[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27508-27562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10799]



[[Page 27507]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 91

May 11, 2011

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 660



Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 27508]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100804324-1265-02]
RIN 0648-BA01


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the 2011-2012 harvest 
specifications for most of the species in the groundfish fishery and 
management measures for that fishery off the coasts of Washington, 
Oregon, and California consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish 
Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This rule also establishes, under 
emergency authority in section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), 
harvest specifications for eight overfished species, and for flatfish.
    Emergency authority is being invoked to implement measures that 
were included in Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP, which NMFS disapproved 
in December 2010. These include a new rebuilding plan for petrale sole, 
revised rebuilding plans for the remaining seven overfished species, 
and revised status determination criteria and precautionary harvest 
control rule for flatfish.

DATES: This rule is effective May 11, 2011. Comments must be received 
no later than June 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Copies of this rule, the Record of Decision (ROD) and 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) are available from William Stelle, Regional Administrator, 
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-
0070. Electronic copies of this final rule are also available at the 
NMFS Northwest Region Web site: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov
    You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA01, by any one of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Sarah Williams.
     Mail: 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA, 98115.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept 
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to 
remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Williams, 7600 Sand Point Way 
NE., Seattle, WA, 98115. By phone at 206-526-4646 or fax at 206-526-
6736.
    Electronic Access: This final rule is accessible via the Internet 
at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Background information and documents 
are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at 
http://www.pcouncil.org/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the 2011-2012 
groundfish harvest specifications and management measures on November 
3, 2010 (75 FR 67810). The proposed rule comment period was extended 
through January 4, 2011 (75 FR 75449, December 23, 2010) to provide 
additional opportunity for public comment given the delay in 
implementation. NMFS received 35 letters of comment, which are 
addressed later in the preamble of this final rule. See the preamble to 
the proposed rule for additional background information on the fishery 
and on this final rule.
    The amount of each Pacific Coast groundfish species or species 
complex that is available for harvest in a specific year is referred to 
as a harvest specification. The PCGFMP requires the harvest 
specifications and management measures for groundfish to be set at 
least biennially. This final rule, which implements the NMFS preferred 
alternative described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS), would set 2011-2012 and beyond harvest specifications and 
management measures for most of the groundfish species or species 
complexes managed under the PCGFMP. Specifications for the overfished 
species and flatfish are also included in this final rule but are 
adopted under the emergency authority described in section 305 of the 
MSA. The groundfish fishery regulations include a collection of 
management measures intended to keep the total catch of each groundfish 
species or species complex within the harvest specifications. The 
management measures would be revised by this action for 2011 and 2012.
    The Notice of Availability for the FEIS for this action was 
published on March 11, 2011 (76 FR 13401). The final NMFS preferred 
alternative in the FEIS is a modified version of the Council's final 
preferred alternative (FPA) which was described in the proposed rule 
for this action. The NMFS preferred alternative differs from the 
Council's FPA and the specifications discussed in the proposed rule on 
this action with respect to the specifications for yelloweye rockfish 
and cowcod, and management measures relative to the Cowcod Conservation 
Area (CCA). These differences are discussed in detail in the Provisions 
Implemented Through Emergency Rule and Changes from the Proposed Rule 
sections of this rule.

Provisions Implemented Through Emergency Rule

    Section 305(c) of the MSA provides the Secretary of Commerce the 
authority to promulgate emergency regulations that are treated as an 
amendment to an FMP for the period the regulations are in effect. The 
one new and seven revised rebuilding plans, revisions to flatfish 
proxies, ACLs for overfished species, and specifications for flatfish 
contained in this final rule are being adopted under emergency 
authority because these measures were part of, or are based on, 
Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP, which NMFS disapproved. This emergency 
action is necessary because NMFS is under court order to establish new 
specifications for overfished species by April 29, 2011, before the 
Council can submit and NMFS can implement a revised Amendment 16-5.
    NMFS disapproved Amendment 16-5 because at the time of NMFS' 
approval decision, there was not an FEIS to support the decision. 
Review of actions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(a)) 
requires that before approving an FMP or amendment, NMFS must review 
the FMP or amendment for consistency with the measures of the MSA 
itself as well as other applicable law. One of the primary tools that 
NMFS uses to accomplish this review is an adequate FEIS drafted

[[Page 27509]]

