a continuation of the added precautionary adjustment 
included under Alternative 1, and recommended ACLs of 405 mt in 2011 
and 401 mt in 2012. The conservation concern is largely due to the fact 
that a small proportion of the Conception area is surveyed in the NMFS 
trawl survey given the high proportion of untrawlable habitat in the 
Conception area and the prohibition of bottom trawling in the Cowcod 
Conservation Areas. The conservation concern is specifically south of 
Point Conception (of 34[deg]27' north latitude) and is accommodated in 
consideration of the ACL for the shortspine thornyhead stock for the 
Conception area.
    Two ACL alternatives, based on the most recent stock assessment 
(2005) were considered for longspine thornyhead north. Both ACL 
alternatives are based on the assumption that 79 percent of the 
coastwide biomass occurs north of Point Conception. Alternative 1 for 
the northern portion of the coastwide ACL, is a 10 percent reduction 
from the ABC for conservation uncertainty. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs 
were 2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs made the 
same assumption regarding stock distribution and represented 79 percent 
of the coastwide ACL based on projections from the 2005 stock 
assessment. The ACLs under Alternative 2 were 2,825 mt in 2011 and 
2,751 mt in 2012. The Council recommended a continuation of the added 
precautionary adjustment included under Alternative 1 and the ACLs of 
2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012.
    Two ACL alternatives, based on the most recent stock assessment 
(2005), were considered for longspine thornyhead south. Alternative 1 
assumed a constant density throughout the Conception area and 
represented 21 percent (the portion of the biomass estimated to occur 
north of Point Conception) of the coastwide ACL reduced by 50 percent 
for uncertainty. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs were 375 mt in 2011 and 
366 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs made the same assumption regarding 
stock distribution and represented 21 percent of the coastwide ACL. The 
ACLs under Alternative 2 were 751 mt in 2011 and 731 mt in 2012. For 
similar reasons as for shortspine thornyhead south, but with a 40 
percent reduction from the ABC, the Council recommended a continuation 
of the added precautionary adjustment included under For similar 
reasons as for shortspine thornyhead south, the Council recommended a 
continuation of the added precautionary adjustment included under 
Alternative 1 and recommended ACLs of 375 mt in 2011 and 366 mt in 
2012.

Cabezon (California)

    In recent years, the OY for Cabezon in waters off California was 
based on the California State Nearshore Management Plan which uses a 
FMSY proxy of F50 and a 60-20 
precautionary adjustment for stocks below B60 (60 
percent of the unfished biomass). This is in contrast to the PCGFMP 
FMSY proxy of F45 percent for Cabezon. In 
light of the new ACL requirements for a more precautionary ABC that is 
reduced from the OFL for scientific uncertainty, the Council's advisory 
bodies recommended using the

[[Page 67825]]

40-10 adjustment to better align the California management strategy 
with the PCGFMP. Alternative 1 considered an ACL of 102 mt in 2011 and 
105 mt 2012. Alternative 1 is based on the low mortality scenario from 
the 2009 stock assessment with a 40-10 reduction. Since scientific 
uncertainty is addressed in the ABC specification and the new 
assessment indicates a healthy stock status, the more risk averse ACL 
Alternative 1 was not considered necessary for managing California 
cabezon. Alternative 2 is the ACL set equal to the ABC and results in a 
2011 ACL of 179 mt and a 2012 ACL of 168 mt. Following consideration by 
the Council, Alternative 2 was recommended. The cabezon fishery is 
managed by the State under the California nearshore fishery management 
plan. Implementation of the California fishery management plan included 
provisions to improve fishery monitoring and research data collection. 
Improved stock assessment modeling plus improved inseason data 
availability, as implemented under the California fishery management 
plan, are expected to substantially reduce uncertainty in management of 
the nearshore fishery. Therefore, additional reductions in the ACL 
below ABC to address management uncertainty were not recommended by the 
Council.

Cabezon (Oregon)

    Following a 2009 stock assessment for cabezon off Oregon the SSC 
recommended removing the species from the ``other fish'' complex. The 
recreational sector was the main source of cabezon removals until the 
1990s when hook and line and pot gear commercial fisheries began 
targeting cabezon. Cabezon has since become a valuable live-fish 
commercial fishery associated with higher live market prices. Given the 
small contribution relative to other species in the complex, removing 
cabezon in Oregon from the ``other fish'' complex will reduce the risk 
of overfishing.
    Two ACL alternatives were considered for the cabezon stock off 
Oregon. Alternative 1 includes an ACL of 29 mt in 2011 and 2012, and 
was based on the results of the low mortality scenario in the 2009 
stock assessment. Since scientific uncertainty is addressed in the ABC 
specification and the new assessment indicates a healthier stock, the 
more risk averse ACL alternative 1 was not considered necessary for 
managing Oregon cabezon. Alternative 2 was from the results of the base 
model and the 2009 stock assessment, with the ACL set equal to the ABC. 
This resulted in a 2011 ACL of 50 mt and a 2012 ACL of 48 mt. Following 
consideration by the Council, an ACL of 50 mt in 2011 and an ACL of 48 
mt in 2012 was recommended. The cabezon fishery is managed by the State 
of Oregon under a limited entry nearshore permit program with a 
conservative management approach and a management history in which 
necessary action to stay within harvest specifications has been taken 
by the state.

California Scorpionfish

    California Scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27' North latitude (Point 
Conception) was first assessed in 2005 and was estimated to be between 
58 and 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. For 2011 and 2012 
the Council considered two ACL alternatives for California 
scorpionfish. Alternative 1 was based on the base model from the 2009 
stock assessment with the 60-20 reduction from the California State 
Nearshore Management Plan. Alternative 1 resulted in a 2011 ACL of 133 
mt and a 2012 ACL of 124 mt. The Alternative 2 ACLs of 135 mt in 2011 
and 125 mt in 2012 are ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council 
recommended setting the ACL equal to the ABC. Like cabezon, the 
California nearshore fishery management plan includes California 
scorpionfish which is a healthy stock, and is managed by the state 
under provisions for improved fishery monitoring and research data 
collection.

Dover Sole

    Alternatives 1-3 are based on the results of the 2005 stock 
assessment, which estimated the Dover sole biomass to be at 59.8 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2005 and was projected to be 
increasing. Alternative 1 is the 2010 OY which is based on the results 
of the 2005 assessment with an FMSY proxy of 
F40%. The Alternative 1 ACL of 16,500 mt is the MSY harvest 
level which is considerably larger than the coastwide catches in any 
recent years. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the FMSY 
harvest proxy from F40% to F30% for flatfishes. 
The MSY harvest level at F30% is 17,560 mt. Alternative 3 is 
based on the results of the 2005 assessment with an FMSY 
proxy of F30%, with the ACL set equal to the ABC, and was 
considered because the Dover sole stock biomass is above 
BMSY. Alternative 3 results in ACLs of 42,436 mt in 2011 and 
42,843 mt in 2012. After consideration of these alternatives, the 
Council recommended an ACL of 25,000 mt for 2011 and 2012 which is 
intermediate to Alternatives 2 and 3. An ACL of 25,000 mt is higher 
than recent harvests yet substantially lower than the ABC. This is 
anticipated to provide increased harvest opportunities on healthy 
stocks for the new trawl ITQ program. With a trawl IFQ program fishers 
would allow opportunity within the constraints of the individual quota 
shares for both Dover sole and overfished species that co-occur with 
Dover sole within. The Council indicated that such opportunities were 
necessary at the start of the IFQ fishery to provide harvest 
opportunity.

English Sole

    Two ACL alternatives were considered for English sole for 2011 and 
2012. Alternative 1 is 7,158 mt and 5,790 mt in 2011 and 2012, 
respectively. These amounts, are based on the results of the 2007 
assessment update with an FMSY proxy of F40% and 
the ACL set equal to the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the 
FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to F30% 
for flatfishes. The 2011 ACL of 19,761 mt and 2012 ACL of 10,150 mt 
under Alternative 2 are the ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council 
recommended Alternative 2. English sole is a healthy stock that is 
primarily caught in the trawl fishery where individual allocations and 
improved catch accounting under an IFQ fishery are expected to reduce 
the management uncertainty.

Arrowtooth Flounder

    Two ACL alternatives were considered for arrowtooth flounder in 
2011 and 2012. The Alternative 1 ACLs are 9,109 mt in 2011 and 8,241 mt 
in 2012 and are based on the results of the 2007 assessment with an 
FMSY proxy of F40% and is the ACL set equal to 
the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the FMSY 
harvest proxy from F40% to F30% for flatfishes. 
The Alternative 2 ACL is set equal to the ABC and results in an ACL of 
15,174 mt in 2011 and 12,049 mt in 2012. The Council recommended 
Alternative 2. Like English sole, arrowtooth flounder is a healthy 
stock that is primarily caught in the trawl fishery, where individual 
allocations and improved catch accounting under an IFQ fishery are 
expected to reduce the management uncertainty.

Starry Flounder

    Starry Flounder was assessed for the first time in 2005 and was 
estimated to be above 40 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. 
However, the stock was projected to decline in both the northern and 
southern areas. The starry flounder assessment was considered to be a 
data-poor assessment relative to other groundfish assessments. The

[[Page 67826]]

Alternative 1 ACL was based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment 
with an FMSY proxy of F40% and a 25 percent 
precautionary reduction from the ABC to account for management 
uncertainty. Alternative 1 results in ACLs of 1,130 mt in 2011 and 
1,166 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the 
FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to F30% 
for flatfishes and includes a 10 percent reduction from the ABC as a 
precautionary measure. Alternative 2 results in ACLs of 1,352 mt in 
2011 and 1,360 mt in 2012. Alternative 3 reflects the change in the 
FMSY harvest proxy from F40% to F30% 
for flatfishes. Under Alternative 3 the ACL would be set equal to ABC. 
The resulting ACLs under Alternative 3 are 1,502 mt in 2011 and 1,511 
mt in 2012. Following consideration of the ACLs, the Council 
recommended Alternative 2 with ACLs of 1,352 mt in 2011 and 1,360 mt in 
2012.

Minor Rockfish North

    In 2010, the ABC for each minor rockfish complex was the sum of the 
ABCs. To obtain the total catch OY for the complex, the ``remaining 
rockfish'' (species that have been assessed by less rigorous methods or 
stock assessments) ABCs were further reduced by 25 percent and ``other 
rockfish'' (species that do not have quantifiable stock assessments) 
ABCs were reduced by 50 percent. The complex OYs were then based on the 
sum of the OYs for the component species contributions. Sub-complex 
OYs, minor nearshore rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope 
rockfish were also based on the sum of their component species 
contributions.
    For 2011 and 2012, the Council recommended implementing the OFLs 
put forward by the SSC along with the SSC recommended ABC policies of 
using a sigma value and the Council recommended P* values. Substantial 
changes in minor nearshore north and minor shelf north harvest 
specifications from the 2010 levels resulted from the application of 
DB-SRA and the DCAC methods for determining OFLs for stocks that have 
not been assessed; the apportionment of catch north and south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude to derive component species OFLs; and the 
application of scientific uncertainty buffers.
    The Council expressed concern about the long term impacts of 
leaving splitnose and greenstriped rockfish in their current complexes. 
If stocks within a complex are caught in proportion to their 
contribution to the OFL the risks of overfishing an individual stock is 
low. If stocks are not caught in such proportions, then it is possible 
for overfishing to occur on a component species. This is more of a 
concern with stocks that are targeted and that only contribute a small 
proportion of the overall OFL.
    Greenstriped rockfish and splitnose rockfish were assessed in 2009. 
Given the results of the new assessments the Council considered 
removing these stocks from the minor rockfish north complex. Splitnose 
rockfish is part of the minor Slope Rockfish North sub-complex, which 
is comprised of nine species. In 2011 and 2012, splitnose rockfish is 
projected to contribute more than 50 percent of the weight of the minor 
Slope Rockfish in the complex. Greenstriped rockfish is a minor shelf 
rockfish that would present a similar situation with an OFL 
contribution of 55 percent of the complex. Removing a stock from a 
complex creates substantial complications for the management system. 
New sorting and reporting programs would be required for industry and 
the states. The implementation of the trawl shoreside IFQ program and 
initial allocation of minor slope rockfish under Amendment 21 would 
also be affected. Historical data collected at the complex level would 
be unreliable for deriving IFQ catch history at the species level. 
Additional observer monitoring under an IFQ program would provide much 
needed data for allocations at the species level. Consideration was 
given to the potential for a target species within a complex becoming 
overfished. Ultimately, the Council recommended leaving splitnose and 
greenstriped rockfish in the minor rockfish north complexes at this 
time.
    For chilipepper rockfish, 7 percent of the biomass from the 2007 
assessment area is attributed to the area north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. The northern portion of the stock is currently managed as 
part of the minor rockfish north complex. The Council recommended 
continuing the management of this species within the complex north of 
40[deg]10' north latitude.
    The Council considered dismantling of the minor rockfish complexes 
(both north and south) and grouping them by stock vulnerability, based 
on the PSA analysis prepared by the GMT. Due to workload and the 
complexity of the necessary analysis, the GMT could not complete the 
work in time for the 2011-2012 biennial management cycle. The Council 
expressed interest in such an analysis for the 2013-2014 biennial 
process and encouraged that a broad range of methods be considered 
through the Council's STAR-light process (less vigorous review than the 
full STAR panel process). The lack of species specific historical 
landing data for stocks within complexes makes an analysis difficult. 
The trawl IFQ program will require full observer coverage for catch 
accounting, and it is expected to provide catch by species data that 
could be used in such an analysis.
    For minor nearshore rockfish north the Council recommended that 
splitnose, greenstriped, and chilipepper rockfish remain in the complex 
for 2011 and 2012. A 50 mt contribution for cabezon in waters off 
Oregon is removed from the complex. Minor rockfish north is comprised 
of three minor rockfish sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. 
Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of the OFLs of the component species 
within the complex. ABCs for the minor rockfish complexes and sub-
complexes are based on a sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks 
(splitnose and chilipepper rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks 
(greenstriped rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks all with a P*s 
of 0.45. The ACL for each component species is less than or equal to 
the ABC. The ACL for the complex is the sum of the sub-complex ACLs. 
The sub-complexes ACLs are the sum of the component stock ACLs. The 
resulting 2011 and 2012 ACLs for the minor rockfish north represent a 
42 percent (nearshore-15 percent, shelf-56 percent, and slope-23 
percent) reduction from the OFL. This is in contrast to the 2010 minor 
rockfish north OY which represented a reduction from the 2010 ABC (now 
referred to as the OFL) of 38 percent.

Minor Rockfish South

    Similar to the minor rockfish north complex, the OFLs recommended 
by the SSC and the new ABC policies based on the OFLs for the 2011-2012 
cycle resulted in substantial changes relative to 2010. Blue rockfish 
is currently managed within the minor rockfish complex. The first blue 
rockfish assessment on the West Coast was conducted in 2007 for the 
portion of the stock occurring in waters off California north of Point 
Conception (34[deg]27' north latitude). The Blue rockfish stock was 
estimated to be at 29.7 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007; 
therefore, the stock is considered to be in the precautionary zone. 
During the 2009 and 2010 biennial specification process, the Council 
contemplated removing blue rockfish from the minor rockfish complex. 
The decision to continue managing blue rockfish within the minor 
nearshore complex was based on both scientific uncertainty and 
management needs, given the interaction of blue rockfish with other

[[Page 67827]]

nearshore species. When blue rockfish occur offshore they can be 
targeted separately from other nearshore rockfish, but those that occur 
inshore mix with other nearshore rockfish stocks. Blue rockfish is 
managed under the state of California nearshore management plan which 
is a limited entry program with mandatory sorting requirements. 
Landings are routinely tracked and monitored, thereby reducing 
management uncertainty.
    The Council considered the contribution of blue rockfish to the 
minor rockfish complex ACL. For more efficient state management, blue 
rockfish would continue to be managed as part of the minor rockfish 
complex. In 2009-2010, blue rockfish in the California fisheries were 
managed with a harvest guideline (HG) to prevent overfishing as blue 
rockfish is a stock in the precautionary zone. To prevent an ACL from 
being exceeded, the Council recommended continued use of the HG. The 
2011 HG will be 242 mt and the 2012 HG will be 239 mt. The HG 
contribution for the unassessed portion of the stock south of Pt. 
Conception was calculated by first estimating an OFL using the DCAC 
methodology and then applying an ABC adjustment ([sigma]=1.44 with a P* 
of 0.45). The HG contribution for the assessed area was calculated by 
determining the OFL from the 2007 stock assessment, deriving an ABC 
using a P* of 0.45 for a category 2 stock, then adjusting the ABC value 
using the 40-10 harvest control rule. The 2011 and 2012 blue rockfish 
ABC contributions for the assessed and unassessed areas are then summed 
to determine the HGs.
    Similar to minor rockfish north, consideration was given to the 
potential for a target species within a complex becoming overfished and 
the contribution of a non-target species managed within a species 
complex. The Council contemplated the removal of greenstriped rockfish 
in the minor shelf rockfish south complex, but recommended leaving it 
in the complex at this time.
    Minor rockfish south is comprised of three minor rockfish sub-
complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL for the complex is the 
sum of OFLs for nearshore, shelf and slope south sub-complexes. Each 
sub-complex OFL is the sum of the OFLs of the component species within 
the complex. ABCs for the minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes 
are based on a sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher north 
of Point Conception, and blackgill rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 
stocks (blue, bank and greenstriped rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 
stocks with a P* of 0.45. The ACLs for the complex are the sum of the 
sub-complex ACLs. The ACLs for the sub-complexes are the sum of the 
component stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC 
contribution of each component stock. The ACLs for the minor slope and 
shelf sub-complexes were set equal to the 2010 OYs. The resulting 2011 
and 2012 ACLs for the minor rockfish south represent a 45 percent 
(nearshore-14 percent, shelf-68 percent, and slop-31 percent) reduction 
from the OFL. This is in contrast to the 2010 a minor rockfish south OY 
reduction from the 2010 ABC (now referred to as the OFL) of 41 percent 
in 2010.
    Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP removes dusky rockfish and red-dwarf 
rockfish from the PCGFMP. These stocks are not considered to be in the 
fishery as there are no historical records of them being landed. 
Therefore these stocks are removed from the complexes.

Splitnose Rockfish

    A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for splitnose 
rockfish in 2009. Splitnose rockfish is a slope species currently 
managed in the minor rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude, but as an individual species south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. Splitnose rockfish has been managed separately north and 
south of 40[deg]10' north latitude because the previous stock 
assessment was only for the southern portion of the stock. Although the 
SSC recommended 2011 and 2012 coastwide splitnose rockfish OFLs of 
2,381 and 2,507 mt, respectively, which were determined by applying the 
proxy F50 MSY harvest rate to the projected 
exploitable biomass in each year. The Council chose OFL and ABC values 
that assume that splitnose rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north latitude 
would continue to be managed within the minor nearshore rockfish 
complex north. The Council recommended continuing this management 
strategy largely due to the implications of determining the catch 
history for individual trawl permits for the initial allocation of 
quota shares for the shoreside trawl IFQ program under Amendment 20. 
Determining the catch history would be difficult because splitnose 
rockfish are not targeted and are predominantly discarded at sea 
resulting in little landing data.
    The Council recommended continued management of splitnose rockfish 
with a separate ACL south of 40[deg]10' north latitude and within the 
minor slope rockfish sub-complex ACL north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. As noted above, the minor slope rockfish north complex is 
comprised of nine species. In 2011 and 2012, splitnose rockfish were 
projected to contribute more than 50 percent of the ABC/ACL of the 
minor Slope Rockfish North complex. The north/south apportionment 
recommended by the Council was based on the average 1916-2008 assessed 
area catch and is 64.2 percent for the area south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude and 35.8 percent for the area north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. The resulting ACL for 2011 is 1,461 mt and 1,538 mt for 2012.

Shortbelly Rockfish

    To understand the potential environmental determinants of 
fluctuations in the recruitment and abundance of an unexploited 
rockfish population in the California Current ecosystem, a non 
quantitative assessment was conducted in 2007. The results of the 
assessment indicated the shortbelly stock was healthy with an estimated 
spawning stock biomass at 67 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. 
Shortbelly rockfish is an abundant species that is not targeted in any 
commercial or recreational fisheries, and which is a valuable forage 
fish species. The OFL of 6,950 mt was recommended for the stock in both 
2011 and 2012 with an ABC of 5,789 mt ([sigma]-0.72 with a P* of 0.40) 
in both 2011 and 2012. The Council considered two ACL alternatives. 
Alternative 1 with an ACL of 50 mt was somewhat above the recent 
landing level and under Alternative 2 ACL values were set equal to the 
ABC (5,789 in both 2011 and 2012). The 50 mt ACL was recommended by the 
Council and was intended to be adequate to accommodate incidental catch 
while preventing the development of fisheries specifically targeting 
shortbelly rockfish. The Council recognized shortbelly rockfish for its 
value as a forage fish.

Rebuilding Plan ACLS for Overfished Species

    When a stock has been declared overfished a rebuilding plan must be 
developed and the stock must be managed in accordance with the 
rebuilding plan. An overfished groundfish stock is considered rebuilt 
once its biomass reaches BMSY. Rebuilding plans are based on 
the results of rebuilding analyses. Life history characteristics (e.g., 
age of reproductive maturity, relative productivity at different ages 
and sizes, etc.) and the effects of environmental conditions on its 
abundance (e.g., relative productivity under inter-annual and inter-
decadal climate variability, availability of suitable feed and habitat 
for different life stages, etc.) are taken into account in the stock 
assessment and the rebuilding analysis. A

[[Page 67828]]

rebuilding analysis for an overfished species uses the information in 
its stock assessment to determine TMIN, the minimum time to 
rebuild to BMSY in the absence of fishing. For each stock, 
TMIN is dependent on a variety of physical and biological 
factors. The rebuilding analyses are used to predict TMIN 
for each overfished species and, in doing so, answer the question of 
what is ``as quickly as possible'' for each of the overfished species.
    To rebuild a stock by the TMIN date would require 
elimination of human-induced mortality on a stock (the complete absence 
of fishing mortality is referred to as F = zero). However, the absence 
of fishing mortality does not necessarily result in the complete 
absence of human-induced fishing mortality. To rebuild by the 
TMIN date would require elimination of extractive scientific 
research, in addition to any target or incidental commercial, 
recreational, or ceremonial and subsistence fishing that results in 
overfished species mortality. Eliminating extractive scientific fishing 
would eliminate a significant portion of data used to inform stock 
assessments and to better understand the biological condition of 
groundfish stocks. For overfished species where retention has been 
prohibited, little information is available to inform stock 
assessments; this has particularly been an issue for species such as 
yelloweye rockfish. With the implementation of trawl rationalization, 
observer monitoring will increase to full coverage which is expected to 
provide more biological data regarding overfished species that are 
vulnerable to trawl gear. However, for species such as yelloweye 
rockfish and cowcod that are primarily taken in the recreational 
fishery and with non-trawl gears, little new biological data is 
expected to be available without research collections. Non-extractive 
survey techniques, such as Remote Operational Vehicle (ROV) work, are 
currently cost prohibitive on a large scale. Because Pacific Coast 
groundfish species are so intermixed, extractive scientific fishing for 
some non-overfished species would need to be eliminated as well. To 
appropriately take into account the status and biology of overfished 
stocks, both now and in the future the scientific take of overfished 
and other groundfish stocks must continue.
    The relative level of depletion, combined with other biological 
characteristics of the stock, influences the sensitivity of a stock's 
rebuilding time to changes to long-term harvest rates generally used to 
set ACLs. Stocks with very low levels of depletion; such as canary 
rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye rockfish; are considered to have a 
higher sensitivity to changes in harvest rate and higher harvest rates 
for these species have a greater risk of not rebuilding by 
TTARTGET. From a biological view due to the differences in 
productivity between species, one year of delay of rebuilding for 
yelloweye rockfish (the slowest of the overfished species to rebuild) 
is not equivalent to a one year of delay in rebuilding for petrale sole 
(the quickest overfished species to rebuild). The estimate of mean 
generation time recommended in the National Standard guidelines for the 
calculation of TMAX captures these biological differences, 
but it is not incorporated into the other rebuilding parameters.
    As advised by the SSC, the Council has elected to set overfished 
species harvests based on a constant SPR harvest rate. The SPR is the 
expected lifetime contribution to the spawning stock biomass for a 
recruit (a fish of specific spawning age or greater) usually expressed 
as the number of eggs that could be produced by an average recruit in a 
fished stock, divided by the number of eggs that could be produced by 
an average recruit in an unfished stock. The SPR harvest rate specifies 
the proportion of the spawning stock that can be removed each year and 
inherently takes into account the productivity of the stock. The 
exploitation pattern, rate of growth, and natural mortality can be 
given consideration when calculating an SPR harvest rate. Applying a 
constant SPR harvest rate is more precautionary in an uncertain 
environment as it reduces the effect of changes in variability in the 
scale of biomass (a change in the entire trajectory of biomass from the 
first biomass estimate forward to the current biomass estimate). When a 
new stock assessment results in a change in the understanding of stock 
scale, a constant harvest rate strategy is expected to keep the stock 
on track to the TTARGET. In addition, the ``rebuilding 
paradox'' (the fishing interaction with the stock increases as the 
stock biomass increases) is addressed within a constant SPR approach. 
This is because the ACL would change in relation to changes in biomass. 
In contrast, constant catch rebuilding strategies do not adjust in 
relation to changes in biomass which can be problematic when there is a 
downward change in abundance. In this case, the catch may become too 
large relative to the size of the biomass population and adjustments 
become necessary to meet the same TTARGET. Although the 
biennial management cycle requires the focus on ACLs for a two year 
period, an SPR harvest strategy is based on a rebuilding trajectory 
over time. For stocks with slow trajectories, the differences between 
two alternatives considered during a single biennial management cycle 
need to be compared in relation to how they rebuild the stock over 
time.
    Given the changes in perception of stock status and biology, the 
Council tracks rebuilding progress in three dimensions: stock 
productivity; absolute stock abundance or stock scale; and relative 
stock abundance or stock status. Stock productivity is referred to as 
recruitment and means the ability of a stock to generate new 
individuals of harvestable size. Stock scale is the total number of 
individuals in a population. This value is rarely known, but is usually 
estimated from relative abundance or through other methods. Absolute 
stock abundance is an estimate of the current biomass usually measured 
by indices that track trends in population biomass over time. Stock 
status is the current biomass relative to the unfished biomass. Each of 
these dimensions is subject to considerable scientific uncertainty and 
can change the overall rebuilding outlook from cycle to cycle. To 
determine whether a stock is better or worse off compared to a previous 
assessment, all three dimensions must be examined. Changes in the 
understanding of stock productivity can affect rebuilding plans by 
altering our perception of how quickly a stock can increase. Changes in 
our understanding of life history traits (e.g. mortality, maturity, 
fecundity, or growth) can change the evaluation of stock productivity. 
Measuring recruitment is difficult given the elusive and inaccessible 
early life histories of most groundfish species and the fact that 
recruitment events are not constant. In the case of many groundfish, 
recruitment is highly variable and sporadic. Age or length data, along 
with survey biomass estimates and removal histories, all inform 
recruitment patterns, but to varying degrees of resolution. The most 
recent couple of years of recruitment are often the most uncertain.
    Absolute stock abundance, or stock scale, has also demonstrated 
considerable variability across assessments. This variability is often 
a result of uncertainty in catch histories, which scales the biomass 
via estimates of fishing mortality, but is also sensitive to life 
history parameters such as growth and mortality. Any changes in these 
estimates can have large effects in perceived biomass. These changes in 
scale are commonly seen in estimates of

[[Page 67829]]

unfished biomass, as the scale of the entire population trajectory can 
shift up or down. Changes in population scale will affect the level of 
catch needed to achieve the rebuilding goals if harvest levels are not 
based on harvest rates. Changes in the understanding of stock 
productivity and relative biomass can result in changes in the 
estimated time to rebuild and rebuilding reference points.
    Stock status or depletion is expressed as an estimate of current 
biomass relative to the estimate of unfished biomass. Importantly, 
changes in the estimate of unfished biomass can change with new data, 
even though the current population biomass stays the same. Likewise, as 
more data becomes available on productivity in current years it may 
alter our understanding of current year biomass relative to an unfished 
biomass. Because stock status is the basis for determining when a stock 
is rebuilt, subsequent estimates of when a stock is projected to 
rebuild at a specific SPR may change as estimates of stock status 
change.
    At its June 2010 meeting, the Council made final recommendations 
on: 2011-2012 harvest specifications (OFLs, ABC, ACLs ACTs, catch 
allocations and set-asides); rebuilding plans for overfished species; 
and, management measures designed to keep total catch mortality within 
the final preferred ACL levels.