consistent with the guidance contained within NAO 216-6 (Environmental 
Review Procedures For Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act). NMFS completed the FEIS and made it available for public review 
on March 11, 2011.
    As is described in the proposed rule preamble, on April 29, 2010, 
the district court for the Northern District of California issued an 
order in NRDC v. Locke, Case 3:01-cv-00421-JLI, vacating the 2009-10 
harvest levels for yelloweye rockfish, cowcod, and darkblotched 
rockfish on the basis that the harvest levels did not meet the MSA 
mandate to rebuild those stocks in as short a time as possible taking 
into account factors including the needs of fishing communities. The 
court upheld the integrated or holistic approach used to develop the 
harvest levels for all of the overfished species and to analyze their 
impacts on communities, which was first applied in Amendment 16-4.
    The Council, continuing the integrated or holistic approach 
developed in Amendment 16-4 and upheld by the district court, developed 
suites of overfished species ACLs, with ACLs for most of the non-
overfished species held constant between the alternatives. The impacts 
of these suites of ACLs are analyzed in the FEIS, rather than the 
impacts of individual species ACLs. The DEIS included three alternative 
suites with lower, intermediate and higher ACLs for the overfished 
species, as well as the Council FPA that included the higher ACLs for 
all of the overfished species except for darkblotched rockfish, for 
which the Council adopted the intermediate ACL.
    In response to public comment regarding rebuilding plans for 
overfished species and to ensure consistency with the court's order in 
NRDC v. Locke, Case 3:01-cv-00421-JLI, NMFS included in the FEIS an 
additional alternative (identified as Alternative 4, the NMFS preferred 
alternative) that was not expressly considered in the DEIS. The NMFS 
preferred alternative includes the same ACLs as the Council's FPA, 
except those for yelloweye and cowcod. It does not include changes to 
the CCAs that were included in the Council's FPA. For cowcod and 
yelloweye, the NMFS preferred alternative implements ACLs based on 
Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) harvest rates that are associated with 
shorter rebuilding periods than those in the Council FPA. Specifically, 
in the NMFS preferred alternative, the target rebuilding year and the 
SPR harvest rate for cowcod are 2068 and 82.7 percent, and the target 
rebuilding year and the SPR harvest rate for yelloweye rockfish are 
2074 and 76.0 percent. NMFS determined that the ACL in the Council's 
and NMFS' preferred alternative for darkblotched rockfish meets the MSA 
standard and is consistent with the court's order. Although the harvest 
level for darkblotched is similar to the level vacated by the court in 
2010, the new rebuilding plan is based on a new stock assessment, uses 
a more conservative SPR harvest rate (64.9 percent rather than 62.1 
percent), and rebuilds three years faster than the prior rebuilding 
plan (2025 rather than 2028).
    The NMFS preferred alternative would rebuild as quickly as possible 
while avoiding serious adverse impacts to communities, and thus meets 
the MSA standard. Maintaining the 2010 level of economic activity in 
the most vulnerable communities could be expected to provide the 
consistency necessary for stability in the fishing community 
infrastructure and be adequate to support the implementation of the 
trawl rationalization program. At the same time the strategy would 
shorten the rebuilding duration for five of the overfished species 
(bocaccio, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, widow rockfish and yelloweye 
rockfish); and maintain the upward rebuilding trajectories for the two 
overfished species (canary rockfish and Pacific Ocean perch (POP)) 
where new stock assessments redefined the starting point from which 
rebuilding began. Unlike the Council's FPA, the NMFS preferred 
alternative does not implement proposed changes to the CCAs that would 
allow commercial fixed gear and recreational fishing in areas shoreward 
of 30 fathoms and would also allow retention of shelf rockfish in 
depths shallower than 30 fathoms. The impacts of the proposed changes 
on cowcod, particularly juveniles, are uncertain, and increased impacts 
on juveniles could potentially delay rebuilding. In addition, because 
the ACL for cowcod is so extremely low, any measures that potentially 
increase cowcod mortality require better information on potential 
biological and economic effects to support such a change. In sum, NMFS 
concluded that the NMFS preferred alternative is more consistent with 
direction provided by the court in NRDC v. Locke, Case 3:01-cv-00421-
JLI, and is more consistent with the MSA obligations to rebuild 
overfished species in the shortest timeframe possible, taking into 
account the obligation to rebuild, the needs of fishing communities, 
and the marine environment.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS published a proposed rule on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67810) 
with a comment period that closed on December 3, 2010. This comment 
period was extended to January 4, 2011 to allow more time for public 
comments. NMFS received 35 comments on the proposed rule. The 
Department of the Interior submitted a letter stating that they 
reviewed the proposed rule and had no comments. The Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Oregon Department of Fish 
and Wildlife (ODFW) and the California Department of Fish and Game 
(CDFG) all submitted letters in support of the Council's final action 
and suggested corrections to the proposed rule. 13 letters were 
submitted from fishing industry members in support of the Council's 
recommended changes to the depth restrictions in the CCA and the slope 
rockfish retention changes. One comment was submitted regarding a 
request for a processing at sea exemption. NMFS also received a number 
of comments from the public regarding the impacts from the overfished 
species specifications. The Council submitted a letter stating that the 
Exempted Fishing Permit that was issued in August of 2010 would 
actually be conducted in 2011. Oceana and the Natural Resource Defense 
Council (NRDC) submitted a joint letter regarding the proposed rule and 
FMP Amendments 16-5 and 23. In their letter they criticized NMFS for 
setting harvest specifications that allegedly did not comply with the 
MSA mandate to rebuild overfished species in a period as short as 
possible. Additionally, they criticized the implementation of Amendment 
23 stating that the best available science was not used and that NMFS 
was not precautionary enough in setting harvest specifications for a 
number of species and species complexes. Ocean Conservancy submitted a 
letter raising similar issues as the joint Oceana-NRDC letter. 
Substantive comments received on the proposed rule are addressed in the 
following section:

Amendment 23 Implementation (P*, ABCs, ACLs, etc) and Stock Complexes

    Comment 1: The ABC control rule makes Scientific and Statistical 
Committee's (SSC) involvement functionally expendable because it 
contemplates presenting the Council with a range of potential 
scientific uncertainty reduction values, based on the SSC recommended 
``sigma'' values and a range of probabilities of overfishing, from 
which the Council

[[Page 27510]]

may choose. NMFS should adopt an ABC control rule that allows the SSC 
to recommend P* and sigma values along with a decision framework that 
allows changes to the recommended ABCs to be fully informed by analyses 
of resulting overfishing risks and environmental consequences.
    Response: The ABC control rule selected by the Council is based on 
the recommendation of the SSC, and is consistent with the MSA and the 
NS1 (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). The SSC recommends the OFL and 
determines a sigma value representing scientific uncertainty with 
respect to stock assessments. Once it has determined those values, it 
can provide the Council with the reductions from OFL that would occur 
based on the sigma value in conjunction with a range of probabilities 
of overfishing. This approach conforms with NMFS's NS 1 guidelines. In 
response to comments on the guidelines, NMFS explains that determining 
the acceptable level of risk of overfishing that results from 
scientific uncertainty is a policy issue for the Council to decide. The 
SSC must recommend an ABC to the Council after the Council advises the 
SSC on the acceptable probability that a catch equal to the ABC would 
result in overfishing (January 16, 2009, 74 FR 3178, Response to 
Comment 42 at 3192). The SSC's role is to determine both the level of 
scientific uncertainty that exists and to incorporate the Council's 
policy decision as to acceptable levels of overfishing risk resulting 
from that uncertainty in developing an ABC. The SSC's recommendations 
regarding the OFL and sigma limit the range of ABC reductions possible 
under the available range of P* values consistent with the best 
scientific information regarding scientific uncertainty.
    Comment 2: The proposed sigma values for category 1 stocks 
represent underestimated and/or inaccurate quantification of scientific 
uncertainty; they do not account for uncertainty arising from sources 
other than estimates of biomass in stock assessments, and they do not 
accurately account for uncertainty in estimates of biomass in stock 
assessments.
    Response: While the proposed sigma value for data-rich stocks 
(category 1) does not include quantification of all known sources of 
scientific uncertainty, it is the best scientific information available 
at this time and the SSC will continue to refine this value in future 
biennial cycles. The SSC acknowledged that its recommended sigma value 
for data-rich species does not account for all sources of scientific 
uncertainty, but recommended this value as ``the current best estimate 
of scientific uncertainty.'' (Supplemental SSC Report, April 2010, 
Agenda I.2.b). The Supplemental SSC Report 1 included in the March 2010 
briefing book, which is the Councils record for each meeting and 
contains reports from advisory bodies, state and Federal agencies and 
public comments, states that the SSC viewed quantifying the uncertainty 
surrounding stock size estimations as the highest priority, given the 
large variability in stock assessments. The SSC did not recommend 
quantifying other sources of uncertainty for the 2011-2012 
specifications cycle, but noted that it intends to consider other types 
of errors for future biennial cycles, specifically forecast uncertainty 
and uncertainty in the optimal harvest rate. In short, the SSC's 
recommended sigma values are the best available scientific information 
at this time. In addition, with respect to longspine thornyhead and 
shortspine thornyhead, the ACLs for the area south of 40[deg]10' N.lat 
are reduced below the ABC to account for uncertainty associated with 
limited trawl surveys.
    Comment 3: The proposed sigma values for category 2 and 3 stocks 
lack a technical basis and thus are arbitrary. The Council should have 
used the PSA analysis to generate an appropriate P*.
    Response: The SSC noted that scientific uncertainty with respect to 
the biomass estimates for category 2 and 3 stocks cannot be precisely 
quantified due to the lack of available information about these stocks. 
The NS 1 guidelines recognize that precise quantification assessments 
are not available for all stocks, such as the category 2 and 3 stocks 
at issue here (See Response to Comment 36, 74 FR at 3190, January 16, 
2009). With a P* approach for deciding the ABC for category 2 and 3 
stocks, the SSC recommended setting the value of sigma ([sigma]) for 
category 2 and 3 stocks to 0.72 and 1.44 respectively (i.e., two and 
four times the [sigma] for category 1 stocks). The difference between 
buffers determined using sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44 corresponds 
fairly closely to the difference between the buffers previously used 
for category 2 and 3 stocks (25 percent versus 50 percent) when P* is 
in the range 0.3 ~ 0.35. Also, the SSC noted that results from decision 
tables for some category 2 stocks indicate values for sigma of 
approximately .72 (PFMC I.2.b, Supplemental SSC Report, April 2010). 
The specific sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44 were recommended by the SSC 
and are considered to be the best available scientific information; 
however, the values are not based on a formal analysis of assessment 
outcomes and could change substantially when the SSC reviews additional 
analyses in future management cycles. These sigma values represent the 
SSC's best estimate given the absence of a formal analysis of 
assessment outcomes on which to quantify scientific uncertainty as was 
done for category 1 stocks. The commenters specifically mention that 
the Council and NMFS should have used other methods for setting the 
sigma values for category 2 and 3 species, such as looking at the 
distributions of OFLs for each stock, or the results of the PSA 
analysis. However, neither of these methods was suggested by commenters 
until very late in the development of the 2011-2012 specifications nor 
recommended by the SSC for this specifications cycle.
    Comment 4: The P* values used in the proposed rule are too high, 
and allow for too great a risk of overfishing due to an inaccurate 
estimate of the OFL, especially for overfished species. P* and 
resulting ABCs for category 2 and 3 stocks are not consistent with SSC 
recommendations.
    Response: The NS1 guidelines provide the following standards for 
setting the ABC: (1) The ABC may not exceed the OFL, and (2) the 
probability that overfishing will occur cannot exceed 50 percent and 
should be a lower value. The Council chose a P* value of .45, or a 45 
percent probability of overfishing, for data-rich species with data-
rich assessments. For category 2 and 3 species, with data-poor or no 
assessments, the Council generally applied a P* value of .4, or a 40 
percent probability of overfishing. The comment suggests that the 50 
percent cap set by the NS1 guidelines is inadequate, and that the MSA 
requires a lower probability of overfishing. NMFS considered this issue 
in developing the NS 1 guidelines and ultimately determined that while 
neither the MSA nor the relevant case law requires the use of a 
specific probability, a 50 percent probability of success is a lower 
bound. NMFS acknowledges that some overfishing may occur even with ABCs 
that account for scientific uncertainty, however, it does not believe 
that the MSA requires a complete elimination of any probability of 
overfishing, as reflected in the guidelines (Response to Comment 63, 74 
FR at 3195-96, January 16, 2009). The Council's choice of P* is 
consistent with the guidelines.
    The commenters specifically point to the ABCs for overfished 
species, and contend that these are not consistent with rebuilding 
plans. However, ACLs for the overfished species are based on and 
consistent with the rebuilding plans, which are in turn based on the