Bocaccio

    The new 2009 assessment shows that bocaccio is rebuilding ahead of 
schedule. The Council considered, but did not recommend extending the 
bocaccio rebuilding plan north of 40[deg]10' north latitude to Cape 
Blanco based given advisory body advise that extending the rebuilding 
plan further north would not aid stock recovery and would complicate 
current management. Three bocaccio ACL alternatives derived from the 
2009 rebuilding analysis were considered by the Council. The 
Alternative 1 ACLs of 53 mt in 2011 and 56 mt in 2012 applies an SPR 
harvest rate of 95 percent and has a predicted median time to rebuild 
of 2019, which equals the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero (i.e., 
the shortest time to rebuild the stock at this point) and 7 years 
before the TTARGET specified in the current rebuilding plan. 
The 2012 bocaccio HG for the California recreational fishery 
Alternative 1, would reduce the Southern Management Area fishing season 
to only a five month fishing season during the least valuable months. 
The resulting season would not encompass the critical months for 
rockfish fishing from March through April when coastal pelagic and 
highly migratory species are not available to the fishery. In addition, 
the season in the South-Central Management Area would be reduced by 1 
month resulting in a 6-month fishing season. The Alternative 2 ACLs of 
109 mt in 2011 and 115 mt in 2012 are consistent with an SPR harvest 
rate of 90 percent with a predicted median time to rebuild the stock of 
2020 or one year longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero 
and rebuilds 6 year earlier than the TTARGET specified in 
the current rebuilding plan. Most bocaccio mortality occurs in the 
California recreational fisheries. Under this alternative the only 
constraint over status quo in the recreational fishery is for ``other 
flatfish'' where fishing is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) 
depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and offshore 
seamounts from May 15 through September 15; and is closed entirely from 
January 1 through May 14 and from September 16 through December 31). 
Alternative 2 for the California recreational fishery, given the 
preferred catch sharing alternative selected by the Council, would be 
sufficient to allow for a depth increase to 30 fm (55 m) or possibly 40 
fm (73 m) in the cowcod conservation area (CCA) and retention of shelf 
and slope rockfish including bocaccio in the CCA. Bocaccio co-occur 
with chilipepper and widow rockfish, which have historically been taken 
with trawl gear south of 40[deg]10' north latitude. Under the trawl IFQ 
program, fishers could target chilipepper rockfish providing they have 
adequate quota pounds to cover all IFQ species in the catch.
    The Alternative 3 ACLs of 263 mt in 2011 and 274 mt in 2012 are 
based on the current rebuilding plan and are based on the status quo 
SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent. This alternative has a predicted 
median time to rebuild of 2022 or three years longer than the minimum 
time to rebuild with F=zero and rebuilds 4 years earlier than the 
TTARGET specified in the current rebuilding plan. This 
alternative applies the same SPR harvest rate as in 2009-10, even 
though it results in slightly lower harvest levels. This alternative 
also takes into account the status of the stock and facilitates 
rebuilding early, while attempting to strike a balance between 
rebuilding the stock and minimizing severe economic consequences to 
communities. Bocaccio is a relatively productive species which is 
difficult for fishers to avoid and co-occurs with other stocks (e.g., 
widow and chilipepper). As with Alternative 2, the California 
recreational fishery could increase the RCA depths from 20 fm (37 m) to 
30 fm (55 m) under this alternative. As noted above under Alternative 
2, with the trawl IFQ program, fishers could target chilipepper 
providing they have adequate quota pounds to cover all IFQ species in 
the catch. Alternative 3 provides the greatest opportunity for 
targeting chilipepper with trawl gear. The Council expressed concerns 
relative to bocaccio catch in the initial year of the new IFQ program. 
For species where more than 80 percent of the OY has been harvested 
annually, concern was expressed in regards to the implications of full 
catch accounting and the number of fishers that may choose to carry-
over quota pounds into 2012 or 2013.
    Because the rebuilding progress was considered adequate, and the 
assessment did not change our fundamental understanding of the stock, 
the SSC recommended maintaining the status quo rebuilding plan (i.e., 
no modifications to TTARGET or SPR harvest rate) under 
Alternative 3. Total catch from 2000-2008 was 50 percent of the OY, 
indicating that management has been effective at curtailing fishing 
mortality to facilitate rebuilding as quickly as possible.
    ACL allocations were also considered by the Council. The following 
are the Council's recommended allocations for Bocaccio in 2011: Limited 
entry non-whiting trawl, 29.6 mt; limited entry and open access non-
nearshore fixed gears, 57.9; limited entry and open access nearshore 
fixed gear, 0.3; California recreational 161.8 mt. The following are 
the Council's recommended allocations for bocaccio in 2012: Limited 
entry non-whiting trawl, 30.9 mt; limited entry and open access non-
nearshore fixed gears, 60.4; limited entry and open access nearshore 
fixed gear, 0.3; California recreational 168.9 mt. The recreational 
portion of the non-trawl allocation of bocaccio would accommodate a 
potential increase in bocaccio impacts in the recreational fishery as a 
result of allowing retention of shelf rockfish within the 30 fm (55 m) 
depth restriction in the CCA.
    Although the Council-recommended ACLs are 263 mt in 2011 and 274 mt 
in 2012, the proposed management measures and catch allocations were 
projected to result in bocaccio total catch mortality of 249.6 mt in 
2011 and 260.6 mt in 2012, which is 13.4 mt less than the annual ACLs. 
Managing the fishery to a level that is 13.4 mt less than the annual 
ACLs is intended to allow the stock to rebuild faster while recognizing 
the management uncertainty associated with the species.

[[Page 67830]]

Canary Rockfish

    The historical catch data used in the 2009 stock assessment update 
was significantly different from that used in previous assessments. 
This change caused a relatively large change in the unfished and 
terminal year (2009) biomass estimates. When compared to the results of 
the 2007 stock assessment, the depletion level in recent years is lower 
in the 2009 stock assessment. The perception of the relative status and 
productivity of canary rockfish has changed and stock cannot be rebuilt 
by the current TTARGET (2021) even in the absence of 
fishing, therefore the rebuilding plan must be modified.
    The impacts of three ACL alternatives were analyzed and included 
ACLs of 49 in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012, 94 in 2011 and 99 mt in 2012; 
and, 102 mt in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012. Alternative 1 with an ACL of 49 
mt in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012 takes into account the less optimistic 
assessment update with a more precautionary harvest rate (SPR=94.4 
percent). Alternative 1 results in a TTARGET of 2025 which 
is 4 years longer than the TTARGET in the existing 
rebuilding plan and 1 year longer than the minimum time to rebuild with 
F=zero. The canary rockfish ACLs in Alternative 1 are similar to the 
2007-2008 OY of 44 mt which resulted in substantial hardship on fishers 
and communities because substantial harvest of other healthy species 
was foregone. Under Alternative 1 a large closed area would be needed 
for the limited entry fixed gear fishery in the north or reductions to 
sablefish harvest would be necessary in order to stay within the 
overfished species constraints. With the ACLs proposed under 
Alternative 1, the canary rockfish ACL and associated apportionment to 
the non-nearshore fisheries is so low that the sablefish allocations 
would have to be reduced by as much as 42 percent. The California 
nearshore fishery would also be severely constrained, requiring 
statewide 20 fm (37 m) Shoreward RCA lines and large trip limit 
reductions or total closures for some species would be necessary. This 
is in contrast to status quo where the non-trawl RCAs are 20 fm (37 m) 
in most northern areas and 60 fm (110 m) south of 34[deg]27 north 
latitude. All recreational fisheries would experience reduced season 
lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. In addition, the trawl IFQ 
fishery is intended to provide long-term benefits to the fishery in the 
form of bycatch reduction and economic stability. Given the full catch 
accounting proposed under trawl IFQ program and that all catch, 
discarded and retain will count towards the individuals IFQ shares, the 
risk of the fishery exceeding the ACL is reduced compared 2010 and 
prior years. In the short term, fishers will need to learn how to avoid 
canary rather than simply discarding them at-sea. ACLs for overfished 
species that are too low could be perceived as too risky (risk of 
exceeding the individual quota pounds) by fishers such that they limit 
their fishing participation for healthy target species; or hold quota 
pounds of constraining overfished for sale to fishers who incur 
overages. Reduce fishing time may result in fishers being unable to 
develop new methods or strategies risk to avoid overfished species. The 
long-term success of the trawl rationalization program to maintain low 
incidental catch of overfished species in conjunction with profitable 
harvest of healthy stocks is consistent with the needs of communities 
specified in the PCGFMP.
    Alternative 2 included ACLs of 94 mt in 2011 and 99 mt in 2012. 
This alternative takes into account the less optimistic assessment 
update with a more precautionary harvest rate (SPR=89.5 percent) than 
the current rebuilding plan and results in a TTARGET that is 
two years longer than F=Zero. Under this alternative the California 
nearshore fishery would experience changes to the RCA and/or reductions 
in catch.
    Alternative 3 includes ACLs of 102 mt in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012. 
The alternative would maintain the SPR harvest rate of 88.7 percent in 
the current rebuilding plan. This is a conservative SPR harvest rate 
that results in a TTARGET that is three years longer the 
target year with no F=zero. Due to the nature of the canary stock, even 
higher ACL harvest levels in the range considered by the Council have 
small impacts on the time to rebuild. This is because the range of ACLs 
being considered represent a very low level of fishing mortality. 
Canary rockfish are under the rebuilding paradox (as the stock 
increases its biomass it becomes increasingly more difficult for 
fishers to avoid) and are difficult to avoid, so the ACL under this 
alternative would address those expected increased interactions. The 
California nearshore fishery would continue to be constrained under 
this alternative, preventing access to target species. The shoreward 
nontrawl RCA would be the same as under the No Action Alternative (20 
fm (37 m) in most northern areas, 60 fm (110 m) south of 34[deg]27 
north latitude). Landings of non-overfished species would be reduced 
from the No Action Alternative levels in order to stay within the 
overfished species constraints. Alternative 1, the trawl IFQ fishery is 
intended to provide long-term benefits to the fishery. Under 
Alternative 3, canary rockfish would be less of a limit to access to 
healthy target species and the risk of encountering canary rockfish in 
excess of an individual's quota shares is reduced. Although canary 
rockfish is still expected to constrain harvest of healthy stocks under 
Alternative 3, the constraints on harvest from the perceived risk of 
exceeding an individual's quota shares and is not expected to undermine 
the long term benefits that shorebased trawl IFQ program. In the short 
term fishers will need to learn how to avoid canary rockfish rather 
than simply discarding them at-sea. However, long term benefits in 
reduced bycatch and improved avoidance techniques are expected in a 
rationalized trawl fishery.
    The Council also considered the allocation of the canary ACL among 
fishery sectors. The following are the Council's recommended 
allocations for canary rockfish in 2011: Limited entry non-whiting 
trawl, 19.3 mt; limited entry Pacific whiting 14.1 mt (catcher/
processor 4.8 mt, mothership 3.4 mt, and shorebased 5.9 mt); limited 
entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 2.3; limited entry and 
open access nearshore fixed gear, 3.3; Washington recreational, 4.4; 
Oregon recreational 14.5 mt; and California recreational 22.9 mt. The 
following are the Council's recommended allocations for canary rockfish 
in 2012: Limited entry non-whiting trawl, 19.3 mt; limited entry 
Pacific whiting 14.8 mt (catcher/processor 5 mt, mothership 3.6 mt, and 
shorebased 6.2 mt); limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed 
gears, 2.3; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 3.3; 
Washington recreational, 4.4; Oregon recreational 14.5 mt; and 
California recreational 24.2 mt. Although the Council's recommended 
ACLs are 102 mt in 2011 and 107 mt in 2012, the proposed management 
measures and catch allocations were projected to result in canary total 
catch mortality of 82 mt in 2011 and 87 mt in 2012, that is 20 mt less 
than the annual ACLs. The catch allocations are consistent with how the 
2010 Washington and Oregon recreational fisheries have been managed and 
with the PCGFMP Amendment 21 which specifies trawl and non-trawl 
allocations. Managing the fishery to a level that is 20 mt less than 
the annual ACLs is intended to allow the stock to rebuild faster while 
reducing inseason management changes for the species.

[[Page 67831]]

Cowcod

    Three ACL alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis 
for the Conception area contribution and based on results of the 2009 
stock assessment update were considered for analysis. As was done in 
previous biennial harvest specifications, the Conception area ACL was 
doubled as an appropriate harvest contribution for the unassessed 
Monterey area.
    Under Alternative 1, the ACL would be 2 mt for 2011 and 2012, with 
an SPR harvest rate of 90 percent with a median time to rebuild of 
2064, which is four years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with 
F=zero. Under this alternative extractive research would not be 
possible. Additional modifications to the California recreational 
fishery southern management area may be necessary. Under Alternative 1, 
cowcod is less constraining than other overfished species occurring in 
the same areas. Although the low cowcod ACL would allow for an increase 
the CCA depth restriction from 20 fm to 30 fm (37-55 m) for the 
California recreational and fixed gear fisheries, the bocaccio ACLs 
would not. The Alternative 2 ACL of 3 mt for 2011 and 2012 is based on 
an SPR harvest rate of 82.7 percent in 2011 and 2012. Although cowcod 
impacts have been minimized by prohibiting retention and area closures 
in California waters, there have been instances when 3 mt has been 
estimated to have been incidentally taken. Alternative 2 has a median 
time to rebuild of 2068 which is eight years longer than the minimum 
time to rebuild with F=zero. The cowcod harvest limit would be 
sufficient to allow the proposed 30 fm (55 m) or 40 fm (73 m) depth 
restriction in the CCA and retention of shelf and slope rockfish 
including bocaccio in the CCA. The Alternative 3 ACL of 4 mt in 2011 
and 2012 is the status quo alternative based on an SPR harvest rate of 
79 percent with a median time to rebuild of 2071 or eleven years longer 
the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. The three ACL alternatives are 
predicted to rebuild the stock 8, 4, and 1 year(s), respectively prior 
to the TTARGET of 2072 specified in the current rebuilding 
plan. The Council recommended maintaining the 4 mt ACL under 
Alternative 3 with no change to the SPR harvest rate of 79 percent from 
2009-2010. Modifying the depth restriction in the CCA from 20 fm (37 m) 
to 30 fm (55 m) or 40 fm (73 m) is not projected to result in increased 
catch of cowcod and can be accommodated under Alternative 3. Because 
cowcod impacts have varied over the last 5 years (according to the 
total mortality reports), Alternative 3 would encompass the 
variability. Cowcod is extremely important to the recreational fishery 
and the trawl fishery south of 40[deg]10' north latitude. Trawl 
activity has declined south of 40[deg]10' north latitude over the last 
few years due in part to the buyback program. Trawl activity is 
expected to increase due to the new trawl rationalization program.

Darkblotched Rockfish

    The 2009 assessment results indicated that the fishing mortality 
rate has been greatly reduced and darkblotched appear to be rebuilding 
gradually at close to previous rebuilding projections. Three ACL 
alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis were considered. 
The Alternative 1 ACLs of 130 mt and 131 mt for 2011 and 2012, 
respectively. The Alternative 1 ACLs are based on an SPR harvest rate 
of 81.8 percent and result in an estimated median time to rebuild of 
2018, which is two years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with 
F=zero. The whiting trawl fishery would likely be constrained by this 
alternative. Reductions in the darkblotched rockfish OYs are highly 
limiting to the trawl fisheries because darkblotched rockfish co-occur 
with the most economically important species in the fishery such as 
petrale sole, sablefish, and whiting. Trawl opportunities on the slope 
would be limited as the seaward RCA moved deeper. With the low ACL 
under Alternative 1, ACLs for overfished species that are too low could 
be perceived as too risky (risk of exceeding the individual quota 
pounds) by fishers such that they limit their fishing participation for 
healthy target species; or hold quota pounds of constraining overfished 
for sale to other fishers who incur overages. Reduced fishing time may 
result in fishers being unable to develop new methods or strategies to 
avoid overfished species. Darkblotched rockfish quota shares may 
increase in value. Alternative 2 was based on an SPR harvest rate of 
64.9 percent and resulted in a 2011 ACL of 298 mt and 2012 ACL of 296 
mt, with a median time to rebuild of 2025. The median time to rebuild 
is nine years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero and 3 
years sooner than the TTARGET in the current rebuilding 
plan. The Alternative 3 ACLs of 332 mt in 2011 and 329 in 2012 are 
based on an SPR harvest rate of 62.1 percent which is the SPR harvest 
rate specified in the current rebuilding plan. Alternative 3 has a 
median time to rebuild of 2027 which is eleven years the minimum time 
to rebuild with F=zero. The three ACL alternatives are predicted to 
rebuild the stock 10, 6, and 1 year(s), respectively, earlier than the 
TTARGET specified in the current rebuilding plan. The SSC 
did not recommend any changes to the current rebuilding plan. The 
Council recommended Alternative 2, a 2011 ACL of 298 mt and a 2012 ACL 
of 296 mt.

Petrale Sole

    The results of the 2009 stock assessment estimated the petrale sole 
biomass to be at 11.6 percent of its unfished biomass. Because petrale 
sole is below the BMSY proxy of B25% it was 
declared overfished by NMFS on February 9, 2010 and therefore requires 
the development of a rebuilding plan.
    The ACL alternatives considered for petrale sole are all projected 
to rebuild the stock to the B25% level well in advance of 
TMAX (2021). The shortest time to rebuild petrale sole is 
TMIN (2014), which is the estimated rebuilding period if all 
sources of fishing-related mortality were eliminated beginning in 2011. 
With petrale sole, successful rebuilding by TMIN is also 
projected to occur even with some allowable harvest. The Alternative 1 
ACLs of 459 and 624 mt in 2011 and 2012 respectively were based on an 
SPR harvest rate of 50 percent. The median year estimated to rebuild 
the stock under Alternative 1 is 2014, which is TMIN. 
Alternative 2 applies the 25-5 precautionary harvest control rule 
beginning in 2011 and results in ACLs of 776 mt and 1,160 mt in 2011 
and 2012, respectively. Alternative 2 is estimated to rebuild the stock 
by 2015 or 1 year the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. Alternative 
3 would specify a 2011 ACL of 976 mt which is at the ABC level and for 
2012 the 25-5 precautionary adjustment would be applied, resulting in a 
1,160 mt ACL. Alternative 3 is estimated to rebuild the stock by 2016 
or two years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero and 5 
years earlier than TMAX.
    The Council recommended Alternative 3. Petrale sole are a major 
target stock in the current non-whiting trawl fishery. Industry has 
indicated that an allowable harvest below the 1,000-1,200 mt level 
risks losing market share to substitute species and significantly 
disrupts the fishery. The fall petrale sole fishery has been a valuable 
economic asset to both the fishers and processors when both the weather 
and the late year trip limits put an economic hardship on the industry. 
The petrale sole fishery has become an established holiday season 
marketing item for the processors, brokers,

[[Page 67832]]

wholesalers, restaurants, and grocery stores. While Alternative 3 is 
below this critical level of harvest, it is the highest alternative 
considered for 2011-2012. It would constrain the non-whiting trawl 
fishery, but cause less disruption to the fishery and economic harm to 
trawl-dependent fishing communities than the other alternatives.
    Petrale sole make seasonal inshore-offshore migrations and are 
targeted in bottom trawl efforts on the shelf in the summer and in 
spawning aggregations in discrete areas on the shelf/slope break in the 
winter. One strategy for faster rebuilding of petrale sole would be to 
close the petrale sole fishing areas where the fish aggregate and spawn 
in the winter. The 2009 petrale sole assessment and rebuilding analysis 
indicated that larger and more mature fish are caught by the offshore 
winter fleet. Reducing these fishing opportunities has been shown to 
rebuild the stock relatively faster than allowing the mix of summer and 
winter petrale sole fishing that has occurred prior to 2010. Under 
Alternative 3, the 200 fm (366 m) seaward RCA coastwide would continue 
to be modified in periods 1 (January-February) and 6 (November-
December) to provide access to petrale sole. Proposed changes to the 
200 fm (366 m) RCA line in the Heceta Bank area are not expected to 
result in measurable impacts on spawning aggregations of petrale sole 
over the existing 200 fm (366 m) RCA line. In addition, the shoreward 
RCA line between of 48[deg]10' north latitude and 40[deg]10' north 
latitude would be maintained at 75 fm (137 m) year round to reduce 
petrale sole catch. Under a rationalized trawl fishery, with individual 
accountability, the risk of exceeding the petrale sole trawl allocation 
or ACL is lower than under cumulative trip limit management where the 
fleet is modeled as a whole.
    Given petrale sole's productivity and the fact that the species is 
caught almost exclusively by a single fishery sector, rebuilding the 
stock is more straight forward than rebuilding long-lived rockfish. The 
Council's recommended alternative deviates from the Council's policy of 
overfished species being managed as incidental only, because the ACLs 
recommended for petrale sole would allow for a targeted fishery with a 
minimal delay in rebuilding (2 years more than F=ZERO). 
Petrale sole is one of the most economically important stocks to the 
non-whiting trawl fishery. Petrale sole is the third most valuable 
species in terms of its overall annual ex-vessel value, contributing, 
on average, 19 percent of total ex-vessel revenue in the non-whiting 
trawl fishery. Despite increases in the Dover sole ACL, petrale sole is 
so unique in its market desirability that it will be difficult if not 
impossible to make up lost revenue by switching to the harvest of other 
groundfish species. Allowing this level of harvest will extend the 
rebuilding period by two years from TMIN.

POP

    The 2009 stock assessment update changed the perception of stock 
status. Although the population dynamics were similar to the 2007 
assessment, the scale of the terminal year (2009) biomass estimate 
changed such that the TTARGET (2017) in the current 
rebuilding plan cannot be attained even in the absence of fishing. 
Although the SPR was held constant (86.4 percent) from 2007 through 
2010, the target rebuilding year changed as a result of revised 
rebuilding analyses (2007-2008 TTARGET was 2015; 2009-2010 
TTARGET was 2017). Because the TTARGET (2017) in 
the current rebuilding plan cannot be attained even in the absence of 
fishing, the existing rebuilding plan must be revised.
    Three alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis based 
on the 2009 stock assessment update were analyzed for the Council's 
June meeting. All ACL alternatives contemplate a change in the median 
time to rebuild the stock greater than the current TTARGET. 
The Alternative 1 ACLs of 80 mt in 2011 and 2012 was based on an SPR 
harvest rate of 93.6 percent with a median time to rebuild of 2019, one 
year longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. The 
Alternative 2 ACLs of 111 mt in 2011 and 113 mt in 2012 were based on 
an SPR harvest rate of 91.2 percent with a predicted median time to 
rebuild the stock of 2019 or one year longer than the minimum time to 
rebuild with F=zero. The Alternative 3 ACLs of 180 mt in 2011 and 183 
mt in 2012 are based on the status quo SPR harvest rate of 86.4 percent 
from the current rebuilding plan. Alternative 3 has a predicted median 
time to rebuild of 2020 or two years longer than the minimum time to 
rebuild with F=zero. This alternative results in slightly lower catches 
than those in 2009-2010.
    The Council recommended Alternative 3 (180 mt and 183 mt, in 2011 
and 2012 respectively). POP is a slope rockfish species that is 
primarily taken in the trawl fishery. As discussed above for canary 
rockfish, the ACLs under Alternatives 1 and 2 could compromise the 
long-term bycatch reduction benefits of IFQ management. The trawl IFQ 
fishery is intended to hold individual fishers responsible for their 
catch and creates a management structure that encourages fishers to 
develop methods or fishing strategies that reduce the catch of 
overfished species. Therefore, long term benefits in reduced bycatch 
and improved avoidance techniques are expected in a rationalized 
fishery. However, ACLs for overfished species that are too low could be 
perceived as too risky (risk of exceeding the individual quota pounds) 
by fishers such that they limit their fishing participation for healthy 
target species; or hold quota pounds of constraining overfished for 
sale to fishers who incur overages. Reduced fishing time may result in 
fishers being unable to develop new methods or strategies to avoid 
overfished species. Given the full catch accounting proposed under 
trawl IFQ program and that all catch, discarded and retained, will 
count towards the individual's IFQ shares, the risk of the fishery 
exceeding the ACL is reduced compared with 2010 and prior years. In the 
short term, fishers will need to learn how to avoid POP rather than 
simply discarding them at-sea. The long-term success of the trawl 
rationalization program to maintain low incidental catch of overfished 
species in conjunction with profitable harvest of healthy stocks is 
consistent with the needs of communities specified in the PCGFMP, by 
allowing some limited harvest of POP as unavoidable bycatch which 
permits targeting of Pacific whiting and slope fisheries.
    The needs of fishing communities were considered by evaluating how 
the alternative POP ACLs affect the opportunity for targeting healthy 
stocks that co-occur with POP. POP is primarily a trawl caught species 
landed in Oregon and Washington. The vulnerability (dependency on 
groundfish fishing and resiliency) of port group areas were considered 
in the supporting DEIS. Fishing communities in Oregon, Washington and 
northern California where healthy trawl-caught target species that co-
occur with POP are landed were considered to be among the vulnerable 
and most vulnerable communities.