[[Page 27511]]

rebuilding analyses for these species. The process for developing the 
ACLs is described in the preamble to the proposed rule for this action 
(75 FR at 67827-29, January 16, 2009) and in the FEIS. Thus, the ACLs 
for the overfished species are in most cases set far below the ABCs 
derived following the ABC control rule set forth in Amendment 23.
    For category 1 stocks, the scientific uncertainty reduction from 
OFL that results from a P* of .45 and a sigma of .36 is 4.4 percent. 
For healthy stocks, this reduction is more risk-averse than the 
approach of setting the OY equal to ABC that was used in previous 
biennial cycles. For species in the precautionary zone, application of 
the 40-10 or 25-5 harvest control rules results in an additional 
reduction between ABC and ACL.
    The commenters also contend that the P* values the Council adopted 
for category 2 and 3 stocks are inconsistent with the SSC's 
recommendation, which the commenters characterize as requiring P* 
values that would result in reductions from OFL of approximately 25 
percent and 50 percent. The Council adopted a general policy of using a 
P* of 0.4 for category 2 and 3 stocks. The Council discussed P* values 
for category 2 and 3 stocks of 0.35 and 0.32, respectively. In its 
report the SSC noted that these P* values, in combination with the 
sigma values described above, would have resulted in an approximately 
24 percent reduction from OFL for category 2 stocks, and an 
approximately 51 percent reduction from OFL for category 3 stocks, 
approximating the 25 percent and 50 percent reductions from former ABC 
that the Council used prior to this specification cycle. However, the 
SSC did not make a recommendation regarding appropriate P* values but 
did endorse the Council's final ABC values. In discussing the issue of 
the buffer between OFL and ABC for category 2 and 3 stocks the Council 
noted that previously the buffer between former ABC and OY took into 
account many sources of uncertainty, including scientific uncertainty, 
but that under NS 1 the buffer between OFL and ABC is now specific to 
scientific uncertainty. There was therefore concern regarding ``double 
counting'' of uncertainty that might result from using status quo 
buffers to determine the ABC for category 2 and 3 species. For this 
reason, the Council concluded that it would be inappropriate to use 
these reductions to quantify scientific uncertainty in the reduction 
from the OFL to ABC. A review of the ACLs for category 2 and 3 stocks 
shows that for a number of stocks, the reductions from ABC to ACL 
address stock status, management uncertainty, and other factors. For 
example, the ACLs for longnose skate, starry flounder, the other fish 
complex and the other flatfish complex are all reduced below the ABC to 
account for management uncertainty. The ACL for sablefish is reduced 
below the ABC according to the 40-10 harvest control rule, as this 
species is in the precautionary zone. The southern ACLs for longspine 
thornyhead and shortspine thornyhead are reduced in order to account 
for uncertainty associated with trawl surveys in those areas. These 
reductions are all described in the FEIS and the proposed rule.
    The commenters specifically discuss what they see as potential 
negative impacts from the ABCs for lingcod, sablefish and black 
rockfish. The FEIS considered the risk of overfishing to all species 
and no OFLs were projected to be exceeded under any of the 
alternatives. For lingcod, the ACL (2330 mt in 2011) was set equal to 
the ABC, however the projected catches are only 685 mt leaving a 
substantial buffer. Additionally, it is likely that the catches will 
come in under the ACL because of the limited shelf opportunities given 
the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) configurations implemented through 
this rule. For sablefish the estimated catch of 5407 mt is well below 
the ACL value of 6813 mt and the ABC of 8418 mt. Finally, for black 
rockfish the estimated catch of 905 mt is well below the ACL of 1426 mt 
and the coastwide ABC of 1589 mt to minimize the risk of overfishing.
    For the minor rockfish complexes, a P* value of 0.45 was used in 
combination with the SSC-recommended sigma values to determine the ABCs 
for the component stocks. Historically, the OY for minor rockfish north 
has been shared between Oregon and California with no formal catch 
sharing agreements because the OY was generally high enough to prevent 
concerns over the allocation of catch between the states. A struggle 
for fish could result from 2011-2012 ACLs that are significantly lower 
than the 2010 OY for the minor nearshore rockfish north subcomplex. 
(PFMC Supplemental Groundfish Management Team (GMT) Report, I.2.b April 
2010). Applying a P* of 0.45 to determine the ABC for this subcomplex 
results in an ABC lower than the 2010 OY, but higher than the other 
alternatives considered for determining the ABC. This option 
constitutes an interim approach to accounting for scientific 
uncertainty given the current organization of the complexes and the 
time needed to work out a sharing agreement between the states if 
necessary. Applying a P* of .45 for the minor rockfish complex 
components reflects the fact that in contrast to the Other Fish and 
Other Flatfish complexes, the component stocks in the minor rockfish 
complexes are not all category 3 stocks. In addition, it reflects the 
fact that the complexes are not ideally organized to account for 
scientific uncertainty, and represents a balance between the risk of 
overfishing due to scientific uncertainty and the risk of unnecessarily 
limiting fisheries in this biennium until a thorough analysis of the 
rockfish complexes can be completed.
    Comment 5: ACLs should be reduced from ABCs to account for 
management uncertainty where there is not accurate data regarding true 
catch amounts and no modeling of management uncertainty. The ACL and 
ACT control rules should identify all sources of management 
uncertainty. It is not clear how management uncertainty is accounted 
for by the use of the ACTs for yelloweye rockfish and POP.
    Response: The NS1 guidelines do not expressly contemplate a buffer 
between ABC and ACL as the primary means to address management 
uncertainty. An ACT may be established to account for management 
uncertainty in controlling the catch at or below the ACL, but ACTs are 
just one type of accountability measure that can address management 
uncertainty. NMFS specifically considered a system such as that 
described by the commenter that would require that ACL be set below the 
ABC to account for management uncertainty, but ultimately rejected it 
on the basis that it was Congressional intent that ACL should be 
considered a true limit, not a target catch level (Response to Comment 
8, 74 FR at 3183, January 16, 2009). Instead, the guidelines require 
that, to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, Councils must address the 
management uncertainty in their fisheries using appropriate 
accountability measures, which could possibly include setting an ACT. 
While the Council in fact set the ACL below the ABC for a number of 
stocks (longnose skate, starry flounder, the other fish complex, the 
other flatfish complex), consistent with the guidelines, the Council's 
primary means for addressing management uncertainty is through 
accountability measures. Section 4.1 and tables 4-1 and 4-3 in the FEIS 
describe the actual impacts that are expected to the stocks in the 
fishery as a result of the management measures included in the 
integrated alternatives. For most of the non-overfished stocks, 
expected catch levels are far below the ACLs set for these

[[Page 27512]]

stocks. Thus, the proposed management measures are expected to ensure 
that for the non-overfished stocks, actual catch levels will not 
approach the ACLs. For the overfished stocks, the ACLs are based on the 
rebuilding plans. Management measures have been specifically designed 
to keep the catch of these stocks below their ACLs.
    The NS 1 guidelines make clear that the use of ACTs is optional, 
not required. The proposed guidelines did require ACTs as reference 
points, but the final action ``retains the concept of an ACT and an ACT 
control rule, but does not require them to be included in FMPs.'' The 
guidelines note that where fisheries lack inseason management controls 
to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, ``AMs should utilize ACTs that are 
set below ACLs so that catches do not exceed the ACL.'' (74 FR at 3178, 
January 16, 2009).
    The Groundfish FMP provides for inseason management to prevent 
catch limit overages. The current system of inseason management in the 
groundfish fishery has resulted in very few catch limit overages in the 
last four years. Catch limit overages have occurred for canary rockfish 
(2001-2007), Dover sole (2006), POP (2007) and darkblotched 
rockfish(2000, 2001, and 2007) (PFMC, Agenda item G.5.a, attachment 1, 
November 2009).
    Projecting canary rockfish impacts has been problematic, especially 
in the limited entry trawl sector. Under a rationalized fishery, there 
is individual accountability and real time reporting that is expected 
to substantially improve performance relative to the 2010 fishery 
(i.e., ability to stay within the ACL). For recreational fisheries, the 
Council recommended the use of HGs as an accountability measure to 
increase the probability that total catch will stay within the ACL. POP 
and Dover sole are trawl dominant and management performance is also 
expected to improve under a rationalized fishery structure. However, 
the nature of POP catch in the whiting fishery could result in high 
incidental catch events such as occurred in the Pacific whiting 
shoreside fishery in 2007. For development of the Council's FPA in the 
EIS, the Council recommended ACTs for POP and yelloweye rockfish for 
the FPA in order to increase the likelihood that catches will remain 
below the ACL. This final rule implements an ACT for POP, but not for 
yelloweye rockfish. This final rule implements an ACL for yelloweye 
that is 2.2 mt above the projected catch. The ACL value is based on the 
high end estimates of projected set aside amounts. Therefore, NMFS 
believes that the 2.2 mt difference between the ACL and the projected 
catch means that an ACT is not necessary for yelloweye. Further, with 
the implementation of the Trawl Rationalization program NMFS will have 
better inseason monitoring and will be able to track catches relative 
to set aside allocations and close fisheries or take other appropriate 
action if fisheries are projected to attain their allocations.
    Comment 6: The use of stock complex ACLs must be consistent with 
new guidance outlined in the NS1 guidelines to ensure that stocks are 
sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and 
vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management 
actions on the stocks is similar. NMFS should either reorganize species 
complexes to include stocks with similar vulnerabilities to the 
fishery, or designate indicator species from among the most vulnerable 
species in each complex. In addition, species-specific ACLs should be 
set where possible.
    Response: The Council recognized the need for reorganization of the 
four complexes described in the EIS to reflect the results of the 
vulnerability analysis conducted by the GMT. However, it was determined 
that this work could not be completed in time for the 2011-2012 
specifications and management measures. The Council and NMFS anticipate 
the development of recommendations for reorganized stock complexes in 
time for the 2013-14 specifications.
    As the commenters point out, the GMT analyzed the vulnerability of 
the stocks currently managed in complexes and determined that the 
existing complexes are comprised of stocks with a range of 
vulnerabilities. It was recognized that the existing complexes were 
created prior to the revised NS 1 and are not organized in the best 
possible manner for taking into account scientific uncertainty and the 
relevant management issues. For this reason, it has been noted by the 
GMT that the reorganization of stock complexes is an issue they will 
work on for the 2013-2014 biennial specifications and management 
measures cycle. The results of any analysis conducted could be 
presented to the Council for action. The analysis needed to support 
such reconsideration could not be completed in time for the current 
cycle.
    The commenters state that until the complexes can be reorganized, 
indicator stocks should be designated to represent the more vulnerable 
stocks in the complexes. Typically indicator stocks would be used for 
an assemblage of similar species when most of the species do not have 
an assessment. This is not the case for 2011-2012 because the Council 
developed assessments for all species even if they were data-limited 
assessment for data poor stocks. The issue is not the absence of an 
estimate for safe levels of harvest, even if it is data poor, it is 
that by grouping the ACLs there is uncertainty that each individual 
species remains under its contributions to the group. Indicator stocks 
do not address this issue. Additionally, the premise behind using an 
indicator species is that it is representative of the group. Because 
the current stock complexes are not organized such that the species 
within each group are exposed to similar fishing pressure, it is 
unclear how an indicator species would be selected to represent the 
group. As previously stated, the analysis needed to support a 
reorganization of the current stock complexes or to define indicator 
stocks could not be completed for this biennial cycle, but will be 
addressed at a later date. NMFS agrees that stock complexes should be 
organized so they include similarly vulnerable species and that 
indictor stocks may be a useful tool to manage fisheries in a 
sustainable manner while preventing overfishing of the most vulnerable 
species.
    To aid in the management of stock complexes, NMFS will be notifying 
the states of Washington, Oregon and California of the intent to 
propose revisions to the regulatory provisions at Sec.  660.12 (8), 
Sec.  660.130(d), Sec.  660.230(c), and Sec.  660.330(c) pertaining to 
the sorting and reporting of groundfish catch. NMFS believes that 
refining the sorting requirements for the rockfish complexes is 
necessary for catch accounting and management of the most vulnerable 
stocks within complexes. Because this provision would require state and 
Federal reporting systems to be modified including the data systems 
that house these data, such a change cannot happen for the 2011 fishing 
season.
    During the process of developing the 2011-2012 ACLs, the Council 
considered removing several species from the minor rockfish complexes, 
but did not do so for this biennial cycle because changes necessary to 
manage these species individually under the trawl rationalization 
program could not be completed in time for this cycle.
    Comment 7: The FPA lacks adequate buffers for the data-poor stock 
complexes. Specifically, the minor nearshore subcomplexes contain OFL/
ABC buffers of roughly 14 percent and no buffer between ABC and ACL, 
even though these complexes contain highly vulnerable component species 
such as copper, China and quillback. The minor