Widow Rockfish

    The 2009 assessment indicated that the stock is at 38.5 percent of 
unfished biomass, just short of being rebuilt. The rebuilding analysis 
projects that the stock will be rebuilt by 2010 under each of the ACL 
alternatives considered by the Council. All of the Alternatives result 
in a TTARGET that is 5 years earlier than the current 
rebuilding plan.
    The Alternative 1 ACL is a constant harvest level of 200 mt in 2011 
and 2012. Alternative 1 represents catch levels far less than status 
quo. Because

[[Page 67833]]

the Pacific whiting fisheries have been constrained by the catch of 
widow rockfish in recent years, the whiting sectors are expected to be 
seriously constrained under this alternative. The Pacific whiting 
fleets have been managed under bycatch limits for widow rockfish for 
several years and have taken extensive measures to keep incidental 
catch rates low. Despite this, unexpected widow rockfish catch events, 
where several tons of widow rockfish have been incidentally taken in 
single haul, have continued to occur in the Pacific whiting fishery. As 
the widow rockfish stock rebuilds, avoiding such events is increasingly 
more difficult. With a 200 mt ACL there is a higher likelihood that 
such an event would result in the closure of fishery coop or sector. 
The Alternative 2 ACL is a constant harvest level of 400 mt in 2011 and 
2012. The whiting trawl fishery may be constrained under this 
alternative, given the increase in widow biomass as it nears a rebuilt 
status. The Alternative 3 ACL is a constant harvest level of 600 mt in 
2011 and 2012 which is slightly higher than recent total catch 
mortality. In addition to whiting, widow rockfish co-occurs with other 
stocks such as bocaccio and chilipepper. It's difficult for fishers 
targeting Pacific whiting and chilipepper to avoid widow rockfish. The 
higher ACL alternative may provide additional opportunities for some 
sectors of the fishery. It is less likely that Pacific whiting sectors 
would be constrained under this alternative. The Council recommended 
Alternative 3 with an ACL based on a constant harvest level of 600 mt 
in 2011 and 2012. The SPR harvest rate associated with 600 mt is 91.7 
percent in 2011, and 91.3 percent in 2012, which is only slightly lower 
than the 2009-2010 SPR harvest rate of 95.0 percent. The 600 mt ACL, 
which is somewhat higher than the 2010 OY of 509 mt, is expected to 
accommodate recent catches and is unlikely to result in targeting of 
the stock.

Yelloweye Rockfish

    Yelloweye rockfish have a life history that illustrates the classic 
challenge of rebuilding overfished rockfish stocks; they are slow to 
mature, have low productivity, and can live in excess of 100 years. 
Stocks exhibiting low productivity will have longer predicted 
rebuilding periods due to longer mean generation times. Three ACL 
alternatives derived from the 2009 rebuilding analysis were considered 
for yelloweye rockfish. Alternative 1, with an ACL of 13 mt for 2011 
and 2012 was determined by applying an SPR harvest rate of 80.7 
percent. Alternative 1 has a median time to rebuild of 2065, which is 
19 years before TTARGET in the current rebuilding plan and 
18 years longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. With an 
ACL of 13 mt the Oregon and California commercial nearshore fisheries 
would be severely constrained with more restrictive depth closures and/
or reductions to landed catch compared to status quo or the other 
alternatives. All recreational fisheries would have greatly reduced 
season lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. Alternative 2 is 
based on an SPR harvest rate of 76 percent and results in an ACL of 17 
mt for 2011 and 2012. The median time to rebuild under Alternative 2 is 
2074 or 10 years before the current TTARGET and 27 years 
longer than the minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. With an ACL of 17 
mt, the Oregon and California nearshore fisheries would need more 
restrictive RCAs compared to the 20 fm (37 m) shoreward boundary used 
in all areas in 2010. The 20 fm (37 m) depth restrictions implemented 
in 2009 between 40[deg]10' north latitude and 43[deg] north latitude 
would remain in effect. Large trip limit reductions or total closures 
for some species would be necessary in order to stay within the 
overfished species ACLs. All recreational fisheries would have reduced 
season lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. In California, 
yelloweye rockfish impacts are extremely constraining to the 
recreational fishery North of Point Arena and reductions in the ACLs 
from the preliminary preferred alternative of 20 mt would result in 
additional season length reductions in the North-Central North of Point 
Arena Management Area. This management area is already severely 
constrained, with only a three-month fishing season at 20 fm (37 m). 
Alternative 2 ACLs would also require a reduction in the season length 
in the Northern or North-Central South of Point Arena Management Areas 
to remain within the yelloweye rockfish harvest guidelines resulting in 
lost revenue to coastal communities in these areas. Alternative 3 would 
apply an SPR harvest rate of 72.8 percent and result in an ACL of 20 mt 
for 2011 and 2012. The median time to rebuild under Alternative 3 is 
2084 which is the TTARGET specified in the current 
rebuilding plan and 37 years longer than the minimum time to rebuild 
with F=zero. For the non-nearshore fixed gear fisheries, management 
measures under this alternative would allow full access to the sectors' 
sablefish allocation. A less restrictive RCA compared to 2010 would be 
in place in Oregon (100 fm (183 m) vs. 125 fm (229 m). For the 
nearshore fishery, the shoreward RCA would be the same as under the No 
Action Alternative (20 fm (37 m) in most northern areas, 60 fm (110 fm) 
south of 34[deg]27 north latitude). For the recreational fisheries, 
season structure and depth restrictions would be similar to 2010 with 
some increased opportunity in the California recreational fishery, as 
described below. In California, 20 mt (37 m) yelloweye rockfish ACL 
would allow the limited season in the North-Central North of Point 
Arena Management Area to be sustained as well as allowing a one and a 
half month increase to the season in the Northern Management Area over 
No Action. This alternative also provides one and a half months of 
additional fishing opportunities over status quo in the North-Central 
South of Point Arena Management Area and the Monterey and Morro Bay 
South-Central Management Areas.
    The SPR harvest rate specified in the current rebuilding plan is 
71.9 percent, which when applied results in an ACL of 20 mt in 2011 and 
21 mt in 2012 with a median time to rebuild of 2087, three years longer 
than the current TTARGET and 40 years longer than the 
minimum time to rebuild with F=zero. The Council recommended 
Alternative 3 with a more conservative harvest rate (SPR = 72.8 
percent) than is currently specified in the rebuilding plan and which 
maintains the current TTARGET. With a 20 mt ACL, slightly 
higher fishing opportunities for recreational and commercial fixed gear 
fisheries would be expected relative to the other alternatives. 
Following consideration of the ACLs and resulting impacts, the Council 
recommended Alternative 3, with a 20 mt ACL in 2011 and 2012 and with 
the specification of a 17 mt ACT.
    A ramp-down OY strategy was adopted for yelloweye rockfish during 
the 2007 and 2008 biennial specification and management cycle. The ramp 
down began with an OY of 23 mt in 2007 and 20 mt in 2008. The OY was to 
be reduced each year until ultimately reaching 14 mt in 2011 based on 
an SPR harvest rate of 71.9 percent. A constant SPR harvest rate of 
71.0 percent was to remain in place through 2084 which was the 
TTARGET date. All of the yelloweye rockfish OYs considered 
by the Council were expected to cause severe impacts to fisheries and 
communities. The Council expressed strong concern about the severity of 
the impact on communities resulting from ramp down strategy as the OY 
drops below 17 mt. When considering 2011 and 2012 harvest 
specifications and management measures, the Council

[[Page 67834]]

recognized the need to restrict the fisheries, but also took into 
account the potentially widespread negative effects that very low ACLs 
would have on the fisheries and fishing communities.
    Yelloweye rockfish is the key constraining stock for the non-
nearshore fixed gear sectors. Yelloweye bycatch rates in these fixed 
gear sectors have remained relatively stable over recent years, with 
the lower bycatch projections in 2011 and 2012 resulting from the 
decreasing sablefish ACLs. Although the bycatch numbers provided to the 
Council for decision making were the best estimates of bycatch for the 
non-nearshore fixed gear fisheries, concerns were raised about 
management uncertainty arising from the bycatch model. The bycatch 
projections from the model have been conservative in recent years, in 
part because of the assumption that the fixed gear sablefish 
allocations are fully harvested. This assumption may be less 
conservative in 2011-2012 because of the lower sablefish ACLs and the 
fact that the inseason changes to the DTL trip limits the Council has 
made over this cycle have increased the likelihood that a higher 
portion of the allocations for those sectors will be taken. Sablefish 
landings are monitored inseason and action would be taken to keep the 
sablefish allocations from being exceeded.
    ACL allocations were also considered by the Council. The following 
are the Council's recommended allocations for yelloweye rockfish in 
2011 and 2012: Limited entry non-whiting trawl, 0.6 mt; limited entry 
and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 1.3; limited entry and open 
access nearshore fixed gear, 0.7; Washington recreational, 2.6; Oregon 
recreational, 2.4 mt; and California recreational, 2.6 mt. The Council 
also considered two alternative allocation arrangements between the 
states of Oregon and California for yelloweye rockfish: A simple 50:50 
catch sharing plan and a sharing plan with Oregon receiving 55 percent 
and California receiving 45 percent derived from the stock assessment. 
Oregon is constrained by yelloweye rockfish under both allocation 
alternatives. With a 17 mt ACT, annual nearshore fishery landings would 
need to be further reduced to accommodate cuts under either of the new 
catch sharing plans. In addition to being constrained by yelloweye 
rockfish, California is projected to be constrained by canary rockfish 
due to the presence of two high bycatch areas (one north of 40[deg]10' 
and the other south of 40[deg]10'). Under the 17 mt yelloweye rockfish 
ACT, the California nearshore fishery would not reach its yelloweye 
rockfish limit because it would first be constrained by canary 
rockfish. California would be able to maximize cabezon landings because 
the majority of the cabezon catch is taken in shallow depths where 
bycatch rates are low. Precisely tracking recreational catch inseason, 
especially in the California recreational fishery, has been a 
challenge, which prompted the Council to adopt an ACT for yelloweye 
rockfish.
    The tradeoffs considered by the Council were between more 
restrictive depth restrictions and higher reductions in landed catch. 
In Oregon, overfished species impacts were modeled assuming a 20 fm (37 
m) depth restriction (option a) and a 30 fm (55 m) depth restriction 
(option b). In California, overfished species impacts are modeled 
assuming a 20 fm (37 m) depth restriction statewide (option a) and a 20 
fm (37 m) depth restriction between 42[deg] and 40[deg]10' north 
latitude only (option b). Although the 20 fm (37 m) depth restriction 
provided little yelloweye savings in Oregon, it provided greater 
savings in California since a greater proportion of catch comes from 
the deeper depths. Following consideration of the catch sharing plans 
the Council recommended.

Summary of Rebuilding Measures

    The harvest specifications and management measures being 
implemented through Federal regulation and intended to rebuild 
overfished species are summarized below. Management measures adopted 
for 2011 and 2012 are expected to keep the incidental catch of 
overfished species within the ACLs and ACTs. Management measures 
designed to rebuild overfished species, or to prevent species from 
becoming overfished, may restrict the harvest of relatively healthy 
stocks that are harvested with overfished species. As a result of the 
constraining management measures imposed to rebuild overfished species, 
a number of the ACLs for healthy stocks may not be achieved.

Bocaccio

     Date declared overfished: March 3, 1999.
     Areas affected: South of 40[deg]10' north latitude.
     Status of stock: 28.12 percent of its unfished biomass in 
2009.
     B0: 7,946 mt.
     BMSY: 3,178 mt.
     TF=0: 2018.
     TMAX: 2031.
     TTARGET: 2026 (median year to rebuild).
     Target SPR Harvest rate: 77.7 percent.
     OFL: 737 mt in 2011 732 in 2012.
     ACL: 263 mt in 2011 274 mt in 2012.
    Biology of the stock: Bocaccio is most abundant in waters off 
central and southern California. Juveniles settle in nearshore waters 
after a several month pelagic stage. Adults range from depths of 6.5-
261 fm (12- 478 m). Most adults are caught off the middle and lower 
shelf at depths between 27 fm and 137 fm (50 and 250 m). Larger fish 
tend to be found deeper. Bocaccio are found in a wide variety of 
habitats, often on or near bottom features, but sometimes over muddy 
bottoms. Bocaccio are usually found near the bottom, however, they may 
also occur as much as 16.4 fm (30 m) off bottom. Tagging studies have 
shown that young fish move up to 148 km (92 miles). Maximum age of 
bocaccio was determined to be at least 40 and perhaps more than 50 
years.
    Management measures for 2011 and 2012: Since 2002 both commercial 
and recreational fisheries have been subject to very restrictive 
management measures that have brought catches down to very low levels. 
Area closures or RCAs have been one of the most effective measures to 
reduce catch of bocaccio. South of 40[deg]10' north latitude RCAs 
between 15 and 180 fm (329 m) provide protection for bocaccio, with the 
largest concentrations occurring in the 54 fm (99 m) to 82 fm (150 m) 
depths. The existing CCAs, where sport and commercial bottom fishing is 
prohibited, have also provided significant protection for bocaccio.
    Bocaccio have historically been taken by commercial trawl and fixed 
gear vessels and in the recreational fisheries. Adult bocaccio are 
often caught with chilipepper rockfish and have been observed schooling 
with speckled, vermilion, widow, and yellowtail rockfish. South of 
40[deg]10' north latitude the bottom trawl, limited entry fixed gear, 
and open access fishing opportunities, in the depths where bocaccio are 
most commonly encountered, have been reduced though the use of RCAs. 
Management of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to 
constrain the harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch 
accounting and real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is 
expected to reduce management uncertainty in the trawl fishery, 
including bocaccio management uncertainty.
    Bocaccio are also vulnerable to commercial non trawl gears and to 
recreational fishing gear. To limit incidental catch of bocaccio in the 
limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries, these fisheries 
continue to be restricted by RCAs and trip limits that

[[Page 67835]]

are intended to cover landings of incidentally caught bocaccio only. 
California recreational fisheries will be constrained by bag limits.
    Management performance during rebuilding: Total catch estimates for 
the 2002-2007 period are based on the total mortality reports produced 
by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the NWFSC, while 
the 2008 estimates are based on GMT scorecard estimates and 
recreational estimates from California Department of Fish and Game. 
Approximately 75 percent of total trawl catch during this period were 
discarded catch. Commercial fishery discards have been concentrated 
around the central California region (Monterey Bay to San Francisco) 
region. Although the rebuilding OY is estimated to have been exceeded 
during two of the early years of rebuilding, since 2004 the total 
estimated catch (landings plus discards) has averaged approximately 80 
tons. This represents less than 50 percent of the adopted OY values, 
and has been associated with low SPR harvest rates, such that SPR has 
been greater than 0.9 percent since 2004.

Canary Rockfish

     Date declared overfished: January 4, 2000 (65 FR 221).
     Affected area: Coastwide.
     Status of the stock: 23.7 percent in 2009.
     B0: 25,993 mt.
     BMSY: 10,397 mt.
     TF=0: 2024.
     TMAX: 2046.
     TTARGET: 2027 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR harvest rate: 88.7 percent.
     OFL: 614 mt for 2011 and 622 mt for 2012.
     ACL: 102 in 2011 and 107 in 2012.
    Biology of the stock: Canary rockfish are a continental shelf 
(shelf) species. Juveniles settle in nearshore waters after a several 
month pelagic stage. Adults range from depths of 25-475 fm (46-868 m). 
Most adults are caught off the middle and lower shelf at depths between 
44 fm and 109 fm (80 and 200 m). Larger fish tend to be found in deeper 
waters. Canary rockfish are usually associated with areas of high 
relief such as pinnacles, but also occur over flat rock or mud and 
boulder bottoms. They are usually found near the bottom and are 
occasionally found off the bottom or in soft-bottom habitats that are 
atypical for rockfish. A tagging study showed that canary rockfish can 
migrate up to 700 km (435 miles). The maximum age of canary rockfish is 
84 years.
    Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Unavoidable incidental 
catches of canary rockfish occur in trawl, fixed gear, open access, and 
recreational fisheries targeting groundfish, as well as commercial and 
recreational fisheries targeting species other than groundfish. Adult 
canary rockfish are often caught with bocaccio, sharpchin rockfish, 
yelloweye rockfish, yellowtail rockfishes, and lingcod. Researchers 
have also observed canary rockfish associated with silvergray and widow 
rockfish.
    Management measures intended to limit bycatch of canary rockfish 
include RCAs, cumulative trip limits to constrain the limited entry 
fixed gear and open access fisheries coastwide, IFQs in the whiting and 
nonwhiting shoreside fisheries, and canary limits in the whiting 
fishery. The use of broad- based RCA configurations has had the most 
effect in reducing canary rockfish mortality.
    Bottom trawling is prohibited in the trawl RCA, which covers depths 
where canary rockfish have most frequently been caught. To reduce 
incidental take of canary rockfish in the area north of 40[deg]10' 
north latitude, vessels fishing shoreward of the RCAs are required to 
use selective flatfish trawl gear. Current footrope restrictions would 
remain in place. Incidental catch of canary rockfish in the mothership 
and catcher/processor sectors will be constrained by sector-specific 
allocations that require closure of the sector when reached. Management 
of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to constrain the 
harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and 
real time reporting in the shorebased IFQ program is expected to reduce 
management uncertainty in the trawl fishery. The retention of canary 
rockfish continues to be prohibited in the commercial fixed gear 
fisheries. Recreational fisheries are managed through bag limits, size 
limits and seasons. As necessary, seasons can be shortened and bag 
limits reduced to stay within the ACLs. The retention of canary 
rockfish continues to be prohibited in the recreational fisheries.
    Management performance during rebuilding: Following the 1999 
declaration that the canary rockfish stock was overfished the canary OY 
was reduced by over 70 percent in 2000 (to 200 mt) and by the same 
margin again from 2001-2003 (to 44 mt). In retrospect, revised catch 
data indicate that from 2003 to 2008, when the rebuilding OY was 
between 47 and 44 mt, the OY was exceeded 5 out of 6 years, but catches 
well below the ABC (In retrospect, due to current methods used for 
total mortality estimates, the catches are higher than we had estimated 
at the time. However, they were still below the ABC).

Cowcod

     Date declared overfished: January 4, 2000.
     Areas affected: South of 40[deg]10' north latitude.
     Status of stock: 4.5 percent in 2009.
     B0: 2,183 mt.
     BMSY: 873 mt.
     TF=0: 2060.
     TMAX: 2097.
     TTARGET: 2071 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR harvest rate: 79 percent.
     OFL: 13 mt in 2011 and 13 mt in 2012.
     ACL: 4 mt in 2011 and 2012.
    Biology of the stock: Cowcod are found at depths of 11-200 fm (75-
366 m). Cowcod range from central Oregon to central Baja California and 
Guadalupe Island. However, they are rare off Oregon and Northern 
California. It has long been argued that smaller cowcod are found at 
the shallow end of the depth range. Recent submersible work, however, 
indicates that cowcod size distribution may be more associated with sea 
floor structure than depth. In Monterey Bay, juvenile cowcod recruit to 
fine sand and clay sediments at depths of 22-56 fm (40-100 m) during 
the months of March-September. Adults are found at depths of 50 280 fm 
(90-500 m) usually on high relief rocky bottom. Adult cowcod are 
believed to be less abundant in depths greater than 175 fm (323 m).
    Management measures in 2011 and 2012: All directed fishing 
opportunities have been eliminated since 2001. Retention of cowcod will 
continue to be prohibited for all commercial and recreational 
fisheries. To prevent incidental cowcod harvest, two CCAs (the Eastern 
CCA and the Western CCA) in the Southern California Bight were 
delineated to encompass key cowcod habitat areas and known areas of 
high catches. The CCAs were codified into regulation on November 4, 
2003 (68 FR 62374). Fishing for groundfish has been prohibited within 
the CCAs, except that minor nearshore rockfish, California 
scorpionfish, cabezon, lingcod, and greenling may be taken from waters 
where the bottom depth is less than 20 fm (37 m). This rule proposes to 
increase the area in which recreational and commercial non-trawl gear 
can be used within the CCA by moving the 20 fm (37 m) limit out to 30 
fm (43 m). The rule also proposes to add an addition CCA depth contour 
line of 40 fm (55 m)

[[Page 67836]]

to regulation for potential use in the future.
    Management performance during rebuilding: Estimates of total 
mortality indicate that the cowcod OY has not been exceeded in any year 
since 2002. The OYs during the rebuilding period have ranged from 4.8 
(in 2002-2004) to 4 mt (in 2007-2008), while annual mortality is 
estimated to have been between 0.32 mt and 3.51 mt, under the same 
rebuilding management measure structure as status quo.

Darkblotched Rockfish

     Date declared overfished: January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2338).
     Areas affected: Coastwide.
     Status of the stock: 27.5 percent of its unfished biomass 
level in 2009.
     B0: 32,783 mt.
     BMSY: 15,763 mt.
     TF=0: 2016.
     TMAX: 2037.
     OFL: 508 mt in 2011, 497 mt in 2012.
     ACL: 285 mt in 2011, 296 mt in 2012.
     TTARGET: 2025 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR harvest rate: 64.9 percent.
    Biology of the stock: Darkblotched rockfish are most abundant on 
the outer continental shelf and slope, mainly north of Point Reyes 
(38[deg] north latitude). Most adult darkblotched rockfish are 
associated with hard substrates on the lower shelf and upper slope at 
depths between 77 and 200 fm (140 and 366 m). Darkblotched rockfish 
migrate to deeper waters with increasing size and age. Diurnal 
migration, rising off bottom at night, is a likely behavior of 
darkblotched rockfish. Fish landed in California generally had smaller 
size at age than fish landed in the two northern states (Oregon and 
Washington).
    Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Because of their deeper 
distribution, darkblotched rockfish are caught almost exclusively by 
commercial bottom trawl vessels. Most landings have been made by bottom 
trawl vessels targeting flatfish on the shelf, and rockfish and the DTS 
species on the slope. Since 2001, darkblotched rockfish have had 
species-specific harvest specifications, and were removed from the 
minor slope rockfish complex. However, darkblotched rockfish continue 
to be managed within the minor slope rockfish trip limits. Management 
measures intended to limit catch of darkblotched rockfish include: 
RCAs; individual fishery quotas for the limited entry trawl shoreside 
trawl fisheries; allocations to the mothership and catcher/processor 
sectors of the Pacific whiting fisheries that result in fishery closure 
if the allocation is reached; and cumulative minor slope rockfish trip 
limits for limited entry fixed gear and open access gears.
    The boundaries of the RCAs vary by season and fishing sector and 
may be modified in response to new information about geographical and 
seasonal distribution of bycatch. The seaward boundary of the trawl RCA 
was set at a depth that was likely to keep fishing effort in deeper 
waters and away from areas where the bycatch of darkblotched rockfish 
was highest.
    Cumulative limits for slope rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude are intended to accommodate incidental take of darkblotched 
rockfish in the limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries. As 
needed, limited entry fixed gear and trip limits for co-occurring 
species may be adjusted to reduce darkblotched rockfish bycatch. 
Incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish in the mothership and 
catcher/processor sectors will be constrained by sector-specific 
allocations that require closure of the sector when reached. Management 
of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to constrain the 
harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and 
real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce 
management uncertainty in the trawl fishery.
    Management performance under rebuilding: Between 2002 and 2008 the 
OY was exceeded once in 2002. Total catch during this period has ranged 
between 127 mt (2003) and 264 mt (2007), while landed catch has ranged 
between 80 mt (2003) and 189 mt (2004). The average percent retained 
during the rebuilding period has been 63 percent.

Petrale Sole

     Date declared overfished: February 9, 2010.
     Areas affected: Coastwide.
     Status of stock: Following the 2009 stock assessment, the 
stock was believed to be at 11.6 percent of unfished biomass level in 
2009.
     B0: 25,334 mt.
     BMSY: 6,334.
     TF=0: 2014 (TMIN).
     TMAX: 2021.
     TTARGET: 2016 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR harvest rate: 31.0 percent in 2011 and 32.4 percent in 
2012.
     ABC: 976 mt in 2011 and 1,222 mt in 2012.
     ACL: 976 mt in 2011 and 1,160 mt 2012.
    Biology of the stock: Petrale sole are found from Cape Saint Elias, 
Alaska to Coronado Island, Baja California, Mexico. The range may 
possibly extend into the Bering Sea, but the species is rare north and 
west of southeast Alaska. Adults migrate seasonally between deepwater 
winter spawning areas to shallower spring feeding grounds. During 
periods 1 and 6, there is virtually no petrale sole catch that occurs 
at depths less than 125 fm (229 m), most interactions occur between 
175-200 fm (320 m-366 m), and catches then drop off quickly outside of 
the 200 fm (366 m) line. Depth distributions change during periods 2 
and 5, when petrale sole are typically deeper than 125 fm (229 m), but 
shallower than 175 fm (320 m), an intermediate depth for this species. 
Finally, petrale sole are shallowest during periods 3 and 4, when 
highest bycatch rates are observed shallower than 125 fm (229 m). 
Petrale sole show an affinity to sand, sandy mud, and occasionally 
muddy substrates.
    Spawning occurs over the continental shelf and continental slope. 
Spawning occurs in large spawning aggregations in the winter. Petrale 
sole tend to move into deeper water with increased age and size. 
Petrale sole begin maturing at three years. Petrale sole eggs and 
larvae are eaten by planktivorous invertebrates and pelagic fishes. 
Juveniles are preyed upon (sometimes heavily) by adult petrale sole, as 
well as other large flatfishes. Adults are preyed upon by sharks, 
demersally feeding marine mammals, and larger flatfishes and pelagic 
fishes. Petrale sole compete with other large flatfishes. Petrale sole 
have the same summer feeding grounds as lingcod, English sole, rex 
sole, and Dover sole.
    Management measures for 2011 and 2012: Annual catches of petrale 
sole by gears other than groundfish bottom trawl have been minor 
coastwide. For the trawl fishery, IFQ management along with RCA 
restrictions would be used to constrain the petrale sole catch and to 
reduce fishing on spawning aggregations in the winter months. Because 
petrale sole exhibit distinct seasonal depth migrations, the trawl RCA 
would vary by season. Trip limits will continue to be used in the non-
trawl fisheries.