[[Page 27513]]

slope subcomplexes contain OFL/ABC buffers of roughly 9 percent, and 
ABC/ACL buffers of between 12-25 percent, even though these 
subcomplexes are composed of data-poor category 3 species and highly 
vulnerable rougheye and shortraker.
    Response: It is unclear which kind of ``buffers'' the commenters 
see as inadequate and therefore it is difficult to respond to this 
comment. The ABCs for the species included in the complexes were 
recommended by the SSC and adopted by the Council as described above in 
response to Comment 4. The Council specifically accounted for 
management uncertainty in the ACLs for the Other Fish and Other 
Flatfish by adopting ACLs lower than the sum of the ABCs for the 
individual components of these complexes. The ACLs for the minor shelf 
and slope rockfish subcomplexes are also significantly lower than the 
ABCs for these subcomplexes (shelf north--50 percent lower, slope 
north--12 percent lower, shelf south--49 percent lower, slope south--25 
percent lower). In addition, the projected catches of the complexes and 
subcomplexes, with the exception of the minor nearshore rockfish north 
subcomplex, are all significantly below the ACLs. For the minor 
nearshore rockfish north subcomplex, as is discussed in the FEIS, 
monitoring may indicate a need for inseason management measures to 
prevent exceeding the ACL (FEIS at pg 352). In summary, given the 
reductions between OFL and ABC, and ABC and ACL, and the fact that 
catches are expected to be lower than the ACL for most of the complexes 
and subcomplexes, overfishing on these complexes and subcomplexes is 
unlikely.
    Comment 8: The Amendment must specify AMs that will be triggered 
when ACLs are reached.
    Response: The NS1 guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009) state 
that FMPs should include AMs, which ``are management controls to 
prevent ACLs, including sector-ACLs, from being exceeded, and to 
correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur.'' NMFS believes 
that the Groundfish FMP currently provides for robust inseason 
management measures. Under current practices the Council is presented 
with inseason updates at each of its meetings. Following an evaluation 
of the catch to date and catch projections presented by its advisory 
bodies, the Council makes recommendations to NMFS on regulation changes 
in order to keep catch within the catch limits. However, NMFS notes 
that there is a lack of clarity in the amendment with respect to the 
connection between ACLs and AMs. In its December 27, 2010, letter to 
the Council, NMFS identified this issue and suggested that it should be 
addressed through the development and submission of an additional 
amendment to the FMP.
    Comment 9: NMFS should identify and incorporate a specific list of 
relevant ecological factors into the management of West Coast 
Groundfish and specify how such factors will be used in the 
determination of OY, ACLs, or ACTs.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that ecological factors can be an 
important consideration in setting MSY and OY levels. In the Response 
to Comment 24 of the NS 1 guidelines NMFS states that ``* * * 
ecological conditions not directly accounted for in the specification 
of MSY can be among the ecological factors considered when setting OY 
below MSY'' (74 FR at 3187, January 16, 2009). The NS1 Guidelines 
describe ACT as an accountability measure that accounts for management 
uncertainty, and does not specifically incorporate ecological concerns.
    Under the FMP, as amended by Amendment 23, ecological factors can 
be a consideration in setting the ACL below the ABC and in setting the 
OY (FMP Section 2.2). The extent of our knowledge on ecological factors 
with respect to choosing between the integrated alternatives is 
considered in the FEIS but our ability to compare these factors with 
respect to the alternatives is extremely limited. The Council and NMFS 
have incorporated ecosystem considerations into management of the 
groundfish fishery in a number of ways (e.g. closed areas that protect 
particularly productive and/or sensitive areas, and consideration of 
relevant ecological factors in stock assessments). See Agenda Item 
J.1.c, Attachment 1, PFMC March 2011 (Assessing Ecosystem Policy 
Principles and Bringing Ecosystem Science into the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council Process). NMFS is actively engaged in developing 
ecosystem information about the California Current ecosystem, and the 
Council is considering development of an Ecosystem Fishery Management 
Plan and incorporating ecosystem factors into the fishery management 
process. See Agenda Item J.1, Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan (PFMC 
March 2011).
    While the ecological factors listed in the comments are relevant, 
at this time the specific elements listed have not been incorporated 
into the FMP and the Council decisionmaking process. Therefore 
requiring that information to be reported in a stock assessment or in 
the determination of OYs, ACLs and ACTs is premature. NMFS agrees that 
ecological factors are an important consideration in setting harvest 
levels for groundfish species. The commenters reference two food web 
models for possible use in considering ecological factors. At this time 
these models have not been evaluated by the SSC or GMT for use. NMFS 
suggests that the commenters bring these models forward to the 
Council's advisory bodies so that they can be evaluated. The groundfish 
stock assessment and review process, which includes procedures for 
assessing new models, is laid out in the Terms of Reference for both 
the groundfish stock assessment and review process and the SSC, which 
can be found at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/stock-assessments/safe-documents/2011-safe-document/.
    Even though the FMP does not contain a specific list of ecological 
factors that must be considered, the FEIS did consider ecological 
factors. Chapter 4 of the FEIS evaluated the impacts of the 
alternatives according to the impacts on fishing mortality, rebuilding 
duration for the overfished species, stock productivity relative to 
rebuilding success, genetic diversity and prey availability.

Overfished Species and Flatfish

    Comment 10: The rebuilding plan for Darkblotched Rockfish is 
inconsistent with the MSA. A TTARGET of 2025 would maintain 
the status quo catch limits that were set in 2007-08 that were based on 
faulty information about darkblotched's resiliency and would extend the 
2009-10 harvest specifications that were invalidated by NRDC v. Locke, 
Case 3:01-cv-00421-JLI. Review of recent catch levels as well as trends 
in the economic health of the fishery reveal that it is possible to 
meet the MSA's conservation priorities by establishing faster 
rebuilding targets and lower harvest levels while accommodating the 
needs of the fishing community. NMFS should adopt a target rebuilding 
date for darkblotched that results in catch levels no higher than 200 
metric tons (mt) per year. The catch level for darkblotched was set at 
200 mt in 2006 even though economic data from both the commercial trawl 
sector and the larger groundfish fishery indicate that revenues in 2006 
continued to rebound from 2002 lows. Therefore, it is reasonable to 
assume that the commercial trawl fishery and associated fishing 
communities can accommodate current catch levels considerably closer of 
200 mt for darkblotched.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter. The harvest rate being 
implemented by this rule is the most

[[Page 27514]]

conservative harvest rate for darkblotched rockfish since 2005. The 
TTARGET adopted in this final rule does not maintain the 
status quo catch limits set based on faulty information in 2007-08, and 
it does not extend the 2009-10 harvest specifications invalidated by 
NRDC v. Locke. The TTARGET being adopted for darkblotched is 
2025, which corresponds to an SPR of 64.9 percent and an ACL of 298 mt. 
The SPR harvest rate associated with the invalidated darkblotched 
rockfish specifications was 62.1 percent with a TTARGET 
equal to 2028. The final rule implements a TTARGET of 2025, 
which is only 9 years longer than TF=0, and is three years 
earlier than under the 2009-10 harvest specifications. Similarly, the 
SPR harvest rate is more conservative than the harvest rate under the 
2009-10 harvest specifications. Although the ACL this rule implements 
is comparable to the OY during the beginning of the 2009-10 cycle, the 
rebuilding period is shorter and the harvest rate is reduced based on 
the 2009 stock assessment update and the revised rebuilding analyses, 
which are the best scientific information available at this time. In 
2005, steepness (productivity) was estimated at 1.0, and was set at 
0.95. In 2007, a good deal more age data was included in the 
assessment, largely as conditional age-at length compositions, and 
steepness was estimated (using the prior from Dorn's meta-analysis) at 
0.6. That value of steepness was then fixed in the 2007 assessment and 
hence also used in the 2009 update. The SPR chosen following the 2005 
rebuilding analysis, and applied in the 2007-08 harvest specifications 
(the 2007 SPR was 64.1 percent and the 2008 SPR was 60.7 percent), 
corresponded to a TTARGET (median rebuilding year) of 2011, 
which was much earlier than for previous rebuilding analyses, due 
largely to the high value of steepness (and thus high productivity at 
low stock sizes) assumed in the 2005 assessment. Based on the 2007 
rebuilding analysis, the darkblotched rockfish stock was projected to 
recover 19 years later (2030) than anticipated from the 2005 rebuilding 
analysis. This then lead to the adoption by the Pacific Council of a 
new TTARGET equal to 2028 with an SPR of 62.1 percent. 
Accordingly, as mentioned above, the SPR of 64.9 percent being 
implemented by this rule is the most conservative harvest rate for 
darkblotched rockfish since 2005. Moreover, the percent of unfished 
darkblotched rockfish biomass continues to increase toward rebuilding.
    Due to the complexity and interconnectivity of the Pacific 
groundfish fishery, the Council and NMFS follow an integrated or 
holistic approach to rebuilding because it would not be appropriate to 
develop rebuilding plans for each of the overfished species independent 
from the rebuilding plans for the others. The rebuilding groundfish 
species are correlated both biologically and economically. Changes to 
the OYs for any of the overfished species affect the time to rebuild 
for that species and the ability of fishermen to harvest other species 
of groundfish. In addition, changes in OYs for groundfish species have 
differing economic impacts on West Coast fishing communities. Setting a 
rebuilding strategy for one species requires the rebuilding strategy 
for the other rebuilding species be considered simultaneously. 
Utilizing this approach, it is reasonable to assume that integrated 
Alternative 1, which considered a TTARGET of 2022 and ACLs 
of 222 mt in 2011 and 2012, would have similar biological and socio-
economic impacts to the ACL of 200 mt suggested by the commenter. NMFS 
does not agree that fishing communities can accommodate an ACL closer 
to 200 mt than the ACL in the final rule without suffering severe 
adverse economic impacts. Darkblotched rockfish is currently taken in 
research fisheries, Tribal fisheries, limited entry trawl non-whiting 
fisheries, limited entry trawl whiting fisheries, and limited entry 
fixed-gear fisheries. Darkblotched rockfish are predominantly caught in 
bottom trawls operating on the outer continental shelf and slope north 
of 38[deg] north latitude between 100 and 200 fm. Reductions in the 
darkblotched rockfish ACLs are highly limiting to the trawl fisheries 