POP

     Date declared overfished: March 3, 1999.
     Areas affected: Vancouver and Columbia.
     Status of stock: Following the 2009 stock assessment, the 
stock was believed to be at 28.6 percent of unfished biomass level in 
2009.
     B0: 37,780 mt.

[[Page 67837]]

     BMSY: 15,112 mt.
     TF=0: 2018.
     TMAX: 2045.
     TTARGET: 2020 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR harvest rate: 86.4 percent.
     ABC: 1,026 in 2011 and 1,007 mt in 2012.
     ACL: 180 mt in 2011 and 183 MT 2012, with an ACT of 157 in 
both years.
    Biology of the stock: The POP population off the northern U.S. west 
coast (Columbia and U.S.-Vancouver areas) is at the southern extreme of 
the stock's range. POP are found on the upper continental slope 
(slope), 109-150 fm (200-275 m) during the summer and somewhat deeper 
164-246 fm (300-450 m) during the winter. Adults sometimes aggregate up 
to 16 fm (29 m) above hard bottom features and may then disperse and 
rise into the water column at night. The maximum age of POP has been 
determined to be 70 to 90 years. The mean generation time is 28 years. 
POP recruitment into the population occurs when the stock is at 3 years 
of age. Age of maturity and size varies with locality. POP reach 90 
percent of their maximum size by age 20 years.
    Management measures for 2011 and 2012: POP occurs in similar depths 
as darkblotched rockfish, although they have a more northern geographic 
distribution. Adult POP are often caught with other upper slope 
groundfish such as Dover sole, thornyheads, sablefish, and 
darkblotched, rougheye, and sharpchin rockfish. North of 40[deg]10' 
north latitude, POP are caught in similar fisheries as darkblotched 
rockfish. POP are rarely caught in the recreational fisheries. 
Management measures for 2011 and 2012 that are intended to limit the 
bycatch of POP and keep fishing mortality within the ACL include: RCAs, 
individual fishery quotas for the limited entry trawl shoreside trawl 
fisheries, allocations to the mothership and catcher/processor, and 
cumulative trip limits for commercial fixed gear fisheries.
    Because POP co-occur with darkblotched rockfish, measures to reduce 
the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish benefit POP. These 
measures include seaward trawl RCA boundaries that are established to 
keep fishing effort in deeper water where POP are less abundant. 
Incidental catch of POP in the mothership and catcher/processor sectors 
will be constrained by sector-specific allocations that require closure 
of the sector when reached. Management of the bottom trawl fishery 
under IFQs is expected to constrain the harvests to be within the trawl 
allocations. Full catch accounting and real time reporting in the 
shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce management uncertainty in 
the trawl fishery.
    Management performance under rebuilding: The OYs for POP were 
exceeded in: 2001 by 1.3 percent (307 mt out of a 303 mt OY); and in 
2007 by 4.0 percent (156 mt out of a 150 mt OY). The overage in 2007 
was due to a relatively rare and unexpected bycatch event.

Widow Rockfish

     Date declared overfished: January 11, 2001.
     Areas affected: Coastwide.
     Status of stock: 38.5 percent of its unfished biomass in 
2009.
     B0: 40,547 million eggs.
     BMSY: 16,218 million eggs.
     TF=0: 2010.
     TMAX: 2035.
     TTARGET: 2010 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR harvest rate: 91.7 in 2011, 91.3 in 2012.
     OFL: 5,097 mt in 2011, 4,923 mt in 2012.
     ACL: 600 mt in 2011 and 2012.
    Biology of the stock: Widow rockfish are most abundant off northern 
Oregon and southern Washington. Young of the year recruit to shallow 
nearshore waters after spending up to 5 months as pelagic larvae and 
juveniles in offshore waters. Adults range from bottom depths of 13 fm 
to 300 fm (24 m to 549 m). Most adults occur near the shelf break at 
bottom depths between 77 fm to 115 fm (140 m to 210 m). Adults are semi 
pelagic with their behavior being dynamic. Large concentrations of 
widow rockfish form at night and disperse at dawn, an atypical pattern 
for rockfish. Widow rockfish tend to be more easily caught in higher 
abundance during El Nino (anomalously warm and dry) years. Maximum age 
of widow rockfish is 59 years.
    Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Widow rockfish co-occurs with 
other stocks like yellowtail, bocaccio and chilipepper. Prior to 
rebuilding, large pure catches of widow rockfish were taken with 
midwater trawl gear. RCA management measure are to restrict fishing on 
the shelf are expected to continue, and would continue to be beneficial 
to the recovery of widow rockfish. Management of the bottom trawl 
fishery under IFQs is expected to constrain the harvests to be within 
the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and real time reporting in 
the shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce management uncertainty 
in the trawl fishery. Incidental catch of widow rockfish in the 
mothership and catcher/processor sectors will be constrained by sector-
specific allocations that require closure of the sector when reached.
    Non trawl and recreational fisheries have little incidental catch 
of widow rockfish. Cumulative trip limits are intended to accommodate 
low levels of incidental catch.
    Management performance under rebuilding: Since 2002, total catch 
has been well below the annual OY. In recent years, the annual catch 
has primarily been incidental catch in the Pacific whiting midwater 
trawl fisheries. The Pacific whiting fisheries have been managed with 
bycatch limits that result in fishery closure if the limit is reached. 
Monitoring programs (observers in the mothership and catcher/processor 
sectors and monitoring under full retention EFPs in the shorebased 
sector) have been in place throughout the rebuilding period.

Yelloweye Rockfish

     Date declared overfished: January 11, 2002.
     Areas affected: Coastwide.
     Status of stock: 20.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 
2009.
     B0: 994 million eggs.
     BMSY: 398 million eggs.
     TF=0: 2047.
     TMAX: 2089.
     Target: 2084 (median year to rebuild).
     SPR rate: 72.8 percent.
     OFL: 48 mt in 2011 and 2012.
     ACL: 20 mt in 2011 and 2012, with an ACT of 17 mt in both 
years.
    Biology of the stock: Yelloweye rockfish juveniles have been found 
at depths greater than 8 fm (15 m) in areas of high bottom relief. 
Adults range to depths of 300 fm (549 m). Most adults are caught off 
the middle and lower shelf at depths between 50 fm and 98 fm (91 m and 
180 m). Adult yelloweye rockfish tend to be solitary and are usually 
associated with areas of high relief with refuges such as caves and 
crevices, but also occur on mud adjacent to rock structures. They are 
usually found on or near the bottom. Maximum age of yelloweye rockfish 
is 115 years. Researchers have observed adult yelloweye rockfish 
associated with bocaccio, cowcod, greenspotted rockfish, and tiger 
rockfish.
    Management measures in 2011 and 2012: Yelloweye rockfish inhabit 
areas typically inaccessible to trawl gear. In the coastal trawl 
fishery, incidental catch occurs during the harvest of other target 
fisheries operating at the fringes of yelloweye rockfish habitat. 
Yelloweye rockfish is particularly vulnerable to hook and line gear. 
Because yelloweye rockfish exhibit site fidelity and they are

[[Page 67838]]

a more sedentary rockfish species, RCAs have been effective in reducing 
the catch of yelloweye rockfish. Specific yelloweye rockfish RCAs have 
been specified for the recreational and commercial non-trawl fisheries. 
North of 39[deg] north latitude RCAs out to depths of 100-125 fm (183-
229 m) are expected to reduce yelloweye rockfish catch.
    For 2011 and 2012, the 100 and 125 fm (183 and 229 m) RCA lines at 
the southwest corner of Heceta Bank were moved seaward to better follow 
the bathymetry that they represent; the unmodified lines were, in many 
cases, extremely shallow. The industry has reported this to be an area 
of high yelloweye rockfish bycatch. While the impacts of this change to 
the RCA to yelloweye rockfish are not quantifiable, it is assumed that 
the modification will reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts. North of 
40[deg]10' north latitude, Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation areas 
(YRCAs) will continue to be used to reduce yelloweye rockfish catch in 
the commercial fixed gear, open access, and recreational fisheries. Off 
Washington, recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut will 
continue to be prohibited inside the YRCAs and for limited entry fixed 
gear and open access fishing, the ``C'' shaped YRCA off Washington will 
continue to be designated as an area to avoid. YRCAs off the coast of 
Washington are defined in Federal regulation at 50 CFR Sec.  660.390. 
The North Coast Commercial YRCA restricts commercial limited entry and 
open access, the Salmon Troll YRCA restricts salmon troll fishing, and 
the recreational YRCA off the southern coast of Washington prohibits 
all recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut. The California 
recreational YRCAs and commercial non-trawl gear YRCAs will continue to 
be defined in regulation and may be implemented inseason. As in 2009 
and 2010 the YRCAs not in effect at the start of 2011.
    Management performance under rebuilding: Following the 2002 
declaration that the yelloweye rockfish stock was overfished the total 
catch mortality of yelloweye rockfish was drastically reduced and has 
been maintained between 12.3 mt and 19.6 mt. These catch levels 
represent a 95% reduction from average catches observed in the 1980s 
and 1990s. Between 2002 and 2008, 54-76 percent of the annual catch was 
from the recreational fisheries. The annual OY has not been exceeded 
since 2002.
    Management of the bottom trawl fishery under IFQs is expected to 
constrain the harvests to be within the trawl allocations. Full catch 
accounting and real time reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is 
expected to reduce management uncertainty in the trawl fishery.

Ecosystem Component Species

    Ecosystem component (EC) species are identified in the PCGFMP. The 
EC species are those species that are not considered to be ``in the 
fishery'' or targeted in any fishery. EC species are not typically 
retained for sale or personal use. The EC species are not actively 
managed. The EC species are determined to not be subject to 
overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, or overfished, nor 
are they likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the 
absence of conservation and management measures.
    Although harvest specifications are not specified for EC species, 
the incidental catch is monitored to ensure they continue to be 
classified correctly. While EC species are not considered to be ``in 
the fishery,'' Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP indicates that the Council 
should consider measures for the fishery to minimize bycatch and 
bycatch mortality of EC species consistent with National Standard 9, 
and to protect their associated role in the ecosystem. EC species are 
not required to have reference points specified, but should be 
monitored to the extent that any new pertinent scientific information 
becomes available (e.g., catch trends, vulnerability, etc.) to 
determine changes in their status or their vulnerability to the 
fishery. If necessary, they should be reclassified as ``in the 
fishery.''
    The Council considered specifying shortbelly rockfish as an EC 
species, but decided against doing so. Shortbelly rockfish is an 
abundant species that is not targeted in any commercial or recreational 
fisheries, and which is a valuable forage fish species. Rather than 
classifying shortbelly rockfish as an EC species, the Council chose to 
recommend a very restrictive ACL which is intended to accommodate 
incidental catch while preventing the development of fisheries 
specifically targeting shortbelly rockfish.

Overfishing

    Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected 
to a rate or level of fishing mortality that is above the stock's 
capacity to produce MSY (an estimate of the largest average annual 
catch or yield that can be taken over a significant period of time 
under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions). This level 
is also referred to as MFMT (the maximum fishing mortality threshold) 
in the PCGFMP. Under the PCGFMP, OFLs for all species will be set based 
on the MFMT, which is expressed as a harvest unlike OFLs. None of the 
2011 or 2012 OFLs would be set higher than the MFMT or its proxy 
applied to a stock's abundance. The corresponding ABCs will be set 
below the OFL and ACLs will be set at or below the ABC. The groundfish 
management measures including those in this proposed rule are designed 
to keep harvest levels within specified ACLs.
    When evaluating whether overfishing has occurred for any species 
under the PCGFMP, NMFS compares that species' estimated total catch 
(landed catch + discard) in a particular year to the MFMT applied to 
the estimated abundance (the ABC for 2010 and years earlier, and OFL 
beginning in 2011). Overfishing is difficult to detect inseason for 
many groundfish, particularly for minor rockfish species, because most 
species are not individually identified on landing. Species 
compositions, based on proportions encountered in samples of landings 
and extrapolated observer data, are applied during the year. However, 
final results are not available until after the end of the year.
    This proposed rule discusses overfishing estimated to have occurred 
in 2007 and 2008. When new data are available, NMFS updates estimates 
of whether overfishing has occurred as part of the agency's report to 
Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm)
    NMFS estimates that no overfishing occurred on any species during 
the 2007 or 2008 fishing season, since no species or species complex 
total catch exceeded its ABC. During 2007 and 2008 the total catch of 
three species did exceed the OYs. In 2007, canary rockfish exceeded its 
44 mt OY by 1.6 percent with the total catch estimated to have been 
44.7 mt. In 2007, POP exceeded its 150 mt OY by 4.0 percent with a 
total catch estimate of 156.0 mt. In 2008, sablefish exceeded its 5,934 
mt OY by 2.4 percent with the total catch estimate of 6,078 mt.

Amendment 20: Carry-Over Provision

    Under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP, up to 10 percent of unused IFQ 
quota pounds in a vessel's account may be carried over for use in the 
next fishing year. Similarly, in order to cover an overage (landings 
that exceed the amount of quota pounds held in a vessel account) that 
is within 10 percent of the quota pounds that have been in the vessel 
account during the year, the vessel owner may use that amount from the 
quota pounds he will receive in the

[[Page 67839]]

following fishing year to account for the overage in the current year. 
The rationale for the carry-over as presented in the Amendment 20 EIS 
is to provide increased flexibility to fishery participants. During the 
biennial harvest specification and management process, specifically at 
the Council's June 2010 meeting, the Council further considered how the 
carry-over provision works in relationship to the 2011-2012 harvest 
specifications, particularly ACLs and the trawl allocations.
    The primary risk pertaining to carry-over provisions is the risk 
associated with management uncertainty, i.e. the risk of the carry-over 
provision relative to the ability to manage the fisheries to stay 
within the ACLs and whether that risk is acceptably low. An examination 
was done on the worst case scenario which would occur if every quota 
holder carried an underage (landings that are less than the amount of 
quota pounds held in a vessel account) of 10 percent for species that 
are ``fully prescribed'' in the IFQ fishery. The likelihood of this 
occurring was believed to be a low risk. Because both carry-overs and 
carry-unders are both expected for the following year, the biological 
impacts were expected to be low.
    Non-overfished trawl target species where 80 percent or more of the 
annual OY was harvested from 2005-2008 include Dover sole, sablefish, 
and shortspine thornyhead. Fully harvested stocks are more likely than 
others to experience ACL overages due to the carry-over provision. 
Under an IFQ fishery, more than 80% of the sablefish allocation is 
expected to be harvested, particularly given the lower ACLs in 2011-
2012 relative to recent OYs. Petrale sole is likely to be fully 
harvested with a lower harvest level than in the past. Whiting may also 
be fully or near fully harvested. Dover sole has a higher harvest level 
than in recent years and therefore the fishery has a lower risk of 
exceeding the Dover sole trawl allocation or the ACL as a result of the 
carry-over provision. The overfished species, other than petrale sole, 
will likely have 80 percent or more of the annual ACL harvested and 
thus are potential species for which an ACL overage due to the carry-
over provision may be possible.

Management Measures

    New management measures being proposed for the 2011-2012 work in 
combination with the existing regulations to create a management 
structure that is intended to constrain fishing so the catch of 
overfished groundfish species does not exceed the rebuilding ACLs while 
allowing, to the extent practicable, the ACLs for healthier groundfish 
stocks that co-occur with the overfished stocks to be achieved. Routine 
management measures for the commercial fisheries include: Bycatch 
limits, trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size 
limits, and gear restrictions. Routine management measures for the 
recreational fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear 
restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area closures. 
Routine management measures are used to modify fishing behavior during 
the fishing year to allow a harvest specification to be achieved, or to 
prevent a harvest specification from being exceeded. The groundfish 
fishery is managed with a variety of other regulatory requirements that 
are not considered routine, and which are not changed through this 
rulemaking and are found at 50 CFR Sec.  660, Subparts C through G. The 
regulations at 50 CFR Sec.  660, Subparts C through G include, but are 
not limited to, long-term harvest allocations, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements, monitoring requirements, license limitation 
programs, and essential fish habitat (EFH) protection measures. The 
routine management measures specified at 50 CFR Sec.  660.60(c), 
Subpart C in combination with the entire collection of groundfish 
regulations as specified at 50 CFR 660, Subparts C through G are used 
to manage the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery to stay within the 
harvest specifications identified in the rulemaking. This section 
presents proposed management measures developed for 2011-2012.
    At the Council's April 2010 meeting the Enforcement Consultants 
(EC) raised catch accounting concerns relative to U.S. vessels 
(including processing vessels) that fish for species managed under the 
PCGFMP and that transport catch to another country, such as Canada and 
Mexico, thereby circumventing catch accounting. The EC further 
investigated the issue including the possible implementation of 
regulatory language to ensure that Federal regulations provide for full 
catch accounting before catch leaves the United States. At the 
Council's June 2010 meeting the EC provided the Council with draft 
regulatory language that would require the submission of vessel 
activity reports for any non-IFQ catcher vessel, mothership processor, 
or catcher/processor engaged in fishing for groundfish in the EEZ 
before it leaves the EEZ by crossing the seaward boundary, or crosses 
the borders to the EEZs of Mexico or Canada. The Council recommended 
that a vessel activity report be implemented. However, development and 
implementation of a vessel activity report would take more time than is 
available for this rulemaking. Therefore, a vessel activity report is 
under consideration for future implementation and has not been included 
in this action.

Limited Entry Trawl

Incidental Trip Limits for Trawl Rationalization--Amendment 20

    The Shoreside IFQ program being implemented under Amendment 20 to 
the PCGFMP will require the following incidentally caught species to be 
managed with trip limits: Minor nearshore rockfish north and south, 
black rockfish, cabezon (46[deg]16 to 42[deg] north latitude and south 
of 42[deg] north latitude), spiny dogfish, shortbelly rockfish, Pacific 
whiting, and the ``other fish'' category. If determined necessary, trip 
limits may also be established for longnose skate, California 
scorpionfish, and as sub-limits within the other fish category, big 
skate, California skate, leopard skate, soupfin shark, finescale 
codling, Pacific rattail, kelp greenling, and cabezon off Washington. 
The establishment of trip limits for these species will allow 
incidental catch to be landed and for the fishers to be paid for those 
landings. Overall, the amount of regulatory discards for incidentally 
caught species is expected to be reduced. Under the shoreside IFQ 
program gear switching provisions, trawl trip limits apply to 
incidental landing allowances regardless of whether the vessels are 
using either trawl or fixed gears. In the development of trawl trip 
limits, monthly landings in the limited entry non-whiting and whiting 
trawl fishery from 2008 and 2009 were examined and compared to the 2010 
trip limits. These trip limits do not apply to vessels in the 
mothership and catcher/processor sectors of the whiting fishery.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish and Black Rockfish North and South of 
40[deg]10 North Latitude

    The minor nearshore rockfish and black rockfish trip limits for 
vessels participating under the shoreside IFQ program using trawl or 
fixed gears north and south of 40[deg]10 north latitude would be 
specified at 300 lbs/month for periods 1 through 6. The highest monthly 
landings of nearshore rockfish in the trawl fishery during 2008 and 
2009 were between 150-200 pounds; with the majority of the landings 
having been less than 50 pounds. In a

[[Page 67840]]

rationalized trawl fishery increases to minor nearshore rockfish and 
black rockfish landings are not expected. This is because of state 
regulations restricting trawl fishing in nearshore areas and because 
the risk of catching yelloweye rockfish is relatively high in these 
areas. In Washington state waters (0-3 miles) commercial fishing with 
either trawl or fixed gear (including pots) in nearshore waters is 
prohibited. To commercially land targeted amounts of nearshore rockfish 
species in Oregon, vessels must hold a state fixed gear nearshore 
permit. Landing of incidental amounts of nearshore rockfish are allowed 
by trawlers and by fixed gear vessels without nearshore permits, 
however recent (2010) state trip limits for these species have been 
more restrictive than the federal trip limits and are expected to 
remain in place in 2011 and 2012. In California, vessels must hold a 
state fixed gear nearshore permit to land nearshore rockfish. With full 
catch accounting under the shoreside IFQ program and the anticipated 
high cost of purchasing yelloweye rockfish quota pounds, it seems 
unlikely that IFQ participants will be targeting nearshore rockfish.

Cabezon (46[deg]16 North Latitude to 42[deg] North Latitude and South 
of 42[deg] North Latitude)

    Beginning with 2011-2012, cabezon would be managed as a separate 
species north of 42[deg] north latitude, as well as south of 42[deg] 
north latitude off California. A review of recent landings of cabezon 
by the limited entry trawl fleet indicated that landings were 
infrequent with most being below 20 pounds. The Council recommended 
that the cabezon trip limits for vessels participating in the shoreside 
IFQ program using trawl or fixed gears to harvest IFQ species with a 
limited entry trawl permit be specified at 50 lbs/month for periods 1 
through 6 north and south of 42[deg] north latitude, which would 
accommodate the landings seen in the last two years.

Spiny Dogfish

    The limits specified in regulation for trawl gear in 2010 are 
200,000 lbs (91 mt) per 2 months periods 1 and 2; 150,000 lbs (68 mt) 
per 2 months periods 3, and 100,000 lbs (45 mt) per 2 months periods 4 
through 6 in both the north and the south. In recent years, no limited 
entry trawl vessel has approached or attained the spiny dogfish 
cumulative limits specified in Federal regulation. Under a rationalized 
fishery, an IFQ vessel could target spiny dogfish with either trawl 
gear or fixed gear. Due to anticipated catch of yelloweye rockfish, the 
access to spiny dogfish could be constrained. The risk to an individual 
of yelloweye rockfish bycatch would likely outweigh the value of 
targeting spiny dogfish. Therefore, the Council recommended that the 
spiny dogfish trip limits for vessels using trawl or fixed gears to 
harvest IFQ species with a limited entry trawl permit north and south 
of 40[deg]10 north latitude be specified at 60,000 lbs (27 mt) per 2 
month, which would accommodate the trawl landings seen in recent years.

Longspine Thornyhead South of 34[deg]27 North Latitude

    Unlike longspine thornyhead in the north, the Council did not 
specify trawl/non-trawl allocation for longspine thornyhead south of 
34[deg]27 north latitude under Amendment 21. The Council chose to 
manage longspine thornyheads south of 34[deg]27 north latitude with 
trip limits, and longspine thornyhead in the north with individual 
fishing quotas. From 1995-2005, the trawl fishery harvested very small 
proportions of the longspine thornyhead OY. Additionally, total 
mortality by all fleets in recent years has been well below the OY. 
Historically, longspine thornyhead has not been a target species in the 
trawl fishery, but instead has been caught in association with 
shortspine thornyhead, Dover sole, and sablefish. Given the low 
exploitation of longspine thornyhead south, the Council recommended 
that south of 34[deg]27 North latitude, the longspine thornyhead 
incidental landing limits for vessels using trawl or fixed gears to 
harvest IFQ species with a limited entry trawl permit be specified at 
24,000 lbs (11 mt) per 2 months, which is the 2010 limit currently 
specified in regulation for limited entry trawl gears.

Remaining Groundfish Species

    Under the Final Preferred Alternative, the Council specified 
incidental trip limits for species not managed with IFQ for vessels 
using trawl or fixed gear to harvest IFQ species with a limited entry 
trawl permit. For the purpose of setting trip limits for non-IFQ 
species, the Council considered the following remaining groundfish 
species: Longnose skate, big skate, California skate, California 
scorpionfish, leopard shark, soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific 
rattail (grenadier), ratfish, kelp greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon 
in Washington. A review of the 2008 and 2009 limited entry trawl 
landings for these stocks was conducted. Grenadier makes up the largest 
component of the remaining fish landings in the trawl fishery and most 
landings were less than 8,000 lbs (3.6 mt) with a few landings as high 
as 12,000 lbs (11 mt). Historically, there was some buying/selling of 
grenadier in an attempt to develop a market, however recent landings 
are incidental catch associated with the targeting of DTS species. Big 
skate and California skate are also included in the remaining fish 
category. In recent years, there has been interest in targeting and 
marketing skates. Overall the species being considered had landings 
that were less than 1,500 pounds (680 kg) per month with most monthly 
landings less than 1,000 pounds (454 kg). The Council recommended that 
incidental landing limit for vessels using trawl or fixed gears to 
harvest IFQ species with a limited entry trawl permit remain unlimited 
at the start of 2011. Should increased landings occur such that there 
is concern about overfishing, the Council would likely implement the 
appropriate trip limits through routine inseason action. Therefore, 
trip limits for the remaining groundfish are being added to the 
regulations as a routine management measure.

Trawl Fishery Trip Limit Tables

    This action specifies incidental trip limits for species not 
managed with IFQ for vessels using trawl or fixed gear to harvest IFQ 
species with a limited entry trawl permit. The purpose of allowing trip 
limits for these species is to allow incidental catch to be landed and 
for the fishers to be paid for those landings. Without trip limits 
these incidentally caught species would need to be discarded 
(regulatory discard) or forfeited to the state at the time of landing. 
A second set of tables is included with this action, in the event that 
trawl rationalization is delayed the trawl non-IFQ fishery tables would 
be implemented to prevent the fishery from exceeding its 
specifications.

RCA Configurations for Vessels Harvesting IFQ Quota Pounds

    Based on analysis of West Coast Groundfish Observer Data and 
vessel-logbook data, the boundaries of the RCAs were set to prohibit 
groundfish fishing within a range of depths where encounters with 
overfished species were most likely to occur. The RCAs boundaries vary 
by season, latitude, and gear group. Boundaries for limited entry trawl 
vessels are different than those for the limited entry fixed-gear and 
open access gears. The non-trawl RCAs apply to the limited entry fixed-
gear and open access gears other than non-groundfish trawl. The non-
groundfish trawl RCAs are defined by fishery.

[[Page 67841]]

    Trawl RCA boundaries and cumulative limits are routinely adjusted 
inseason based upon fishery performance. Managers structure catch limit 
opportunities and closed areas with several objectives in mind 
including reducing interactions with overfished species while 
simultaneously providing for a year round fishing opportunity. While 
many adjustments to catch limits and trawl RCA boundaries are 
relatively minor, in recent years some of these adjustments have been 
relatively extreme and have closed fishing opportunity for wide areas 
of the coast mid-season. Under the 2010 management structure for the 
trawl fishery, catch projections (and estimates of total catch 
inseason) are made using what is often described as the ``trawl bycatch 
model.'' This model uses discard estimates from the WCGOP data and 
logbook information to develop temporal and spatially stratified 
bycatch rates for overfished species. The bycatch model can be used to 
estimate both target species and overfished species catch based on a 
proposed set of management measures (2-month cumulative trip limits and 
RCA configurations). Under a rationalized fishery, there will be full 
catch accounting and individuals will be held accountable for their 
bycatch. Despite the high level of individual accountability, there is 
still a risk of exceeding the trawl allocation since overfished species 
interactions can be unpredictable. As a starting place for the 
shoreside trawl IFQ program and as a risk adverse measure, the Council 
recommended maintaining the RCA structure that was in place in June 
2010. As the IFQ fishery develops and if catch data supports 
reconsideration of the RCAs, the Council could revise the RCA 
boundaries through inseason measures.
    Under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP, quota pounds associated with a 
limited entry trawl permit may be harvested with either trawl gear or 
legal fixed gear. Groundfish regulations specify both trawl and non-
trawl RCAs. The type of gear employed determines the RCA structure. As 
such, vessels that harvest IFQ species with trawl gear will be held to 
the trawl RCA while vessels that harvest with fixed gear will be held 
to the fixed gear RCA.

Gear Switching

    The yelloweye rockfish trawl catch allocation is based on the trawl 
bycatch model, which projects very low amounts of yelloweye rockfish 
catch (0.6 mt) for 2011 and 2012. In general, yelloweye rockfish is 
much less vulnerable to being caught by trawl gear than non-trawl 
gears. With fixed-gear, nearshore fishers are able to fish in areas and 
depth ranges where yelloweye rockfish are found (rock bottom). As a 
result, yelloweye rockfish bycatch rates in the nearshore fixed gear 
fisheries are much greater than those used to model bycatch in the 
trawl fisheries. For reasons similar to those for yelloweye rockfish, 
canary rockfish bycatch rates are also higher in the nearshore fixed-
gear fishery model than in the trawl model.
    Under a trip limit fishery structure, management measures (trip 
limits, trawl gear restrictions and RCAs) restrict trawl yelloweye 
retention and fishing and in rocky habitats where yelloweye rockfish 
concentrate. Under trawl rationalization, the gear switching provision 
allows fishers to used fixed gears to harvest trawl allocations. All 
IFQ species caught by those fishing under the gear switching 
provisions, including yelloweye and canary, must be covered by trawl 
quota pounds. Increased fishing by trawl IFQ program participants using 
fixed gear shoreward of the RCA could present an increased risk of 
exceeding the trawl sector allocation for yelloweye rockfish, and 
possibly canary rockfish. For this reason, the 2011 and 2012 management 
measures include measures designed to discourage fixed gear fishing by 
trawl IFQ participants in the nearshore, where impacts to yelloweye and 
canary rockfish are potentially the greatest.
    To discourage fishing in nearshore areas under the gear switching 
provision, the Council recommended that the trawl sector receive no 
allocation of nearshore species making it unlikely that trawl IFQ 
fishery participants will operate in waters shallower than 30 fm (55 
m). Further, state regulations require nearshore permits to land 
targeted amounts of nearshore species. In Oregon, additional gear 
restrictions may restrict fixed gear operations in the nearshore areas. 
The shoreward non-trawl RCA structure is designed such that the trawl 
IFQ fishery participants' only viable opportunity for shoreward non-
trawl activity is south of 34[deg]27 north latitude, where yelloweye 
rockfish and are less common. It is less likely that vessels fishing 
seaward of the RCA under the gear switching provision would 
encountering overfished species in excess of the trawl fishery 
allocations. Gear switching seaward of the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour 
may allow access to valuable species such as sablefish and shortspine 
thornyheads with less incidental catch than with trawl gear.

Potential Mid-Water Opportunity in 2011-2012

    There is an opportunity under the trawl rationalization program to 
allow targeting of species such as yellowtail rockfish within the RCA 
using midwater trawl gear during the primary whiting season. Under 
current trawl rationalization regulations, this opportunity is 
available regardless of amount of whiting onboard. A cursory analysis 
of data reveals that the risk of exceeding overfished species ACLs as a 
result of a mid-water opportunity appears lower than for bottom trawl 
gear for some species (e.g., yelloweye); it may be equally as risky for 
some species including canary; and appears to have a higher risk for 
species including widow rockfish. Under a rationalized trawl fishery 
structure with individual accountability, and the Council's recommended 
ACLs for canary and widow rockfish, and with the subsequent trawl 
allocation, the risk of exceeding ACLs for these species is 
sufficiently low. Therefore, this opportunity could be afforded in 
2011-2012.

Further Considerations for a Rationalized Trawl Fishery

    The 2011 petrale ACL reductions over 2010 and arrowtooth ACL 
decision directly affect the initial allocation of individual bycatch 
quota (IBQ) for Pacific halibut. Pacific halibut IBQ will be calculated 
using a formula based on quota share for arrowtooth flounder and 
petrale sole, two target species that correlate to Pacific halibut 
bycatch. Therefore, under the new lower petrale ACLs, permits with more 
arrowtooth quota pounds will be allocated more halibut IBQ.
    Shoreside whiting receives a one-time overfished species allocation 
for the initial allocation. Thereafter, this sector will join the 
rationalized non-whiting trawl fishery and be allowed to trade/purchase 
shares of overfished and non-overfished species.

Limited-Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Non-Trawl Fishery Management 
Measures

    Management measures for the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and 
open access non-trawl fisheries tend to be similar because the majority 
of participants in both fisheries use hook-and-line gear. These 
fisheries will be most constrained by management measures to decrease 
impacts on yelloweye rockfish.

Non-Trawl RCAs

    The non-trawl RCA applies to vessels that take, retain, possess or 
land groundfish unless they are incidental

[[Page 67842]]

fisheries that are exempt from the non-trawl RCA (e.g. the pink shrimp 
non-groundfish trawl fishery). The non-trawl RCA boundaries proposed 
for 2011-2012 are the same as those in place for the non-trawl 
fisheries in 2009-2010, except for the seaward boundary of the non-
trawl RCA between 45[deg]03.83' north latitude and 43[deg]00' north 
latitude.
    The seaward and shoreward boundaries of the non-trawl RCAs vary 
along the coast, and are divided at various commonly used geographic 
coordinates, defined in Sec.  660.11, Subpart C. In 2009-2010, new 
divisions of the RCA boundaries were established based on recently 
available fishery information, indicating that fishing in some areas 
where the non-trawl fishery occurs has higher yelloweye rockfish 
impacts than in others, and the RCA boundaries were adjusted to reduce 
impacts to yelloweye rockfish in these areas. For 2009-2010 the seaward 
boundary of the non-trawl RCA between 45[deg]03.83' north latitude 
(Cascade Head) and 43[deg]00' north latitude (Columbia/Eureka line) was 
specified at 125 fm (229 m), except on days when the directed halibut 
fishery is open, when the fishery is then restricted to waters seaward 
of the 100 fm (183 m) line. This regulation, which was new in the 2009-
2010 cycle, was implemented to reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts by 
fixed gear fishers targeting sablefish and other target groundfish. For 
2011-2012, the modeled-overfished species impacts by the limited entry 
and open access fisheries showed that given the lower sablefish ACLs 
for 2011 and 2012, along with the Council's final preferred 
apportionment of overfished species for the non-nearshore fishery, the 
100 fm (183 m) line could be accommodated.
    For 2011 and 2012, the non-trawl RCA boundaries from north to south 
are proposed to be as follows: From the U.S./Canada Border and 
46[deg]16' north latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between 
the shoreline and a boundary line approximating the 100 fm (183 m) 
depth contour. Between 46[deg]16' north latitude and 43[deg]00' north 
latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between the boundary lines 
approximating the 30 fm (55 m) and the 100 fm (183 m) depth contours. 
Between 43[deg]00' north latitude and 42[deg]00' north latitude the 
non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between boundary lines approximating 20 
fm (37 m) and 100 fm (183 m) depth contours. Between 42[deg]00' north 
latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between the 20 fm (37 m) 
depth contour (there is no boundary line approximating the 20 fm (37 m) 
depth contour off California) and the boundary line approximating the 
100 fm (183 m) depth contour. Moving the seaward RCA boundary from 125 
fm (229 m) to the 100 fm (183 m) between 46[deg]16' and 43[deg]00' 
north latitude results in a projected increase of 0.1 mt of yelloweye 
rockfish for the area between 46[deg]16' and 43[deg]00' north latitude. 
Moving the seaward RCA from 43[deg] north latitude to Cascade Head from 
125 to 100 fm (229 to 183 m) opens more fishing areas, may decrease 
conflicts among fixed gear fishers, may reduce running time to some 
fishing grounds (which subsequently decreases expense and improves 
safety), and may increase sablefish catch rates in some instances.
    The following lines are proposed south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. Between 40[deg]10' north latitude and 34[deg]27' north 
latitude the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be between boundary lines 
approximating the 30 fm (55 m) and 150 fm (274 m) depth contours. 
Between 34[deg]27' north latitude and the U.S. border with Mexico, 
including waters around islands, the non-trawl RCA is proposed to be 
between boundary lines approximating the 60 fm (110 m) and 150 fm (274 
m) depth contours. The boundary lines vary along the coast because of 
the different abundances of overfished species along the coast.
    For 2011 and 2012, the 100 fm (186 m) and 125 fm (229 m) latitude 
and longitude coordinates defining the lines at the southwest corner of 
Heceta Bank are proposed to be moved to better follow the bathymetry. 
In this area the existing lines are, in many cases, extremely shallow 
and reported to allow fishing in areas of high yelloweye rockfish 
bycatch by members of the industry. While the impacts to yelloweye 
rockfish from refining the 100 fm (186 m) and 125 fm (229 m) line 
waypoints are not quantifiable in the Heceta Bank area, it is likely 
that the modifications would reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts over the 
existing line structure.
    This rule proposes to use the boundary line approximating the 100 
fm (183 m) depth contour as the seaward boundary for the non-trawl RCA 
north 40[deg]10' north latitude. In the event that the boundary line 
approximating the 125 fm (229 m) and depth contour is implemented 
around Heceta Head (44[deg]08.30' north latitude) through inseason 
action, this action also proposes to revisions to the latitude and 
longitude coordinates that define the boundary line approximating the 
125 fm (229 m) depth contour to reduce impacts to yelloweye rockfish. 
This rule also proposes changes to the boundary line approximating the 
60 fm (110 m) depth contour off northern California to better 
approximate the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour and to better align the 
bycatch data collected that is divided by depth contours. Subsequent 
changes to the boundary line approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth 
contour in the same area are necessary to prevent unintended crossovers 
from the change to the 60 fm (110 m) line. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates that define these boundary lines that approximate depth 
contours, and are used to define the non-trawl RCA, are found in 
groundfish regulations at Sec. Sec.  660.71 through 74, Subpart C 
(redesignated from Sec.  660.391 through 394).
    In 2009-2010 NMFS defined new YRCAs off northern California that 
may be implemented through inseason action if necessary. These YRCAs 
will continue to be available for inseason management if catch of 
yelloweye rockfish needs to be reduced during 2011-2012. The latitude 
and longitude coordinates that define these YRCAs are found in 
groundfish regulations at Sec.  660.70, Subpart C.
    The Salmon Troll YRCA is found in groundfish regulation at Sec.  
660.70, Subpart C, and Sec.  660.333, Subpart F, and in the Pacific 
Coast salmon regulations at Sec.  660.405.
    Like trawl fishery participants, non-trawl vessels are also subject 
to several groundfish closed areas other than those within the RCA 
boundary lines and those intended for EFH conservation. The following 
closed areas apply to all non-trawl vessels, including both open access 
and limited entry fixed gear vessels, and have not been proposed for 
modification in 2011 and beyond (Sec.  660.70, Subpart C): A Cordell 
Banks Closed Area; closed areas around the Farallon Islands off San 
Francisco and San Mateo Counties, CA; the Eastern CCA. The non-trawl 
fisheries have little to no incidental catch of POP, darkblotched, or 
widow rockfish. The effects of these fisheries on bocaccio, canary, 
cowcod, and yelloweye rockfish are constrained as much as possible by 
the non-trawl RCA, described above, and by the YRCAs and CCAs.

Non-Trawl Fishery Trip Limits

    Trip limits proposed for the non-trawl fisheries in 2011-2012 are 
similar to those that applied to these fisheries in 2009-2010 with the 
exception of changes to trip limit structures in the sablefish daily 
trip limit in the LEFG fishery north of 36[deg] north latitude. Trip 
limits in the LEFG fishery north of 36[deg] north latitude are modified 
to allow additional flexibility for fishers by eliminating the daily 
and weekly trip limits. Daily or weekly trip limits may be imposed, if 
necessary, via routine inseason action during 2011-2012 to

[[Page 67843]]

keep total catch of sablefish within the 2011 and 2012 sablefish 
allocations. Also, the sablefish trip limits in the LEFG fishery south 
of 36[deg] north latitude are modified to allow additional flexibility 
for fishers by eliminating the daily trip limit and establishing only a 
weekly cumulative limit. Trip limits in the open access sablefish 
fishery remain very similar to those that were in place in 2009-2010. 
The open access sablefish limits coastwide are more conservative than 
the LEFG sablefish limits in both poundage and structure, recognizing 
that the open access fleet can expand to an unknown number of 
participants. South of 36[deg] north latitude open access sablefish 
limits are more conservative than the LEFG sablefish limits in both 
poundage and structure, recognizing that the limited entry fleet has 
historically harvested a larger proportion of the sablefish ACL South 
of 36[deg] north latitude, particularly in the years 2000-2005. Also, 
as in past years, thornyheads may not be taken and retained in the open 
access fisheries north of 34[deg]27' north latitude.

Primary Sablefish Fishery Tier Limits

    Tier limits for the limited entry fixed gear sablefish-endorsed 
fleet are lower than in 2009-2010, reflecting the lower sablefish 
harvest specifications for 2011 and 2012: in 2011, Tier 1 at 41,379 lb 
(18,769 kg), Tier 2 at 18,809 lb (8,532 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,748 lb 
(4,875 kg). For 2012 the tier limits are as follows: Tier 1 at 40,113 
lb (18,195 kg), Tier 2 at 18,233 lb (8,270 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,419 lb 
(4,726 kg).
    These tier limits are found in groundfish regulations at Sec.  
660.231, Subpart E.
    Management measures for the LEFG fishery, including gear 
requirements, are found at Sec.  660.330, subpart F, with management 
measures specific to the primary sablefish season (e.g. tier fishery) 
found at Sec.  660.321, subpart E. Limited entry fixed gear trip limits 
are found in Table 2 (North) and Table 2 (South) of subpart E of part 
660.

Salmon Troller Lingcod Limits

    Salmon trollers will be allowed to keep incidentally caught lingcod 
with a ratio limit of 1 lingcod per 15 Chinook, plus 1 lingcod up to a 
trip limit of 10 lingcod, up to a maximum limit of 400 lbs per month 
when fishing inside the non-trawl RCA. When salmon trollers fish 
entirely outside of the non-trawl RCA they are not subject to the 
lingcod retention ration described above, but only to the monthly trip 
limit.

Open Access Non-Groundfish Trawl Gear Fisheries Management Measures

    Open access non-groundfish trawl gear (used to harvest ridgeback 
prawns, California halibut, sea cucumbers, and pink shrimp) is managed 
with ``per trip'' limits, cumulative trip limits, and area closures. 
Trip limits in 2011-2012 are similar to those in 2007-2008 and 2009-
2010. The species-specific open access limits described in the trip 
limit table apply unless otherwise specified and, in addition, open 
access non-groundfish trawl vessels may not exceed overall groundfish 
limits if they are specified. As in past years, the pink shrimp fishery 
is subject to a non-species specific groundfish limit of ``500 lb/day, 
multiplied by the number of days of the trip, not to exceed 1,500 lb/
trip.'' In addition to the general groundfish limit, vessels fishing 
for pink shrimp have species specific sub limits for lingcod and 
sablefish that are different from other open access limits described in 
Table 3 South to Subpart F. Also, as in past years, thornyheads may not 
be taken and retained in the open access fisheries north of 34[deg]27' 
north latitude.
    The trawl RCA is described in Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) 
to Subpart D. Trawling with open access non-groundfish gear for pink 
shrimp will be permitted within the trawl RCA; however, the states 
require pink shrimp trawlers to use finfish excluder devices to reduce 
their groundfish bycatch, particularly to prevent bycatch mortality for 
canary and other rockfishes. The required use of finfish excluders in 
the pink shrimp trawl fishery will continue in 2011-2012.
    Regulations in this proposed rule include two options for trawl RCA 
configurations (in Table 1a (South) and Table 1b (South): One that 
would be in place with implementation of the trawl individual quota 
program; and one that would be in place if the trawl individual quota 
program is delayed. Trawling for ridgeback prawns, California halibut, 
and sea cucumber are subject to the same RCA area closures that apply 
to vessels fishing in the limited entry trawl fishery, except that non-
groundfish trawling will be permitted shoreward of a boundary line 
approximating the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour if and when the inshore 
boundary line of the limited entry trawl RCA is moved shallower than 
100 fm (183 m). NMFS may clarify the regulatory language regarding the 
non-groundfish trawl RCA in 660.333, Subpart F, and in line 41 of Table 
3 (South) to 660, Subpart F, regarding how the trawl RCA applies to the 
open access non-groundfish trawl sectors. Currently in regulation the 
description of non-groundfish trawl RCA refers to the nontrawl RCA, 
which is inconsistent with the non-groundfish trawl RCA in Table 3 
(South). RCA restrictions off California are particularly intended to 
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality for southern and coastwide 
overfished species such as bocaccio, cowcod, and canary rockfish. No 
changes to other groundfish conservation area restrictions are proposed 
for the open access non-groundfish trawl fishery in 2011-2012. 
Management measures for the open access fisheries, including gear 
requirements, are found at Sec.  660.333, Subpart F. Trip limits are 
found in Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) of subpart F of part 660.

Recreational Fisheries Management Measures

    Recreational fisheries management measures are designed to limit 
catch of overfished and nearshore species to sustainable levels while 
also allowing viable fishing seasons. Overfished species that are taken 
in recreational fisheries are bocaccio, cowcod, canary, and yelloweye 
rockfish. Because sport fisheries are more concentrated in nearshore 
waters, the 2011-2012 recreational fishery management measures are 
intended to constrain catch of nearshore species such as minor 
nearshore rockfish, black rockfish, blue rockfish and cabezon. These 
protections are particularly important for fisheries off California, 
where the bulk of West Coast recreational fishing occurs. Management 
measures for the California recreational groundfish fishery are 
designed to reduce the incidental catch of overfished rockfish, 
primarily yelloweye and canary rockfish, while providing as much 
fishing opportunity as possible for anglers targeting groundfish. Depth 
restrictions and RCAs are the primary tools used to keep overfished 
species impacts under the prescribed harvest levels for the California 
recreational fishery. Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, 
and the Council recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag 
limits, area closures, and size limits, to best fit the requirements to 
rebuild overfished species found in their regions, and the needs and 
constraints of their particular recreational fisheries.
    Recreational fisheries management measures for Oregon in 2011-2012 
are proposed to be very similar to the recreational fishery management 
measures that were in place off Oregon during 2009-2010. Recreational 
fisheries off northern California and Washington are constrained by the 
need to reduce yelloweye rockfish impacts.

[[Page 67844]]

Changes to recreational fishery management measures off California are 
in response to the revised stock status of target species, requests by 
the public to simplify regulations, information regarding the 
distribution of overfished species and the desire to redistribute 
effort displaced by restrictions on take in newly established Marine 
Protected Areas (MPAs)in state waters.

Washington

    Off Washington, recreational fishing for groundfish and Pacific 
halibut will continue to be prohibited inside the North Coast 
Recreational YRCA, a C-shaped closed area off the northern Washington 
coast, the South Coast Recreational YRCA, and the Westport Offshore 
YRCA. Coordinates for all of these YRCAs are defined at Sec.  660.70, 
Subpart C. The RCA for recreational fishing off Washington will be the 
same as in 2010. The aggregate groundfish bag limits off Washington 
will be reduced from 15 fish to 12 fish, because very few anglers were 
attaining the 15 aggregate groundfish bag limits. The rockfish and 
lingcod sub-limits will remain the same as in 2007-2008 and 2009-2010: 
10 rockfish sub-limit with no retention of canary or yelloweye 
rockfish; 2 lingcod sub-limit, with the lingcod minimum size of 22 
inches (56 cm). Since catches of cabezon have increased in recent years 
and the stock status of cabezon off the Washington coast is unknown, 
and to make cabezon retention regulations off the West Coast consistent 
with WDFW regulations in Puget Sound, Washington, this rule proposes a 
cabezon sub-limit for 2011-2012 of two cabezon per day. The lingcod 
seasons in 2011-2012 will be the same as those in 2009-2010. As in 
2009-2010, south of Leadbetter Point off the state of Washington, when 
halibut are onboard the vessel from May through September, there will 
continue to be no retention of groundfish, except sablefish and Pacific 
cod.

Oregon

    Off Oregon, recreational fishing for groundfish in 2011-2012 will 
have the same management measures as in 2009-2010, except that the 
Oregon recreational fishery marine fish bag limit will have a seasonal 
sub-bag limit for cabezon, as described at Sec.  660.360(c)(2)(iii). 
The seasonal sub-bag limit for cabezon is intended to reduce the 
projected impacts to cabezon in the Oregon recreational ocean boat 
fishery in order to stay within the recreational portion of the 2011 
and 2012 cabezon ACLs for Oregon of 50 mt and 48 mt, respectively.

California

    For 2011-2012, recreational fisheries off California are proposed 
to be managed as five separate areas, down from six in 2009-2010, to 
reduce complexity while retaining flexibility in minimizing impacts on 
overfished stocks. They are also re-named to shorten their names and to 
relate the name of the management area to the region of the coast to 
which it applies. The following are the management areas that will be 
defined for 2011-2012: The Northern Management Area is defined as the 
area from the Oregon/California border to 40[deg]10' north latitude; 
the Mendocino Management Area is defined as the area from 40[deg]10 
north latitude to 38[deg]57 north latitude; the San Francisco 
management area is defined as the area from 38[deg]57 north latitude to 
37[deg]11 north latitude; the central management area is defined as the 
area from 37[deg]11 north latitude to 34[deg]27 north latitude and the 
southern management area is defined as the area from 34[deg]27 north 
latitude to the U.S./Mexico border.
    California updated its recreational fisheries catch model with data 
from the California Recreational Fisheries Survey to make 
recommendations to the Council for the 2011-2012 fisheries. Season and 
area closures differ between California regions to better prevent 
incidental catch of overfished species according to where those species 
occur and where fishing effort is greatest, while providing as much 
fishing opportunity as possible. The California-wide combined bag limit 
for the Rockfish-Cabezon-Greenling (RCG) Complex would continue to be 
10 fish per day when the season is open. RCG Complex sub-bag limits 
will also remain the same, except that the cabezon limit statewide will 
increase from two fish to three fish per day. The increase to the 
cabezon sub-bag limit from two fish to three fish is anticipated to 
increase cabezon mortality by 10 percent. The increase on cabezon 
mortality from increased sub-bag limit, combined with other changes to 
management measures that may change the projected impacts to cabezon, 
are anticipated to result in annual total mortality of 33.9 mt of 
cabezon in 2011 and 2012, which is well within the 2011-2012 cabezon 
ACL. The increase in the cabezon sub-bag limit is not anticipated to 
affect projected impacts to co-occurring overfished species as effort 
is not expected to increase appreciably as a result of the increased 
bag limit and overfished species shelf species are not commonly found 
in shallow waters where cabezon reside.
    Fishing seasons for lingcod will be modified to be the same as the 
fishing seasons for the RCG Complex. This modification extends the 
fishing season for lingcod later in the year and eliminates portions of 
the former seasonal closures that occurred in the winter months. Winter 
closures had been used since lingcod was declared overfished in 2001 to 
prevent catch of lingcod during its spawning and nesting season while 
the stock was rebuilding. According to the most recent stock 
assessment, the southern lingcod stock has rebuilt to 70 percent of its 
unfished biomass. Therefore the Council recommended and NMFS is 
proposing an increase in the length of the recreational lingcod fishing 
season, and reducing regulatory complexity by having the seasons for 
the RCG Complex and lingcod be the same for 2011-2012. The increase in 
fishing season length for lingcod is not anticipated to affect 
projected impacts to co-occurring overfished species, as the improved 
fishing opportunity is not expected to appreciably increase fishing 
effort as retention of lingcod is not expected to be the deciding 
factor as to whether or not anglers go fishing. The new seasons for 
lingcod are described at Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(iii)(A). This rule also 
proposes to retain the lingcod size limit, but to decrease the lingcod 
size limit from 24 inches to 22 inches. The 22 inch lingcod size limit 
is intended to preserve nest guarding males, yet still allow for 
increased lingcod fishing opportunity. The lingcod fillet length 
restriction would also be reduced to reflect the change in the size 
limit (i.e. 14 inch fillet length restriction under a 22 inch total 
length size limit). Overfished species impacts may decrease as a result 
of this rule change as anglers obtain their two fish lingcod bag limit 
more rapidly, incurring less overfished species impacts in the process. 
For the same reasons described above, an increase in the lingcod bag 
limit was considered for 2011-2012. However, the increased bag limit 
was not recommended at this time due to the potential for increased 
impacts to co-occurring overfished rockfish species, such as yelloweye 
rockfish, as anglers continue incurring impacts on those species in 
pursuit of additional lingcod to fill a higher bag limit.
    This rule proposes to implement a gear restriction (e.g. hook 
limits) for cabezon and kelp greenling to make the restrictions for 
these fish consistent with the existing gear restrictions for rockfish, 
so that the same number of fishing lines and hooks apply to all of the 
species in the RCG Complex. This

[[Page 67845]]

new gear regulation closes a regulatory loophole, and will prevent 
excessive recreational fishing effort using multiple rods to target 
cabezon and kelp greenling. The gear restrictions for the RCG Complex 
are described at Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B).
    This rule proposes revisions to the time and area closures that 
make up the recreational RCA off California. Generally, the proposed 
revisions extend the length of the California recreational fisheries in 
all Management Areas except the Mendocino Management Area (between 
40[deg]10' north latitude and 38[deg]57.50' north latitude) and the 
Southern Management Area (south of 34[deg]27' north latitude). In the 
Southern Management Area, season length will stay the same as in 2009-
2010, but the depth restriction for recreational fishing for California 
scorpionfish will move seaward during January and February, opening 
additional areas to fishing that occur between the boundary line 
approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour and the boundary line 
approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour. This change simplifies 
regulations by keeping the depth restrictions for California 
scorpionfish in this management area the same throughout the year. 
These time and area closures are liberalized for 2011-2012 to allow 
additional fishing opportunities to harvest healthy stocks to achieve 
but not exceed 2011-2012 ACLs, without causing the projected mortality 
of overfished rockfish species, such as yelloweye rockfish, bocaccio, 
cowcod and canary rockfish, to exceed their respective harvest limits 
in the California recreational fishery.
    Incidental catch of cowcod in the area south of 34[deg]27' north 
latitude continues to be restricted by the CCAs. Prior to 2011, the 
CCAs were closed throughout the year to recreational fishing for 
groundfish deeper than the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour. Shallower than 
the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour, retention of some species was allowed. 
In 2010, the state of California is in the process of implemented 
marine protected areas in state waters between Point Conception to U.S. 
Mexico border, including state waters adjacent to offshore islands and 
rocks. An environmental impact analysis prepared by the state of 
California (Draft Environmental Impact Report; California marine life 
protection act initiative South Coast Study Region) indicates that 
cowcod are likely to benefit from marine protected areas that are 
closed to fishing activities. The best available scientific information 
on depth distributions of cowcod indicate that adults primarily inhabit 
depths deeper than 60 fm (110 m). To provide some additional fishing 
opportunities in areas where the bycatch of cowcod is not appreciable, 
this proposed rule would allow recreational fishing for some species, 
including shelf rockfish, shallower than new boundary lines that 
approximate the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour in several areas that are 
currently within the CCAs. This proposed rule would also establish new 
boundary lines that approximate the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in 
several areas within the CCAs, which may be used as the boundary for 
recreational fisheries that occur within the CCA during 2011-2012 and 
beyond. Latitude and longitude coordinates that define the boundary 
lines that approximate the 30 fm (55 m) and 40 fm (73 m) depth contours 
within the CCA are found at Sec.  660.71, Subpart C.
    Management measures for recreational fisheries off all three West 
Coast states are found at Sec.  660.360, Subpart G. Washington Coastal 
Tribal Allocations, Harvest Guidelines And

Set-Asides

    As in previous years, the mortality of groundfish species in tribal 
fisheries are subtracted from the 2011 and 2012 ACLs before other 
allocations are derived. In 2011-2012, the tribes will continue to have 
formal allocations for sablefish and Pacific whiting that are deducted 
from the ACLs for those species. The tribal allocation for sablefish is 
10 percent of the ACL north of 36[deg] north latitude, less 1.6 percent 
for estimated discard mortality. For 2011 and 2012, the tribal 
sablefish allocations are 552 mt and 535 mt, respectively. The formula 
for the tribal allocation of Pacific whiting in 2010 was [17.5 percent 
* (U.S. OY)] + 16,000 mt and was described in a proposed rule on March 
12, 2010 (75 FR 11829) and implemented in a final rule on May 4, 2010 
(75 FR 23620). With a U.S. OY of 193,935 mt, the tribal allocation for 
the 2010 tribal Pacific whiting fishery was 49,939 mt. In accordance 
with the procedures set forth in 50 CFR Sec.  660.50, subpart C, tribal 
allocations of Pacific whiting will be established annually until the 
co-managers complete the evaluation of the relevant scientific 
information and a determination of the long-term tribal allocation for 
Pacific whiting is made.
    The 2011 and 2012 tribal harvest guideline for black rockfish is 
the same as in 2009 and 2010: 13.61 mt (30,000 lbs) for the management 
area between the U.S./Canada border and Cape Alava (48[deg]10.00' north 
latitude) and 4.5 mt (10,000 lbs) for the management area between 
Destruction Island and Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' north latitude). 
The tribes have not had formal allocations for Pacific cod or lingcod 
in recent years; however, the Council recommended adopting a tribal 
proposal for tribal harvest guidelines for these two species in 2011 
and 2012 of 400 mt (881,840 lbs). Pacific cod harvest guideline and a 
250 mt (551,150 lbs). Lingcod harvest guideline will apply to the 
tribes for 2011 and 2012.
    For some species on which the tribes have a modest harvest, no 
specific allocation or harvest guideline has been determined. The 
amounts anticipated to be taken by tribal fisheries for all other 
groundfish species or species groups, including overfished species, are 
referred to as tribal set-asides. Set-asides for the Pacific Coast 
treaty Indian tribal harvest are deducted from the ACL, similarly to 
the tribal allocations and harvest guidelines described above. Set-
aside amounts for each species or species group taken in tribal 
fisheries are based on the projected catch from the proposed tribal 
fishery management measures, described below. Set-aside amounts could 
change through the biennial harvest specifications and management 
measures process. The set-aside amounts will be specified in the 
footnotes to Tables 1a through 2d of subpart C.

Washington Coastal Tribal Fisheries Management Measures

    Tribes implement management measures for tribal fisheries both 
separately and cooperatively with those management measures that are 
described in the Federal regulations. The tribes may adjust their 
tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the overall 
harvest targets described above, including their estimated impacts to 
overfished species. Trip limits are the primary management measure that 
the tribes specify in Federal regulations at 660.50, subpart C. 
Continued from 2009-2010, the tribes propose trip limit management for 
the following species taken in tribal fisheries in 2011-2012: Spiny 
dogfish; several rockfish species and species groups, including 
thornyheads; and flatfish species and species groups. These trip limits 
are described below.
    For spiny dogfish, tribal fisheries in 2011-2012 will be restricted 
to a cumulative limit of ``200,000 lbs (90,718 kg.) per two month 
period.'' This cumulative limit is similar to the bi-monthly cumulative 
limit for spiny dogfish that was in place for the limited entry trawl 
fishery in 2009-2010.
    For rockfish species, the 2011-2012 tribal fisheries will operate 
under trip and cumulative limits, and will be

[[Page 67846]]

required by tribal regulations to fully retain all overfished rockfish 
species and marketable non-overfished rockfish species. Tribal 
fisheries are restricted all gears to ``17,000 lbs (7,711 kg) per two 
month period'' for shortspine thornyheads and ``22,000 lbs (9,979 kg) 
per two month period'' for longspine thornyheads. As in 2009-2010, 
other rockfish, including minor nearshore, shelf and slope rockfish, 
are restricted to a ``300 lb (136 kg) per trip'' limit for each species 
group. If trip limits for minor nearshore rockfish are made less 
restrictive than ``300 lb per trip'' through inseason adjustments 
during 2011-2012, then the tribal limit would be set equal to the 
incidental trip limits published in Table 1 (North) to subpart D. As in 
2009-2010, tribal midwater trawl fisheries in 2011-2012 are subject to 
a cumulative limit for yellowtail rockfish of 180,000 lb per two months 
and the landings of widow rockfish must not exceed 10 percent of the 
cumulative poundage of yellowtail rockfish landed by a given vessel for 
the year. As in 2009-2010, trip limits for canary rockfish and 
yelloweye rockfish in 2011-2012 are ``300 lb (136-kg) per trip'' and 
``100 lbs (45 kg) per trip,'' respectively. The tribes will continue to 
develop management measures, including depth, area, and time 
restrictions, in the directed tribal Pacific halibut fishery in order 
to minimize incidental impacts on yelloweye rockfish.
    Tribal cumulative limits for most flatfish species in 2011-2012 
will be very similar to the limited entry trawl fishery trip limits 
from 2009-2010. The 2011-2012 tribal cumulative limits are as follows: 
``110,000 lbs per two months'' for Dover sole, English sole, and Other 
Flatfish, combined; and 150,000 lbs per months for arrowtooth flounder. 
The tribal cumulative for petrale sole will be the same in 2011-2012 as 
it was in 2009-2010: 50,000 lb per two months.
    Tribal fishing regulations, as recommended by the tribes and the 
Council and adopted by NMFS, are in Federal regulations at 660.50, 
subpart C.

Housekeeping Measures

    NMFS is proposing to correct and update the descriptions of season 
dates and trip limits throughout the regulations. NMFS proposes to 
replace, where appropriate, the words ``end'', ``ends'' or ``ending'' 
with ``closed'', ``closes'', or ``closing''. Changes to the language 
pertaining to season dates and trip limits are intended to improve 
enforceability by making the regulations consistent with the definition 
of ``closure or closed'' at 660.11, subpart C. Changes are proposed for 
the following sections: Sec.  660.131, and subpart D; Sec.  660.231. 
Housekeeping changes to the season dates and trip limits descriptions 
by replacing ``end'' with ``close'' do not change the intent or effect 
of these seasonal and trip limit regulations.
    NMFS is also proposing to clarify language describing the fishing 
restrictions within some Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCAs) 
that are not currently in effect as a housekeeping measure within this 
action. In the definitions of the Point St. George, South Reef, Reading 
Rock, Point Delgada North, and Point Delgada South YRCAs there is 
language that states that ``fishing for groundfish is open [within the 
YRCA] from January 1, through December 31.'' However, other 
restrictions may be in effect for these non-trawl fisheries that 
geographically overlap these YRCAs. Currently, the language implies 
that fishing for groundfish is open when it may otherwise be 
restricted. Therefore, the language above will be stricken from the 
descriptions of those YRCAs in sections: Sec.  660.302, Subpart E; 
Sec.  660.330, subpart F; and Sec.  660.360, subpart G. Housekeeping 
changes to the description of these YRCAs does not change the intent or 
effect of these area restrictions.
    Additionally, NMFS may clarify language regarding the non-
groundfish trawl RCA and how it applies to the open access non-
groundfish trawl sectors. See ``Open access non-groundfish trawl gear 
fisheries management measures'' for additional information on these 
proposed changes.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that most 
of the 2011-2012 groundfish harvest specifications and management 
measures in this proposed rule are consistent with the national 
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. 
However, NMFS has not made such a determination with respect to the 
specifications, including the rebuilding plans, for yelloweye rockfish, 
darkblotched rockfish and cowcod. There may be some questions whether 
the ACLs for these species are consistent with the court order in NRDC 
v. Locke. In addition, there may be some question whether the 
reductions in the protections in the CCAs are consistent with 
rebuilding requirements. NMFS specifically invites comments regarding 
these issues. NMFS will take into account the complete record, 
including any data, views, and comments received during the comment 
period, in making its final determination on whether the 2011-2012 
specifications and management measures are consistent with the above-
described standards and laws. If NMFS concludes, based on the overall 
record and public comments, that some rebuilding provisions are 
inconsistent with the court order or other rebuilding requirements, 
NMFS could make the necessary changes in the final rule and return the 
action to the Council for further consideration.
    A DEIS was prepared for the 2011-2012 groundfish harvest 
specifications and management measures. The DEIS includes an RIR and an 
IRFA. The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of 
availability for the draft EIS on August 27, 2010 (75 FR 52736). A copy 
of the DEIS is available online at http://www.pcouncil.org/.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the 
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and 
the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this 
section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 
copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of 
the analysis follows: The Council's RIR/IRFA compares all the 
alternatives by discussing the impacts of each alternative on 
commercial vessels, buyers and processors, recreational charter 
vessels, seafood consumers, recreational anglers, non-consumptive 
users, non-users, and enforcement. Based on analyses discussed in 
Chapter 4 of the DEIS, the following summary is based on the Council's 
RIR/IRFA and focuses on the Council's final preferred alternative 
proposed to be implemented by this action and the non action 
alternative.
    The overall economic impact of the Final Preferred Alternative is 
that many sectors are expected to achieve social and economic benefits 
similar to those under the current regulations, or the No Action 
alternative. However, there are differences in the distribution of ex-
vessel revenue and angler trips on a regional basis and on a sector-by-
sector basis. These changes are driven by changes in the forecast 
abundance for target species and overfished species. Change in the 
nearshore species harvest guidelines may positively impact recreational 
fisheries in certain regions compared with No Action. With the 
exception of the nearshore open access sector, all other non-tribal 
commercial fisheries sectors are expected to achieve lower levels of 
ex-vessel revenues than under No Action. The limited entry

[[Page 67847]]

fixed gear sector shows the greatest projected decline in revenue as a 
result of the sablefish ACL decrease. The Pacific whiting fishery is 
expected to be able to attain revenues similar to No Action; however, 
the impact to this fishery is dependent on results of the upcoming 
stock assessment cycle for Pacific whiting.
    On a coastwide basis, commercial ex-vessel revenues for the non-
tribal directed groundfish sectors are estimated to be approximately 
$69 million per year under the Final Preferred Alternative compared 
with approximately $71 million under No Action, and the number of 
recreational bottom fish trips is estimated to be 645 thousand under 
the Final Preferred Alternative compared with 609 thousand under No 
Action. The decline in commercial fisheries revenues is largely the 
result of a reduction in harvest of sablefish under the action 
alternatives.
    A variety of time/area closures applicable to commercial vessels 
have been implemented in recent years. The most extensive of these are 
the RCAs, which have been in place since 2002 to prohibit vessels from 
fishing in depths where overfished groundfish species are more 
abundant. Different RCA configurations apply to the limited entry trawl 
sector and the limited entry fixed gear and open access sectors. In 
addition, the depth ranges covered can vary by latitudinal zone and 
time period. The alternatives vary somewhat in terms of the extent of 
RCAs. In additions to the RCAs, two CCAs have been in place since 1999 
in the Southern California Bight to reduce bycatch of the overfished 
cowcod stock and yelloweye conservation areas have been established off 
the Washington Coast to reduce bycatch of the overfished yelloweye 
rockfish stock. The Final Preferred Alternative for the limited entry 
non-whiting trawl fleet generates slightly lower ex-vessel revenue on a 
coastwide basis when compared to revenues under the current regulations 
or no action alternative. This is primarily driven by a decrease in the 
abundance of sablefish and petrale sole as opposed to changes in status 
of constraining species. Area-based management for the limited entry 
non-whiting trawl fleet under the preferred alternative will be 
comparable to what was in place in 2009 and 2010--the area north of 
Cape Alava, Washington and shoreward of the trawl RCA will remain 
closed in order to protect overfished rockfish species. Given the 
decreased amount of fishable area in northern Washington since 2009 
higher costs for fishery participants from increases in fuel required 
to travel to and fish at those deeper depths would remain.
    The limited entry whiting fishery is expected to be able to attain 
revenues similar to the previous biennial period. Rebuilding species 
that largely constrain the whiting fishery include widow and canary 
rockfish. The past few years have witnessed an increase in the 
incidental take of widow rockfish in the whiting fisheries despite 
bycatch avoidance behavior. This trend is likely to continue as it is 
expected that the fishery will continue to encounter more widow 
rockfish as that stock rebuilds. It is important to note that potential 
ex-vessel revenue in these fisheries ultimately depends on the Pacific 
whiting stock assessment, which is adopted annually by the Council 
during the March meeting.
    The fixed gear sablefish sector will generate lower revenue under 
the Final Preferred Alternative than No Action because the sablefish 
ACL has decreased. However, the fixed gear fleet will have somewhat 
more area available than under No Action, because fishing will be open 
at depths deeper than 100 fm (183 m) north of 40[deg]10' north latitude 
whereas under No Action, depths between 100 fm (183 m) and 125 fm (229 
m) were only open on days when the Pacific halibut fishery was open. 
Fixed gear fisheries south of 36[deg] north latitude will see sablefish 
harvest close to status quo levels. There are no recommended changes to 
area management relative to status quo.
    Under the Final Preferred Alternative, the nearshore groundfish 
fishery is expected to have a moderate increase in ex-vessel revenues 
compared with No Action due to increased targeting opportunities for 
black rockfish (between 42 north latitude and 40 10' north latitude) 
and cabezon south (South of 42 north latitude). Fishing areas open to 
the nearshore fleets will be roughly the same as under No Action. 
Fishing opportunity and economic impacts to the nearshore groundfish 
sector are largely driven by the need to protect canary and especially 
yelloweye rockfish.
    The final preferred alternative is projected to provide the west 
coast economy with slightly lower ex-vessel revenues than was generated 
by the fishery under No Action. However, effects on buyers and 
processors along the coast will vary depending location. In addition, 
the Council's preferred alternative attempts to take into account the 
desire expressed by buyers and processors to have a year round 
groundfish fishery. Individual quota management for trawl fisheries 
should help accommodate this preference; however in practice in the 
absence of trip limits it is somewhat uncertain how trawl landings will 
be distributed in time and space.
    In terms of recreational angler effort, the number of angler trips 
under the final Council-preferred alternative is slightly higher 
compared to No Action, but somewhat less than in 2009. However, an 
increase in angler effort under the final Council-preferred alternative 
is occurring primarily in south and central California, while northern 
Washington shows a slight increase and Oregon shows no change compared 
with No Action. It is expected that under the proposed 2011-2012 
management measures, tribal groundfish fisheries will generate less 
revenue and personal income than under No Action due to a reduction in 
sablefish harvest.
    The 2011-2012 period will be the first groundfish management cycle 
in which the shoreside trawl sector fisheries would be conducted under 
the Amendment 20 trawl rationalization program, including issuance and 
tracking of individual fishing quotas (IFQ) for most trawl-caught 
groundfish species. IFQ management is designed to provide opportunities 
for fisherman and processors to maximize the value of their fishery by 
creating incentives to make the optimum use of available target and 
bycatch species. Since all trawl trips will be observed, catch of 
constraining overfished species will be monitored in real time, and 
individuals will be held directly responsible for ``covering'' all 
catch of groundfish species with IFQ. Since IFQ for constraining, 
overfished species represents a real cost in terms of money and/or 
fishing opportunity, it is expected that fishers will take 
extraordinary steps to avoid unnecessary catch of these species. At the 
same time there is uncertainty about how individuals will be able to 
manage the individual risk inherent in a system based on personal 
responsibility. This issue may present a considerable challenge, 
especially to small businesses that have access to only a single 
limited entry trawl permit. Exhausting all readily available supplies 
of IFQ for a particularly constraining species, such as yelloweye, may 
result in the business being effectively shut down for the remainder of 
the season. Partly for this reason it is expected that over time the 
number of vessels and permits engaging in the limited entry trawl 
fishery will decline as fishers strive to consolidate available IFQ 
onto a smaller number of vessels in order to reduce the costs of 
harvesting the quotas. A smaller number of active vessels will mean 
reductions in the number of crew hired and in

[[Page 67848]]

expenditures made in local ports for materials, equipment, supplies and 
vessel maintenance. As such, while wages and profits for those crew and 
vessel owners that do remain in the fishery should increase, the amount 
and distribution of exvessel revenues and community income will change 
in ways that are not yet foreseeable, but probably to the detriment of 
some businesses and communities currently involved in the groundfish 
trawl fishery. Due to these types of countervailing uncertainties, 
impacts on trawl fisheries under the 2011-2012 management measures used 
in this analysis were estimated using a model designed to project 
overfished species bycatch levels under a status quo cumulative trip 
limit management regime. Likewise, the model used to estimate community 
income impacts was calibrated based on recently estimated spending 
patterns for regional vessels and processors. While providing a useful 
starting point for comparing gross-level effects under the 
alternatives, the true range of economic impacts achievable under the 
rationalized, IFQ-managed fishery may reflect a considerable departure 
from these estimates.
    The Council analysis includes a discussion of small businesses. 
This proposed rule will regulate businesses that harvest groundfish. 
According to the Small Business Administration, a small commercial 
harvesting business is one that has annual receipts under $4.0 million 
and a small charter boat business is one that has annual receipts under 
$7 million. The Council estimates that implementation of the Final 
Preferred Alternative will affect about 2,600 small entities. These 
small entities are those that are directly regulated by the proposed 
rule that will be promulgated to support implementation of the Final 
Preferred Alternative. These entities are associated with those vessels 
that either target groundfish or harvest groundfish as bycatch. 
Consequently, these are the vessels, other than catcher-processors, 
that participate in the limited entry portion of the fishery, the open 
access fishery, the charter boat fleet, and the tribal fleets. Catcher/
processors also operate in the Alaska pollock fishery, and all are 
associated with larger companies such as Trident and American Seafoods. 
Therefore, it is assumed that all catcher/processors are ``large'' 
entities. Best estimates of the limited entry groundfish fleet are 
taken from the NMFS Limited Entry Permits Office. As of June 2010, 
there are 399 limited entry permits including 177 endorsed for trawl 
(172 trawl only, 4 trawl and longline, and 1 trawl and trap-pot); 199 
endorsed for longline (191 longline only, 4 longline and trap-pot, and 
4 trawl and longline); 32 endorsed for trap-pot (27 trap-pot only, 4 
longline and trap-pot, and 1 trawl and trap-pot). Of the longline and 
trap-pot permits, 164 are sablefish endorsed. Of these endorsements 130 
are ``stacked'' on 50 vessels. Ten of the limited entry trawl endorsed 
permits are used or owned by catcher/processor companies associated 
with the whiting fishery. The remaining 389 entities are assumed to be 
small businesses based on a review of sector revenues and average 
revenues per entity. The open access or nearshore fleet, depending on 
the year and level of participation, is estimated to be about 1,300 to 
1,600 vessels. Again, these are assumed to be ``small entities.'' The 
tribal fleet includes about 53 vessels, and the charter boat fleet 
includes 525 vessels that are also assumed to be ``small entities.''
    The Final Preferred Alternative represents the Council's efforts to 
address the directions provided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
which emphasizes the need to rebuild stocks in as short a time as 
possible, taking into account: (1) The status and biology of the 
stocks, (2) the needs of fishing communities, and (3) interactions of 
depleted stocks within the marine ecosystem. By taking into account the 
``needs of fishing communities'' the Council was also simultaneously 
taking into account the ``needs of small businesses'' as fishing 
communities rely on small businesses as a source of economic income and 
activity and income. Therefore, it may be useful to review whether the 
Council's three-meeting process for selecting the preferred alternative 
can be seen as means of trying to mitigate impacts of the proposed rule 
on small entities. The EIS and RIR/IRFA include analysis of a range of 
alternatives that were considered by the Council, including analysis of 
the effects of setting allowable harvest levels necessary to rebuild 
the seven groundfish species that were previously declared overfished. 
An eighth species, petrale sole, was declared overfished in 2010 and 
the proposed action includes a new rebuilding plan for this species 
along with the 2011-2012 ACLs and management measures consistent with 
the adopted rebuilding plan. Associated rebuilding analyses for all 
eight species estimate the time to rebuild under various levels of 
harvest.
    The Council initially considered a wider range of alternatives, but 
ultimately rejected from further analysis alternatives allowing harvest 
levels higher than what is generally consistent with current policies 
for rebuilding overfished stocks and a ``no fishing'' scenario (F=0). 
Section 2.2 of the DEIS describes five integrated alternatives 
including No Action, the Council's Final Preferred Alternative, and 
three other alternatives (including the Council's Preliminary Preferred 
Alternative, which is similar to the Final Preferred Alternative). 
Comparison of the action alternatives with No Action allows an 
evaluation of the economic implications to groundfish sectors, ports, 
and fishing communities; and the interaction of depleted species within 
the marine ecosystem of reducing ACLs for overfished species to rebuild 
stocks faster than they would under the rebuilding strategies that the 
Council adopted and have modified consistent with new, scientific 
information on the status and biology of these stocks.
    Alternative 2011-2012 groundfish management measures are designed 
to provide opportunities to harvest healthy, target species within the 
constraints of alternative ACLs for overfished species. The integrated 
alternatives allow estimation of target species catch under the suite 
of overfished ACLs for overfished species both to demonstrate that 
target species ACLs are projected to be exceeded and to estimate 
related socioeconomic impacts.
    The Council reviewed these analyses and read and heard testimony 
from Council advisors, fishing industry representatives, 
representatives from non-governmental organizations, and the general 
public before deciding the final Council-preferred alternative in June 
2010. The Council's final preferred management measures are intended to 
stay within all the final recommended harvest levels for groundfish 
species decided by the Council at their April and June 2010 meetings.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects 
of the Pacific Coast groundfish PCGFMP fisheries on Chinook salmon 
(Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper 
Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, 
Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), 
coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern 
California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), 
sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle 
and lower Columbia River, Snake River

[[Page 67849]]

Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California 
Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern 
California). These biological opinions have concluded that 
implementation of the PCGFMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery 
was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 
2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the 
groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999, Biological 
Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the 
Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the 
11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering 
reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish 
Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an 
analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.
    NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 
2006, which addressed salmon take in both the Pacific whiting midwater 
trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental 
Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 
2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered 
during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 
fish over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the 
reinitiation trigger of 11,000 fish. The Chinook ESUs most likely 
affected by the whiting fishery have generally improved in status since 
the 1999 section 7 consultation. Although these species remain at risk, 
as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that the higher 
observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a reconsideration of its 
prior ``no jeopardy'' conclusion with respect to the fishery.
    For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded that 
incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall 
limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 
Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion 
was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data 
to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination 
that implementation of the Groundfish PCGFMP is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
    Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) were 
recently listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) 
were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological 
opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting 
fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch 
of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead. The Southern Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) and the 
southern DPS of Pacific eulachon (75 FR 13012, March 18, 2010) were 
also recently listed as threatened under the ESA. As a consequence NMFS 
has begun the process to initiate consultation on the effects of the 
fishery.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed 
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials 
from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 
16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In 
addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by 
which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the 
PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, 
in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council 
considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 
660.324(d) further state ``the Secretary will develop tribal 
allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with 
the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal 
consensus.'' The tribal management measures in this proposed rule have 
been developed following these procedures. The tribal representative on 
the Council made a motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management 
measures, which was passed by the Council. Those management measures, 
which were developed and proposed by the tribes, are included in this 
proposed rule. The tribal whiting set aside will be established prior 
to the beginning of the whiting fishery in April, after further 
consultation with the tribes and the states.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, fishing, and Indian fisheries.

    Dated: October 20, 2010.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660, as 
amended at 75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010, effective November 1, 2010, is 
proposed to be further amended as follows:

50 CFR Chapter VI

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

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

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.

Subpart C--West Coast Groundfish Fisheries

    2. In Sec.  660.11,
    a. Add definitions of ``Acceptable Biological Catch'', ``Annual 
Catch Limit'', ``Annual Catch Target'', and ``Overfishing Limit'' in 
alphabetical order.
    b. Revise the definition of ``Fishery harvest guideline''.
    c. At the definition for ``Groundfish'', revise paragraphs (7) 
introductory text, (7)(ii)(A) and (B), and paragraph (9).
    d. At the definition of ``North-South management area'' redesignate 
paragraphs (2)(xvii) through (xxii) as (2)(xviii) through (xxiii).
    e. At the definition of ``North-South management area'', add 
paragraph (2)(xvii).


Sec.  660.11  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) means a harvest specification 
that is set below the overfishing limit to account for scientific 
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL, and other scientific uncertainty.
* * * * *
    Annual Catch Limit (ACL) is a harvest specification set equal to or 
below the ABC threshold in consideration of conservation objectives, 
socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty and other factors. The 
ACL is a harvest limit that includes all sources of fishing-related 
mortality including landings, discard mortality, research catches, and 
catches in exempted fishing permit activities. Sector-specific annual 
catch limits can be specified, especially in cases where a sector has a 
formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of a stock or 
stock complex.
    Annual Catch Target (ACT) is a management target set below the 
annual

[[Page 67850]]

catch limit and may be used as an accountability measure in cases where 
there is great uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring to ensure 
against exceeding an annual catch limit. Since the annual catch target 
is a target and not a limit, it can be used in lieu of harvest 
guidelines or strategically to accomplish other management objectives. 
Sector-specific annual catch targets can also be specified to 
accomplish management objectives.
* * * * *
    Fishery harvest guideline means the harvest guideline or quota 
after subtracting from the ACL or ACT when specified, any allocation 
for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes, projected research catch, 
deductions for fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as 
necessary, and set-asides for EFPs.
* * * * *
    Groundfish * * *
* * * * *
    (7) Rockfish: In addition to the species below, longspine 
thornyhead, S. altivelis, and shortspine thornyhead, S. alascanus, 
``rockfish'' managed under the PCGFMP include all genera and species of 
the family Scorpaenidae, except dusky rockfish, S. ciliatus; dwarf-red 
rockfish, S. rufianus, that occur off Washington, Oregon, and 
California, even if not listed below. The Scorpaenidae genera are 
Sebastes, Scorpaena, Scorpaenodes, and Sebastolobus. Where species 
below are listed both in a major category (nearshore, shelf, slope) and 
as an area-specific listing (north or south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.) 
those species are considered ``minor'' in the geographic area listed.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.: bronzespotted rockfish, S. gilli; 
bocaccio, S. paucispinis; chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi; 
chilipepper, S. goodei; cowcod, S. levis; flag rockfish, S. 
rubrivinctus; freckled rockfish, S. lentiginosus; greenblotched 
rockfish, S. rosenblatti; greenspotted rockfish, S. chlorostictus; 
greenstriped rockfish, S. elongatus; halfbanded rockfish, S. 
semicinctus; harlequin rockfish, S. variegates; honeycomb rockfish, S. 
umbrosus; Mexican rockfish, S. macdonaldi; pink rockfish, S. eos; 
pinkrose rockfish, S. simulator; pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni; redstripe 
rockfish, S. proriger; rosethorn rockfish, S. helvomaculatus; rosy 
rockfish, S. rosaceus; silvergray rockfish, S. brevispinis; speckled 
rockfish, S. ovalis; squarespot rockfish, S. hopkinsi; starry rockfish, 
S. constellatus; stripetail rockfish, S. saxicola; swordspine rockfish, 
S. ensifer; tiger rockfish, S. nigrocinctus; vermilion rockfish, S. 
miniatus.
    (B) South of 40[deg]10' N. lat.: bronzespotted rockfish, S. gilli; 
chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi; flag rockfish, S. rubrivinctus; 
freckled rockfish, S. lentiginosus; greenblotched rockfish, S. 
rosenblatti; greenspotted rockfish, S. chlorostictus; greenstriped 
rockfish, S. elongatus; halfbanded rockfish, S. semicinctus; harlequin 
rockfish, S. variegates; honeycomb rockfish, S. umbrosus; Mexican 
rockfish, S. macdonaldi; pink rockfish, S. eos; pinkrose rockfish, S. 
simulator; pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni; redstripe rockfish, S. proriger; 
rosethorn rockfish, S. helvomaculatus; rosy rockfish, S. rosaceus; 
silvergray rockfish, S. brevispinis; speckled rockfish, S. ovalis; 
squarespot rockfish, S. hopkinsi; starry rockfish, S. constellatus; 
stripetail rockfish, S. saxicola; swordspine rockfish, S. ensifer; 
tiger rockfish, S. nigrocinctus; vermilion rockfish, S. miniatus; 
yellowtail rockfish, S. flavidus.
* * * * *
    (9) ``Other fish'': Where regulations of subparts C through G of 
this part refer to landings limits for ``other fish,'' those limits 
apply to all groundfish listed here in paragraphs (1) through (8) of 
this definition except for the following: Those groundfish species 
specifically listed in Tables 1a and 2a of this subpart with an OFL for 
that area (generally north and/or south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.); spiny 
dogfish coastwide. ``Other fish'' may include all sharks, except spiny 
dogfish, skates (except longnose skate), ratfish, morids, grenadiers, 
and kelp greenling listed in this section, as well as cabezon in waters 
off Washington.
* * * * *
    North-South management area * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xvii) Cape Vizcaino, CA-39[deg]44.00' N. lat.
* * * * *
    Overfishing limit (OFL) is the MSY harvest level or the annual 
abundance of exploitable biomass of a stock or stock complex multiplied 
by the maximum fishing mortality threshold or proxy thereof and is an 
estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  660.12, revise paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.12  General groundfish prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (8) Fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after offloading, 
those groundfish species or species groups for which there is a trip 
limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, harvest 
guideline, ACT, ACL or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area 
during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting 
designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACT, ACL or OY applied; except 
as specified at Sec.  660.131, subpart C for vessels participating in 
the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  660.30, paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(6) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.30  Compensation with fish for collecting resource 
information--EFPs.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The year in which the compensation fish would be deducted from 
the ACL or ACT before determining the fishery harvest guideline or 
commercial harvest guideline.
* * * * *
    (6) Accounting for the compensation catch. As part of the harvest 
specifications process, as described at Sec.  660.60, subpart C, NMFS 
will advise the Council of the amount of fish authorized to be retained 
under a compensation EFP, which then will be deducted from the next 
harvest specifications (ACLs or ACTs) set by the Council. Fish 
authorized in an EFP too late in the year to be deducted from the 
following year's ACLs or ACTs will be accounted for in the next 
management cycle where it is practicable to do so.
* * * * *
    5. Revise Sec.  660.40 to read as follows:


Sec.  660.40  Overfished species rebuilding plans.

    For each overfished groundfish stock with an approved rebuilding 
plan, this section contains the standards to be used to establish 
annual or biennial ACLs, specifically the target date for rebuilding 
the stock to its MSY level and the harvest control rule to be used to 
rebuild the stock. The harvest control rule is expressed as a 
``Spawning Potential Ratio'' or ``SPR'' harvest rate.
    (a) Bocaccio. The target year for rebuilding the bocaccio stock 
south of 40[deg]10 N. latitude to BMSY is 2022. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the southern bocaccio stock is an 
annual SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent.
    (b) Canary rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the canary 
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2027. The harvest control rule to 
be used to rebuild the canary rockfish stock is an annual SPR harvest 
rate of 88.7 percent.

[[Page 67851]]

    (c) Cowcod. The target year for rebuilding the cowcod stock south 
of 40[deg]10 N. latitude to BMSY is 2071. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual SPR 
harvest rate of 79 percent.
    (d) Darkblotched rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the 
darkblotched rockfish stock to BMSY is 2025. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the darkblotched rockfish stock is 
an annual SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent.
    (e) Petrale Sole. The target year for rebuilding the petrale sole 
stock to BMSY is 2016. The harvest control rule is an annual 
SPR harvest rate of 31 percent in 2011 and 32.4 percent in 2012.
    (f) Pacific Ocean Perch (POP). The target year for rebuilding the 
POP stock to BMSY is 2020. The harvest control rule to be 
used to rebuild the POP stock is an annual SPR harvest rate of 86.4 
percent.
    (g) Widow rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the widow 
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2010. A constant catch of 600 mt 
will be used to rebuild the widow rockfish stock, which is an annual 
SPR harvest rate of 91.7 percent in 2011 and 91.3 percent in 2012.
    (h) Yelloweye rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the 
yelloweye rockfish stock to BMSY is 2084. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the yelloweye rockfish stock is an 
annual SPR harvest rate of 72.8 percent.
    6. In Sec.  660.50, paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii), (f)(4),(g)(2), 
and (g)(7) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.50  Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The sablefish allocation to Pacific coast treaty Indian tribes 
is 10 percent of the sablefish ACL for the area north of 36[deg] N. 
lat. This allocation represents the total amount available to the 
treaty Indian fisheries before deductions for discard mortality.
    (ii) The tribal allocation is 552 mt in 2011 and 535 in 2012 per 
year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey 
through Vancouver area (North of 36[deg] N. lat.) The tribal allocation 
is reduced by 1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality.
* * * * *
    (4) Pacific whiting. The tribal allocation for 2010 is 49,939 mt. 
The tribal allocations for will be announced each year following the 
Council's March meeting when the final specifications for Pacific 
whiting are announced.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Thornyheads. The tribes will manage their fisheries to the 
following limits for shortspine and longspine thornyheads. The limits 
would be accumulated across vessels into a cumulative fleetwide harvest 
target for the year. The limits available to individual fishermen will 
then be adjusted inseason to stay within the overall harvest target as 
well as estimated impacts to overfished species. The annual following 
limits apply:
    (i) Shortspine thornyhead cumulative trip limits are 17,000-lb 
(7,711-kg) per 2 months.
    (ii) Longspine thornyhead cumulative trip limits are 22,000-lb 
(9,979-kg) per 2 months.
* * * * *
    (7) Flatfish and other fish. Treaty fishing vessels using bottom 
trawl gear are subject to the following limits: For Dover sole, English 
sole, other flatfish 110,000 lbs (49,895 kg) per 2 month; and for 
arrowtooth flounder 150,000 lbs (68,039 kg) per 2 month. The Dover sole 
and arrowtooth limits in place at the beginning of the season will be 
combined across periods and the fleet to create a cumulative harvest 
target. The limits available to individual vessels will then be 
adjusted inseason to stay within the overall harvest target as well as 
estimated impacts to overfished species. For petrale sole, treaty 
fishing vessels are restricted to a 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) per 2 month 
limit for the entire year. Trawl vessels are restricted to using small 
footrope trawl gear.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec.  660.55 paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, 
(f)(1)(ii) and (k) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.55  Allocations.

* * * * *
    (a) General. An allocation is the apportionment of a harvest 
privilege for a specific purpose, to a particular person, group of 
persons, or fishery sector. The opportunity to harvest Pacific Coast 
groundfish is allocated among participants in the fishery when the ACLs 
for a given year are established in the biennial harvest 
specifications. For any stock that has been declared overfished, any 
formal allocation may be temporarily revised for the duration of the 
rebuilding period. For certain species, primarily trawl-dominant 
species, beginning with the 2011-2012 biennial specifications process, 
separate allocations for the trawl and nontrawl fishery (which for this 
purpose includes limited entry fixed gear, directed open access, and 
recreational fisheries) will be established biennially or annually 
using the standards and procedures described in Chapter 6 of the 
PCGFMP. Chapter 6 of the PCGFMP provides the allocation structure and 
percentages for species allocated between the trawl and nontrawl 
fisheries. Also, separate allocations for the limited entry and open 
access fisheries may be established using the procedures described in 
Chapters 6 and 11 of the PCGFMP and this subpart. Allocation of 
sablefish north of 36[deg] N. lat. is described in paragraph (h) of 
this section and in the PCGFMP. Allocation of Pacific whiting is 
described in paragraph (i) of this section and in the PCGFMP. 
Allocation of black rockfish is described in paragraph (l) of this 
section. Allocation of Pacific halibut bycatch is described in 
paragraph (m) of this section. Allocations not specified in the PCGFMP 
are established in regulation through the biennial harvest 
specifications and are listed in Tables 1 a through d and Tables 2 a 
through d of this subpart.
    (b) Fishery harvest guidelines and reductions made prior to fishery 
allocations. Beginning with the 2011-2012 biennial specifications 
process and prior to the setting of fishery allocations, the ACL or ACT 
when specified is reduced by the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal 
harvest (allocations, set-asides, and estimated harvest under 
regulations at Sec.  660.50); projected scientific research catch of 
all groundfish species, estimates of fishing mortality in non-
groundfish fisheries and, as necessary, set-asides for EFPs. The 
remaining amount after these deductions is the fishery harvest 
guideline or quota. (Note: Recreational estimates are not deducted 
here).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Catch accounting for the nontrawl allocation. All groundfish 
caught by a vessel not registered to a limited entry permit and not 
fishing in the non-groundfish fishery will be counted against the 
nontrawl allocation. All groundfish caught by a vessel registered to a 
limited entry permit when the fishery for a vessel's limited entry 
permit has closed or they are not declared in to a limited entry 
fishery, will be counted against the nontrawl allocation, unless they 
are declared in to a non-groundfish fishery. Catch by vessels fishing 
in the non-groundfish fishery, as defined at Sec.  660.11, will be 
accounted for in the estimated mortality in the non-groundfish fishery 
that is deducted from the ACL or ACT when specified.
* * * * *

[[Page 67852]]

    (k) Exempted fishing permit set-asides. Annual set-asides for EFPs 
described at Sec.  660.60(f), will be deducted from the ACL or ACT when 
specified. Set-aside amounts will be adjusted through the biennial 
harvest specifications and management measures process.
* * * * *
    8. In Sec.  660.60 paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (g) and (h)(1) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  660.60  Specifications and management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip 
landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the 
following species or species groups: Widow rockfish, canary rockfish, 
yellowtail rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, black 
rockfish, blue rockfish, splitnose rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 
bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor 
nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope 
rockfish; DTS complex which is composed of Dover sole, sablefish, 
shortspine thornyheads, longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex sole, 
arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the other flatfish complex, 
which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species 
listed at Sec.  660.11, subpart C; Pacific whiting; lingcod; Pacific 
cod; spiny dogfish; cabezon in Oregon and California and ``other fish'' 
as a complex consisting of all groundfish species listed at Sec.  
660.11, subpart C and not otherwise listed as a distinct species or 
species group. Specific to the IFQ fishery, sub-limits or aggregate 
limits may be specified for the following species: Longnose skate, big 
skate, California skate, California scorpionfish, leopard shark, 
soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific rattail (grenadier), ratfish, 
kelp greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon in Washington. Size limits have 
been designated as routine for sablefish and lingcod. Trip landing and 
frequency limits and size limits for species with those limits 
designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more 
frequent basis for the purpose of keeping landings within the harvest 
levels announced by NMFS, and for the other purposes given in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) Applicability. Groundfish species harvested in the territorial 
sea (0-3 nm) will be counted toward the catch limitations in Tables 1a 
through 2d of this subpart, and those specified in subparts D through 
G, including Tables 1a (North) and 1a (South) Tables 1b (North) and 1b 
(South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) of subpart E, 
Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) of subpart F.
    (h) * * *
    (1) Commercial trip limits and recreational bag and boat limits. 
Commercial trip limits and recreational bag and boat limits defined in 
Tables 1a through 2d of this subpart, and those specified in subparts D 
through G of this part, including Tables 1a (North) and 1a (South), 
Tables 1b (North) and 1b (South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) and 2 
(South) of subpart E, Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) of subpart F must 
not be exceeded.
* * * * *
    9. In Sec.  660.65, the introductory text is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.65   Groundfish harvest specifications.

    Harvest specifications include OFLs, ABCs, and the designation of 
OYs, and ACLs. Management measures necessary to keep catch within the 
ACL include ACTs, harvest guidelines (HGs), or quotas for species that 
need individual management, and the allocation of fishery HGs between 
the trawl and nontrawl segments of the fishery, and the allocation of 
commercial HGs between the open access and limited entry segments of 
the fishery. These specifications include fish caught in state ocean 
waters (0-3 nm offshore) as well as fish caught in the EEZ (3-200 nm 
offshore). Harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d 
of this subpart.
* * * * *
    10. Section 660.71 is proposed to be amended as follows:
    a. Remove paragraph (e)(78),
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(79) through (e)(333) as (e)(78) 
through (e)(332) respectively.
    c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) through (n) as (o) through (r), 
respectively.
    d. In newly redesignated paragraph (o), revise paragraphs (o)(149) 
and (150), redesignate paragraphs (o)(151) through (212) as (o)(153) 
through (214), add new paragraphs (o)(151) and (152),
    e. Add paragraphs (k), (l), (m), (n), (s), (t), (u), and (v) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.71  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 10 fm (18 m) 
through 40 fm (73 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (k) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off 
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of 
the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]30.41' N. lat., 119[deg]02.93' W. long.;
    (2) 33[deg]30.22' N. lat., 119[deg]03.84' W. long.;
    (3) 33[deg]29.53' N. lat., 119[deg]04.60' W. long.;
    (4) 33[deg]28.57' N. lat., 119[deg]04.06' W. long.;
    (5) 33[deg]28.35' N. lat., 119[deg]03.44' W. long.;
    (6) 33[deg]27.73' N. lat., 119[deg]03.41' W. long.;
    (7) 33[deg]27.31' N. lat., 119[deg]01.80' W. long.;
    (8) 33[deg]27.76' N. lat., 119[deg]01.31' W. long.;
    (9) 33[deg]27.78' N. lat., 119[deg]00.85' W. long.;
    (10) 33[deg]27.95' N. lat., 119[deg]00.75' W. long.;
    (11) 33[deg]28.47' N. lat., 119[deg]00.92' W. long.;
    (12) 33[deg]29.61' N. lat., 119[deg]00.69' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 33[deg]30.41' N. lat., 119[deg]02.93' W. long.
    (l) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around San Nicolas Island off the 
state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]19.00' N. lat., 119[deg]28.00' W. long.;
    (2) 33[deg]18.50' N. lat., 119[deg]39.50' W. long.;
    (3) 33[deg]17.18' N. lat., 119[deg]40.26' W. long.;
    (4) 33[deg]15.61' N. lat., 119[deg]38.65' W. long.;
    (5) 33[deg]12.50' N. lat., 119[deg]30.00' W. long.;
    (6) 33[deg]12.00' N. lat., 119[deg]27.00' W. long.;
    (7) 33[deg]12.68' N. lat., 119[deg]23.30' W. long.;
    (8) 33[deg]13.50' N. lat., 119[deg]20.00' W. long.;
    (9) 33[deg]15.50' N. lat., 119[deg]20.00' W. long.;
    (10) 33[deg]16.50' N. lat., 119[deg]25.00' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 33[deg]19.00' N. lat., 119[deg]28.00' W. long.
    (m) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]43.37' N. lat., 119[deg]08.86' W. long.;
    (2) 32[deg]42.86' N. lat., 119[deg]07.36' W. long.;
    (3) 32[deg]41.13' N. lat., 119[deg]05.46' W. long.;
    (4) 32[deg]40.57' N. lat., 119[deg]05.76' W. long.;
    (5) 32[deg]41.49' N. lat., 119[deg]09.90' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 32[deg]43.37' N. lat., 119[deg]08.86' W. long.
    (n) The 30fm (55m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state 
of

[[Page 67853]]

California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following 
points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]29.73' N. lat., 119[deg]12.95' W. long.;
    (2) 32[deg]28.83' N. lat., 119[deg]10.38' W. long.;
    (3) 32[deg]28.17' N. lat., 119[deg]07.04' W. long.;
    (4) 32[deg]26.27' N. lat., 119[deg]04.14' W. long.;
    (5) 32[deg]25.22' N. lat., 119[deg]04.77' W. long.;
    (6) 32[deg]28.60' N. lat., 119[deg]14.15' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 32[deg]29.73' N. lat., 119[deg]12.95' W. long.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (149) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 121[deg]57.93' W. long.;
    (150) 36[deg]16.80' N. lat., 121[deg]59.97' W. long.;
    (151) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]55.95' W. long.;
    (152) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (s) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off 
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of 
the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]30.89' N. lat., 119[deg]02.42' W. long.;
    (2) 33[deg]29.89' N. lat., 119[deg]05.27' W. long.;
    (3) 33[deg]29.54' N. lat., 119[deg]05.39' W. long.;
    (4) 33[deg]28.53' N. lat., 119[deg]04.27' W. long.;
    (5) 33[deg]28.23' N. lat., 119[deg]03.73' W. long.;
    (6) 33[deg]27.77' N. lat., 119[deg]03.67' W. long.;
    (7) 33[deg]27.32' N. lat., 119[deg]02.80' W. long.;
    (8) 33[deg]27.20' N. lat., 119[deg]01.82' W. long.;
    (9) 33[deg]27.64' N. lat., 119[deg]00.31' W. long.;
    (10) 33[deg]29.96' N. lat., 119[deg]00.45' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 33[deg]30.89' N. lat., 119[deg]02.42' W. long.
    (t) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around San Nicolas Island off the 
state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]20.00' N. lat., 119[deg]29.00' W. long.;
    (2) 33[deg]18.72' N. lat., 119[deg]41.27' W. long.;
    (3) 33[deg]17.56' N. lat., 119[deg]41.38' W. long.;
    (4) 33[deg]15.19' N. lat., 119[deg]38.59' W. long.;
    (5) 33[deg]12.35' N. lat., 119[deg]30.11' W. long.;
    (6) 33[deg]11.81' N. lat., 119[deg]27.13' W. long.;
    (7) 33[deg]12.60' N. lat., 119[deg]23.15' W. long.;
    (8) 33[deg]12.93' N. lat., 119[deg]22.26' W. long.;
    (9) 33[deg]12.78' N. lat., 119[deg]21.48' W. long.;
    (10) 33[deg]13.11' N. lat., 119[deg]17.70' W. long.;
    (11) 33[deg]13.77' N. lat., 119[deg]17.77' W. long.;
    (12) 33[deg]14.50' N. lat., 119[deg]19.82' W. long.;
    (13) 33[deg]15.52' N. lat., 119[deg]19.94' W. long.;
    (14) 33[deg]16.67' N. lat., 119[deg]23.12' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 33[deg]20.00' N. lat., 119[deg]29.00' W. long.
    (u) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]43.67' N. lat., 119[deg]09.11' W. long.;
    (2) 32[deg]43.02' N. lat., 119[deg]07.17' W. long.;
    (3) 32[deg]40.62' N. lat., 119[deg]04.52' W. long.;
    (4) 32[deg]40.00' N. lat., 119[deg]05.00' W. long.;
    (5) 32[deg]41.43' N. lat., 119[deg]10.05' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 32[deg]43.67' N. lat., 119[deg]09.11' W. long.
    (v) The 40fm (73m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]30.45' N. lat., 119[deg]12.61' W. long.;
    (2) 32[deg]28.90' N. lat., 119[deg]10.26' W. long.;
    (3) 32[deg]28.49' N. lat., 119[deg]07.04' W. long.;
    (4) 32[deg]26.29' N. lat., 119[deg]03.80' W. long.;
    (5) 32[deg]24.91' N. lat., 119[deg]04.70' W. long.;
    (6) 32[deg]28.57' N. lat., 119[deg]14.91' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 32[deg]30.45' N. lat., 119[deg]12.61' W. long.
    11. Section 660.72 is proposed to be amended as follows:
    a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(143) through (f)(144), and 
remove paragraph (f)(198),
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(122) through (a)(195) as (a)(127) 
through (a)(200), paragraphs (f)(145) through (f)(197) as (f)(146) 
through (f)(198), paragraphs (j)(16) through (j)(254) as (j)(18) 
through (j)(256), and paragraphs (j)(4) through (j)(15) as (j)(5) 
through (j)(16),
    c. Revise paragraphs (a)(121), newly designated (a)(193), (b), (f) 
(140) through (f)(142), and newly designated (j)(183) through (j)(185),
    d. Add paragraphs (a)(122) to (a)(126), add and reserve paragraph 
(a)(145), and add paragraphs (j)(4) and (j)(17), to read as follows:


Sec.  660.72  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 50 fm (91 m) 
through 75 fm (137 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (121) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 121[deg]58.97' W. long.;
    (122) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 122[deg]00.35' W. long.;
    (123) 36[deg]16.02' N. lat., 122[deg]00.35' W. long.;
    (124) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]58.53' W. long.;
    (125) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]56.53' W. long.;
    (126) 36[deg]14.79' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (193) 32[deg]55.35' N. lat., 117[deg]18.65' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (b) The 50-fm (91-m) depth contour around the Swiftsure Bank and 
along the U.S. border with Canada is defined by straight lines 
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 48[deg]30.15' N. lat., 124[deg]56.12' W. long.;
    (2) 48[deg]28.29' N. lat., 124[deg]56.30' W. long.;
    (3) 48[deg]29.23' N. lat., 124[deg]53.63' W. long.;
    (4) 48[deg]30.31' N. lat., 124[deg]51.73' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 48[deg]30.15' N. lat., 124[deg]56.12' W. long.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (140) 36[deg]16.80' N. lat., 122[deg]01.76' W. long.;
    (141) 36[deg]14.33' N. lat., 121[deg]57.80' W. long.;
    (142) 36[deg]14.67' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (4) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]27.99' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (17) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]20.19' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (183) 36[deg]17.49' N. lat., 122[deg]03.08' W. long.;
    (184) 36[deg]14.21' N. lat., 121[deg]57.80' W. long.;
    (185) 36[deg]14.53' N. lat., 121[deg]54.99' W. long.;
* * * * *
    12. Section 660.73 is proposed to be amended as follows:
    a. Remove paragraphs (a)(118) through (a)(120), (a)(156), (d)(134), 
(d)(180), (h)(157) and (h)(158),

[[Page 67854]]

    b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(16) as (a)(4) through 
(a)(17), paragraphs (a)(17) through (a)(117) as (a)(19) through 
(a)(119), paragraphs (a)(121) through (a)(155) as (a)(128) through 
(a)(162), paragraphs (a)(157) through (a)(307) as (a)(165) through 
(a)(315), paragraphs (d)(135) through (d)(179) as (d)(138) through 
(d)(182), paragraphs (d)(181) through (d)(350) as (d)(185) through 
(d)(354), and paragraphs (h)(159) through (h)(302) as (h)(158) through 
(h)(301),
    c. Add paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(18), (a)(120) through (a)(127), 
(a)(163) and (a)(164), (d)(134) through (d)(137), (d)(183), (d)(184), 
and (h)(157) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.73  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183 
m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]40.00' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (18) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]17.81' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (120) 44[deg]02.34' N. lat., 124[deg]55.46' W. long.;
    (121) 43[deg]59.18' N. lat., 124[deg]56.94' W. long.;
    (122) 43[deg]56.74' N. lat., 124[deg]56.74' W. long.;
    (123) 43[deg]55.76' N. lat., 124[deg]55.76' W. long.;
    (124) 43[deg]55.41' N. lat., 124[deg]52.21' W. long.;
    (125) 43[deg]54.62' N. lat., 124[deg]48.23' W. long.;
    (126) 43[deg]55.90' N. lat., 124[deg]41.11' W. long.;
    (127) 43[deg]57.36' N. lat., 124[deg]38.68' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (163) 40[deg]30.37' N. lat., 124[deg]37.30' W. long.;
    (164) 40[deg]28.48' N. lat., 124[deg]36.95' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (134) 43[deg]59.43' N. lat., 124[deg]57.22' W. long.;
    (135) 43[deg]57.49' N. lat., 124[deg]57.31' W. long.;
    (136) 44[deg]55.73' N. lat., 124[deg]55.41' W. long.;
    (137) 44[deg]54.74' N. lat., 124[deg]53.15' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (183) 40[deg]30.35' N. lat., 124[deg]37.52' W. long.;
    (184) 40[deg]28.39' N. lat., 124[deg]37.16' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (157) 40[deg]30.30' N. lat., 124[deg]37.63' W. long.;
* * * * *
    13. Section 660.74 is proposed to be amended as follows:
    a. Remove paragraphs (a)(159), (g)(136),
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(160) through (a)(284) as (a)(161) 
through (a)(285), (g)(137) through (g)(256) as (g)(138) through 
(g)(257),
    c. Revise paragraphs (g)(133), (l)(84) and (l)(85),
    d. Add paragraphs (a)(159) and (a)(160), (g)(136) and (g)(137), to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.74  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 180 fm (329 
m) through 250 fm (457 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (159) 40[deg]30.22' N. lat., 124[deg]37.80' W. long.;
    (160) 40[deg]27.29' N. lat., 124[deg]37.10' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (133) 40[deg]30.16' N. lat., 124[deg]37.91' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (136) 40[deg]22.34' N. lat., 124[deg]31.22' W. long.;
    (137) 40[deg]14.40' N. lat., 124[deg]35.82' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (84) 43[deg]57.88' N. lat., 124[deg]58.25' W. long.;
    (85) 43[deg]56.89' N. lat., 124[deg]57.33' W. long.;
* * * * *
    14a. Tables 1a through 1c, Subpart C, are proposed to be revised to 
read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 67855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.000


[[Page 67856]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.001


[[Page 67857]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.002


[[Page 67858]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.003


[[Page 67859]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.004


[[Page 67860]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.005


[[Page 67861]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.006


[[Page 67862]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.007


[[Page 67863]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.008


[[Page 67864]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.009


[[Page 67865]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.010


[[Page 67866]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.011


[[Page 67867]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.012


[[Page 67868]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.013


[[Page 67869]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.014


[[Page 67870]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.015


[[Page 67871]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.016


[[Page 67872]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.017


[[Page 67873]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.018


[[Page 67874]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.019


[[Page 67875]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.020


[[Page 67876]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.021


[[Page 67877]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.022


[[Page 67878]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.023

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Subpart D--West Coast Groundfish--Limited Entry Trawl Fisheries

    15. In Sec.  660.130 paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.130  Trawl fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (d) Sorting. Under Sec.  660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful 
for any person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after 
offloading, those groundfish species or species groups for which there 
is a trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, 
harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in 
an area during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific 
sorting designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY 
applied.'' The States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also 
require that vessels record their landings as sorted on their state 
landing receipt.
* * * * *
    16. In Sec.  660.131, paragraph (b)(4)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.131   Pacific whiting fishery management measures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If, during a primary whiting season, a whiting vessel harvests 
a groundfish species other than whiting for which there is a midwater 
trip limit, then that vessel may also harvest up to another footrope-
specific limit for that species during any cumulative limit period that 
overlaps the start or close of the primary whiting season.
* * * * *
    17. In Sec.  660.140 paragraph (a) and the introductory text of 
paragraph (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.140   Shorebased IFQ program.

    (a) General. The Shorebased IFQ Program requirements in Sec.  
660.140 will be effective beginning January 1, 2011, except for 
paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(6), and (d)(8) of this section, which are 
effective immediately. The Shorebased IFQ Program applies to qualified 
participants in the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery and includes a 
system of transferable QS for most groundfish species or species 
groups, IBQ for Pacific halibut, and trip limits or set-asides, as 
necessary, for the remaining groundfish species or species groups. The 
IFQ Program is subject to area restrictions (GCAs, RCAs, and EFHCAs) 
listed at Sec. Sec.  660.70 through 660.79, subpart C. The Shorebased 
IFQ Program may be restricted or closed as a result of projected 
overages within the Shorebased IFQ Program, the MS Coop Program, or the 
C/P Coop Program. As determined necessary by the Regional 
Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other measures 
will be used to prevent the trawl sector in aggregate or the individual 
trawl sectors (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from exceeding an 
ACL, OY, ACT or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP or regulation 
at Sec.  660.55, subpart C, or Sec. Sec.  660.140, 660.150, or 660.160, 
subpart D.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) IFQ species. IFQ species are those groundfish species and 
Pacific halibut in the exclusive economic zone or adjacent state waters 
off Washington, Oregon and California, under the jurisdiction of the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, for which QS and IBQ will be 
issued. QS and IBQ will specify designations for the species/species 
groups and area to which it applies. QS and QP species groupings and 
area subdivisions will be those for which ACLs or ACTs are specified in 
the Tables 1a through 2d, subpart C, and those for which there is an 
area-specific precautionary harvest policy. QS for remaining minor 
rockfish will be aggregated for the shelf and slope depth strata 
(nearshore species are excluded). The following are the IFQ species:
* * * * *
    18. In Sec.  660.150 paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.150  Mothership (MS) Coop program.

    (a) * * *
    (5) The MS Coop Program may be restricted or closed as a result of 
projected overages within the MS Coop Program, the C/P Coop Program, or 
the Shorebased IFQ Program. As determined necessary by the Regional 
Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other measures 
will be used to prevent the trawl sectors in aggregate or the 
individual trawl sector (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from 
exceeding an ACL, ACT, or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP or 
regulation at Sec.  660.55, subpart C, or Sec. Sec.  660.140, 660.150, 
or 660.160, subpart D.
* * * * *
    19. In Sec.  660.160 paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.160  Catcher/processor (C/P) Coop Program.

    (a) * * *
    (5) The C/P Coop Program may be restricted or closed as a result of 
projected overages within the MS Coop Program, the C/P Coop Program, or 
the Shorebased IFQ Program. As determined necessary by the Regional 
Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other measures 
will be used to prevent the trawl sectors in aggregate or the 
individual trawl sector (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from 
exceeding an ACL, ACT, or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP or 
regulation at Sec.  660.55,

[[Page 67879]]

subpart C, or Sec. Sec.  660.140, 660.150, or 660.160, subpart D.
* * * * *
    20. Table 1 (North), Table 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D are 
redesignated as Table 1a (North), Table 1a (South) to part 660, subpart 
D; the newly redesignated Table 1a (North) and Table 1a (South) are 
revised, and Table 1b (North) and Table 1b (South) are added to part 
660, subpart D to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.024


[[Page 67880]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.025


[[Page 67881]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.026


[[Page 67882]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.027


[[Page 67883]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.028


[[Page 67884]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.029


[[Page 67885]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.030

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Subpart E--West Coast Groundfish--Limited Entry Fixed Gear 
Fisheries

    21. In Sec.  660.230 paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), and (d)(5) 
through (9) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.230  Fixed gear fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Under Sec.  660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful for any 
person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after offloading, 
those groundfish species or species groups for which there is a trip 
limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, harvest 
guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area 
during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting 
designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY applied.'' The 
States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also require that 
vessels record their landings as sorted on their state landing 
receipts.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, Cabezon 
(Oregon and California);
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Point St. George YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates 
of the Point St. George YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, 
Subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within 
the Point St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It 
is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with 
limited entry fixed gear within the Point St. George YRCA, on dates 
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this 
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. Limited 
entry fixed gear vessels may transit through the Point St. George YRCA, 
at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
    (6) South Reef YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the 
South

[[Page 67886]]

Reef YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing 
with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the South Reef YRCA, 
on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and 
retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with limited entry fixed gear 
within the South Reef YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The 
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed 
through inseason adjustment. Limited entry fixed gear vessels may 
transit through the South Reef YRCA, at any time, with or without 
groundfish on board.
    (7) Reading Rock YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of 
the Reading Rock YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, subpart 
C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the 
Reading Rock YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is 
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with 
limited entry fixed gear within the Reading Rock YRCA, on dates when 
the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. 
This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. Limited entry 
fixed gear vessels may transit through the Reading Rock YRCA, at any 
time, with or without groundfish on board.
    (8) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Point Delgada (North) YRCA boundaries are specified 
at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is 
prohibited within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the 
closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or 
land groundfish taken with limited entry fixed gear within the Point 
Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The 
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed 
through inseason adjustment. Limited entry fixed gear vessels may 
transit through the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, at any time, with or 
without groundfish on board.
    (9) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Point Delgada (South) YRCA boundaries are specified 
at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is 
prohibited within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the 
closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or 
land groundfish taken with limited entry fixed gear within the Point 
Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The 
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed 
through inseason adjustment. Limited entry sfixed gear vessels may 
transit through the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, at any time, with or 
without groundfish on board.
* * * * *
    22. In Sec.  660.231, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3)(i) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  660.231  Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Season dates. North of 36[deg] N. lat., the sablefish primary 
season for the limited entry, fixed gear, sablefish-endorsed vessels 
begins at 12 noon local time on April 1 and closes at 12 noon local 
time on October 31, or closes for an individual permit holder when that 
permit holder's tier limit has been reached, whichever is earlier, 
unless otherwise announced by the Regional Administrator through the 
routine management measures process described at Sec.  660.60, subpart 
C.* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be 
constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of 
the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary 
season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph 
(a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up 
to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use 
with that vessel (i.e., stacked permits). If multiple limited entry 
permits with sablefish endorsements are registered for use with a 
single vessel, that vessel may land up to the total of all cumulative 
limits announced in this paragraph for the tiers for those permits, 
except as limited by paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section. Up to 3 
permits may be registered for use with a single vessel during the 
primary season; thus, a single vessel may not take and retain, possess 
or land more than 3 primary season sablefish cumulative limits in any 
one year. A vessel registered for use with multiple limited entry 
permits is subject to per vessel limits for species other than 
sablefish, and to per vessel limits when participating in the daily 
trip limit fishery for sablefish under Sec.  660.232, subpart E. In 
2011, the following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 41,379 lb 
(18,769 kg) Tier 2 at 18,809 lb (8,532 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,748 lb 
(4,875 kg). For 2012 and beyond, the following annual limits are in 
effect: Tier 1 at 40,113 lb (18,195 kg), Tier 2 at 18,233 lb (8,270 
kg), and Tier 3 at 10,419 lb (4,726 kg).
* * * * *
    23. In Sec.  660.232 paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.232  Limited entry daily trip limit (DTL) fishery for 
sablefish.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Following the start of the primary season, all landings made by 
a vessel authorized by Sec.  660.231(a) of this subpart to fish in the 
primary season will count against the primary season cumulative 
limit(s) associated with the permit(s) registered for use with that 
vessel. A vessel that is eligible to fish in the sablefish primary 
season may fish in the DTL fishery for sablefish once that vessels' 
primary season sablefish limit(s) have been taken, or after the close 
of the primary season, whichever occurs earlier. Any subsequent 
sablefish landings by that vessel will be subject to the restrictions 
and limits of the limited entry DTL fishery for sablefish for the 
remainder of the fishing year.
* * * * *
    24. Table 2 (North) and Table 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E are 
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 67887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.031


[[Page 67888]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.032


[[Page 67889]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.033

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Subpart F--West Coast Groundfish--Open Access Fisheries

    25. In Sec.  660.330 paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2) and 
(d)(5) through (9) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.330  Open access fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) Sorting. Under Sec.  660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful 
for any person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after 
offloading, those groundfish species or species groups for which there 
is a trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, 
harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in 
an area during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific 
sorting designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY 
applied.'' The States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also 
require that vessels record their landings as sorted on their state 
landing receipts. For open access vessels, the following species must 
be sorted:
* * * * *
    (2) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, Cabezon 
(Oregon and California);
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Point St. George YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates 
of the Point St. George YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, 
subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited within the Point 
St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful 
to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access 
gear within the Point St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in 
effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be 
imposed through inseason adjustment. Open access vessels may transit 
through the Point St. George YRCA, at any time, with or without 
groundfish on board.
    (6) South Reef YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the 
South Reef YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. 
Fishing with open access gear is prohibited within the South Reef YRCA, 
on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take and 
retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access gear within 
the South Reef YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. The 
closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed 
through inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels may transit 
through the South Reef YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on 
board.
    (7) Reading Rock YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates of 
the Reading Rock YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, subpart 
C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited within the Reading Rock 
YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to take 
and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access gear 
within the Reading Rock YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. 
The closure is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed 
through inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels may transit 
through the Reading Rock YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish 
on board.
    (8) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Point Delgada (North) YRCA boundaries are specified 
at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited 
within the Point Delgada

[[Page 67890]]

(North) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It is unlawful to 
take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with open access 
gear within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the closure 
is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This closure 
may be imposed through inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels 
may transit through the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, at any time, with 
or without groundfish on board.
    (9) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Point Delgada (South) YRCA boundaries are specified 
at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited 
within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in 
effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish 
taken with open access gear within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on 
dates when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at 
this time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. 
Open access gear vessels may transit through the Point Delgada (South) 
YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
* * * * *
    26. Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F are 
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.034


[[Page 67891]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.035


[[Page 67892]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.036


[[Page 67893]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO10.037

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Subpart G--West Coast Groundfish--Recreational Fisheries

    27. In Sec.  660.360,
    a. Remove paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(C), (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), and 
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) as (c)(1)(iv), 
(c)(3)(i)(A)(6) as (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(D) through (J) 
as (c)(3)(i)(C) through (I), and paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A)(6) as 
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
    c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), 
(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(i)(C) through (H), and (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
    d. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D) 
introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) and (2), (c)(2)(iii), 
(c)(3)(i)(A)(1) through (4), (c)(3)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through 
(4), (c)(3)(ii)(B), (c)(3)(iii)(A)(1) through (5), (c)(3)(iii)(C), and 
(c)(3)(iii)(D),
    d. Add paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D)(3) and (c)(1)(iii), to read as 
follows:

[[Page 67894]]

Sec.  660.360  Recreational fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Washington. For each person engaged in recreational fishing off 
the coast of Washington, the groundfish bag limit is 12 groundfish per 
day, including rockfish, cabezon and lingcod. Within the groundfish bag 
limit, there are sub-limits for rockfish, lingcod, and cabezon outlined 
in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section. The recreational groundfish 
fishery is open year-round except for lingcod, which has season dates 
outlined in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section. In the Pacific 
halibut fisheries, retention of groundfish is governed in part by 
annual management measures for Pacific halibut fisheries, which are 
published in the Federal Register. The following seasons, closed areas, 
sub-limits and size limits apply:
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Recreational rockfish conservation area. Fishing for groundfish 
with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational RCA unless 
otherwise stated. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land 
groundfish taken with recreational gear within the recreational RCA 
unless otherwise stated. A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA may 
not be in possession of any groundfish unless otherwise stated. (For 
example, if a vessel participates in the recreational salmon fishery 
within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in possession of groundfish while 
in the RCA. The vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and 
retain groundfish shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port.)
    (1) West of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line Between the U.S. border with 
Canada and the Queets River (Washington state Marine Area 3 and 4), 
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a boundary 
line approximating the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour from June 1 through 
September 30, except on days when the Pacific halibut fishery is open 
in this area. Days open to Pacific halibut recreational fishing off 
Washington are announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800) 
662-9825. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 20 fm (37 
m) depth contour are listed in Sec.  660.71, subpart C.
    (2) Between the Queets River (47[deg]31.70' N. lat.) and Leadbetter 
Point (46[deg]38.17' N. lat.) (Washington state Marine Area 2), 
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a boundary 
line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour from March 15 through 
June 15 with the following exceptions: recreational fishing for 
rockfish is permitted within the RCA from March 15 through June 15; 
recreational fishing for sablefish and Pacific cod is permitted within 
the recreational RCA from May 1 through June 15; and on days that the 
primary halibut fishery is open lingcod may be taken, retained and 
possessed within the RCA. Days open to Pacific halibut recreational 
fishing off Washington are announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-
6667 or (800) 662-9825. Retention of lingcod seaward of the boundary 
line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour south of 46[deg]58' 
N. lat. is prohibited on Fridays and Saturdays from July 1 through 
August 31. For additional regulations regarding the Washington 
recreational lingcod fishery, see paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section. 
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 
contour are listed in Sec.  660.71.
    (3) Between Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' N. lat.) and the 
Washington/Oregon border (Marine Area 1), when Pacific halibut are 
onboard the vessel, no groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed 
or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod from May 1 through 
September 30.
* * * * *
    (iii) Cabezon. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington that are 
open to recreational groundfish fishing, there is a 2 cabezon per day 
bag limit.
    (iv) Lingcod. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington that are 
open to recreational groundfish fishing and when the recreational 
season for lingcod is open, there is a bag limit of 2 lingcod per day. 
The recreational fishing seasons and size limits for lingcod are as 
follows:
    (A) Between the U.S./Canada border and 48[deg]10' N. lat. (Cape 
Alava) (Washington Marine Area 4), recreational fishing for lingcod is 
open, for 2011, from April 16 through October 15, and for 2012, from 
April 16 through October 13. Lingcod may be no smaller than 24 inches 
(61 cm) total length.
    (B) Between 48[deg]10' N. lat. (Cape Alava) and 46[deg]16' N. lat. 
(Washington/Oregon border) (Washington Marine Areas 1-3), recreational 
fishing for lingcod is open for 2011, from March 19 through October 15, 
and for 2012, from March 17 through October 13. Lingcod may be no 
smaller than 22 inches (56 cm) total length.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Bag limits, size limits. For each person engaged in 
recreational fishing off the coast of Oregon, the following bag limits 
apply:
    (A) Marine fish. The bag limit is 10 marine fish per day, which 
includes rockfish, kelp greenling, cabezon and other groundfish 
species. The bag limit of marine fish excludes Pacific halibut, 
salmonids, tuna, perch species, sturgeon, sanddabs, flatfish, lingcod, 
striped bass, hybrid bass, offshore pelagic species and baitfish 
(herring, smelt, anchovies and sardines). From April 1 through 
September 30; no more than one fish may be cabezon. The minimum size 
for cabezon retained in the Oregon recreational fishery is 16 in (41 
cm) total length. The minimum size for Kelp greenling retained in the 
Oregon recreational fishery is 10 in (25 cm).
    (B) Lingcod. There is a 3 fish limit per day for lingcod from 
January 1 through December 31. The minimum size for lingcod retained in 
the Oregon recreational fishery is 22 in (56 cm) total length.
    (C) Flatfish. There is a 25 fish limit per day for all flatfish, 
excluding Pacific halibut, but including all soles, flounders and 
Pacific sanddabs, from January 1 through December 31.
    (D) In the Pacific halibut fisheries. Retention of groundfish is 
governed in part by annual management measures for Pacific halibut 
fisheries, which are published in the Federal Register. Between the 
Oregon border with Washington and Cape Falcon, when Pacific halibut are 
onboard the vessel, groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed 
or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod. Between Cape Falcon and 
Humbug Mountain, during days open to the Oregon Central Coast ``all-
depth'' sport halibut fishery, when Pacific halibut are onboard the 
vessel, no groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, 
except sablefish and Pacific cod. ``All-depth'' season days are 
established in the annual management measures for Pacific halibut 
fisheries, which are published in the Federal Register and are 
announced on the NMFS halibut hotline, 1-800-662-9825.
    (E) Taking and retaining canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish is 
prohibited at all times and in all areas.
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and 
40[deg]10.00' N. lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing 
for all groundfish (except ``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph 
(c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) 
depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and offshore 
seamounts from May 14, 2011 through

[[Page 67895]]

October 31, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is open); and is closed entirely 
from January 1 through May 13, 2011 and from November 1 through 
December 31, 2011. Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited 
seaward of 20 fm (37 m) from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012 
(shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is closed entirely from January 1 
through May 11, 2012 and from November 1, 2012 through December 31, 
2012.
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section) is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 
14, 2011 through August 15, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is 
closed entirely from January 1, 2011 through May 13, 2011 and from 
August 16, 2011 through December 31, 2011; recreational fishing for 
groundfish is prohibited seaward of 20 fm (37 m) and from May 12, 2012 
through August 15, 2012 (shoreward of 20 fm is open); and is closed 
entirely from January 1, 2012 through May 11, 2012 and from August 16, 
2012 through December 31, 2012.
    (3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. San 
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish 
(except ``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section) is prohibited seaward of the boundary line approximating the 
30 fm (55 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands 
and offshore seamounts from June 1 through December 31; and is closed 
entirely from January 1 through May 31. Closures around Cordell Banks 
(see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section) also apply in this area. 
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 
contour are listed in Sec.  660.71.
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section) is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 
fm (73 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and 
offshore seamounts from May 1 through December 31; and is closed 
entirely from January 1 through April 30 (i.e. prohibited seaward of 
the shoreline). Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 40 
fm (73 m) depth contour are specified in Sec.  660.71.
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for all groundfish (except California scorpionfish 
as specified below in this paragraph (c)(3)(i) and in paragraph 
(c)(3)(v) of this section and ``other flatfish'' as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of a 
boundary line approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour from March 
1 through December 31 along the mainland coast and along islands and 
offshore seamounts, except in the CCAs where fishing is prohibited 
seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 
contour when the fishing season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section). Recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
California scorpionfish and ``other flatfish'') is closed entirely from 
January 1 through February 28 (i.e., prohibited seaward of the 
shoreline). Recreational fishing for California scorpionfish south of 
34[deg]27' N. lat. is prohibited seaward of a boundary line 
approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour from January 1 through 
December 31, except in the CCAs where fishing is prohibited seaward of 
the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour when the 
fishing season is open. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating 
the 30 fm (55 m) and 60 fm (110 m) depth contours are specified in 
Sec. Sec.  660.71 and 660.72.
    (B) Cowcod conservation areas. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs) boundaries are 
specified at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. In general, recreational fishing 
for all groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, except that fishing 
for ``other flatfish'' is permitted within the CCAs as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. However, recreational fishing for 
the following species is permitted shoreward of the boundary line 
approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour when the season for those 
species is open south of 34[deg]27' N. lat.: Minor nearshore rockfish, 
shelf rockfish, cabezon, kelp greenling, lingcod, California 
scorpionfish, and ``other flatfish'' (subject to gear requirements at 
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section during January-February).

    Note to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B): California state regulations 
also permit recreational fishing for California sheephead, ocean 
whitefish, and all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos shoreward of 
the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour in 
the CCAs when the season for the RCG complex is open south of 
34[deg]27' N. lat. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or 
land groundfish within the CCAs, except for species authorized in 
this section. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 
fm (55 m) depth contour is specified in Sec.  660.71.

    (C) Cordell banks. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited in waters less than 100 fm (183 m) around Cordell Banks as 
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, 
subpart C, except that recreational fishing for ``other flatfish'' is 
permitted around Cordell Banks as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of 
this section.

    Note to paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C): California state regulations 
also prohibit fishing for all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos, 
California sheephead and ocean whitefish.

    (D) Point St. George Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). 
Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited within the Point St. 
George YRCA, as defined by latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  
660.70, subpart C, on dates when the closure is in effect. The closure 
is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed through 
inseason adjustment.
    (E) South reef YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited within the South Reef YRCA, as defined by latitude and 
longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates when the 
closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This 
closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
    (F) Reading Rock YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited within the Reading Rock YRCA, as defined by latitude and 
longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates when the 
closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This 
closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
    (G) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish 
is prohibited within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, as defined by 
latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates 
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this 
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
    (H) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish 
is prohibited within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, as defined by 
latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates 
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this 
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and 
40[deg]10' N. lat. (North Management Area), recreational fishing for 
the RCG complex is open from May 14, 2011 through October 31, 2011 
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 13 and from November 1 
through

[[Page 67896]]

December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012 
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 and from November 1 
through December 31 in 2012).
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG Complex is open from 
May 14, 2011 through August 15, 2011 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 
through May 13 and August 16 through December 31 in 2011), and from May 
12, 2012 through August 15, 2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 
through May 11 and August 16 through December 31 in 2012).
    (3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. (Bay 
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG complex is open from 
June 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 
31).
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG complex is open from 
May 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through 
April 30).
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for the RCG Complex is open from March 1 through 
December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through February 28).
    (B) Bag limits, hook limits. In times and areas when the 
recreational season for the RCG Complex is open, there is a limit of 2 
hooks and 1 line when fishing for the RCG complex and lingcod. The bag 
limit is 10 RCG Complex fish per day coastwide. Retention of canary 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, bronzespotted and cowcod is prohibited. 
Within the 10 RCG Complex fish per day limit, no more than 2 may be 
bocaccio, no more than 2 may be greenling (kelp and/or other 
greenlings) and no more than 3 may be cabezon. Multi-day limits are 
authorized by a valid permit issued by California and must not exceed 
the daily limit multiplied by the number of days in the fishing trip.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and 
40[deg]10.00' N. lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing 
for lingcod is open from May 14, 2011 through October 31, 2011 (i.e. 
it's closed from January 1 through May 13 and from November 1 through 
December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012 
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 and from November 1 
through December 31 in 2012).
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open from May 14, 
2011 through August 15, 2011 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through 
May 13 and August 16 through December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 
through August 15, 2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 
and August 16 through December 31 in 2012).
    (3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. (San 
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open 
from June 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 
through May 31).
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open from May 1 
through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through April 30).
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for lingcod is open from March 1 through December 
31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through February 28).
* * * * *
    (C) Size limits. Lingcod may be no smaller than 22 in (56 cm) total 
length.
    (D) Dressing/filleting. Lingcod filets may be no smaller than 14 in 
(36 cm) in length.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-26941 Filed 10-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P