because darkblotched rockfish co-occur with the most economically 
important species in the fishery such as slope rockfish, sablefish, 
Pacific whiting, shortspine and longspine thornyheads, and Dover sole. 
Under Alternative 1, trawl opportunities on the slope would be limited 
as the seaward RCA boundaries were moved deeper. The bottom trawl 
fisheries on the continental slope would be restricted year round to a 
seaward RCA boundary of 250 fm.
    If the ACLs for overfished species are too low, it could undermine 
the success of the trawl rationalization program. Economic benefits to 
the IFQ fishery are expected to result from cost reductions and 
increased access to target species that arise from modifications in 
fishing behavior (overfished species avoidance). Individual 
accountability will put pressure on operators to fish in areas with 
lower encounter rates of constraining overfished species, and the 
ability to transfer catch privileges allows the fleet to consolidate to 
fewer, but more profitable vessels as the market directs quota in a 
manner that is more economically efficient. If the darkblotched 
rockfish ACL is too low (Alternative 1)--such that trawl fishers 
perceive slope target fisheries to be risky (high risk of exceeding the 
individual quota pounds) and the fishers limit their fishing 
participation for healthy target species--or if fishers hold quota 
pounds of constraining overfished for sale to other fishers who incur 
overages, they would not be able to develop new methods or strategies 
to avoid catching overfished species.
    The recruitment pattern for darkblotched rockfish is similar to 
that of many rockfish species, with highly variable recruitment from 
year to year adding to the variability in catch accounting between 
years. In addition, the available ACL to the groundfish fishery is 
reduced by the projected catch of darkblotched in incidental open 
access fisheries and non-groundfish fisheries. As another commenter 
pointed out, the incidental catch in non-groundfish fisheries such as 
pink shrimp would be expected to increase as the darkblotched rockfish 
biomass increases, further constraining the groundfish fishery unless 
the ACL allowed for such a rebuilding paradox. NMFS believes that 
setting a TTARGET that would result in a catch level no 
higher than 200 mt has the potential to result in short-term disastrous 
effects on already vulnerable communities.
    As the darkblotched rockfish biomass increases, it will become 
increasingly more difficult to avoid as the stock rebuilds. Unlike the 
constant catch strategy suggested by the commenter, which increasingly 
restricts the fishery as rebuilding occurs and requires ever increasing 
management restrictions to avoid exceeding the ACL, the constant SPR 
strategy allows rebuilding to occur at an increasing rate without 
changing the TTARGET and without drastic swings in 
management measures, which provides management stability to fisheries 
and communities and contributes to economic stability. The 
2009 stock assessment indicates that darkblotched rockfish was at 18.1 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2006 as compared to 27.5 percent in 
2009, showing an increasing trend. The recruitment pattern for 
darkblotched rockfish is similar to that of many rockfish species, with 
highly variable recruitment from year to year. The most recent year of 
2008 shows recruitment closer to those seen in 2003-2005 after very low 
recruitment in 2006 and 2007. Large year to year swings in recruitment

[[Page 27515]]

affect the accuracy of catch projections. As discussed in the FEIS, 
catch models used for the trawl fishery, a catch model based on data 
from the fishery managed under a trip limit structure was used to 
project catch. Although it is the best available information, because 
the trawl fishery is now being managed as a rationalized fishery with 
IFQs for the non-whiting fisheries, catch projections based on fishing 
distribution under a trip limit structure affect the utility of the 
catch model for making projections. In sum, the shorter rebuilding 
period and more conservative harvest rate adopted in this final rule 
rebuild darkblotched rockfish in a time period as short as possible, 
taking into account the statutory factors of the MSA.
    Comment 11: The rebuilding plan for Cowcod is inconsistent with the 
MSA. The estimated cowcod depletion rate in 2009 is 4.5 percent, 
slightly lower than the 4.6 percent rate estimated in the 2007 
assessment, indicating that the cowcod population is failing to rebuild 
as projected, and may actually be in decline. It is possible to rebuild 
cowcod more quickly than the 2071 target proposed by Amendment 16-5, 
and NMFS does not address why a target rebuilding year 11 years later 
than the shortest possible is ``as short as possible'' pursuant to the 
requirements of the MSA. Overall groundfish fishery revenues have 
rebounded substantially since 2002. The updated community vulnerability 
analysis did not rate any fishing communities off the Southern U.S. 
west coast as vulnerable. Historic mortality data for cowcod (which are 
admittedly subject to high levels of uncertainty) indicate that actual 
total catch has varied between as low as .32 mt in 2003, 2.18 mt in 
2004, 1.27 mt in 2005, and 1.18 mt in 2006. Therefore, it is reasonable 
to assume that a catch level of 3 mt for cowcod, which is projected to 
rebuild the species by 2068, would promote the conservation goals of 
the MSA and could be reasonably accommodated by affected fisheries and 
fishing communities. NMFS should adopt a target rebuilding date for 
cowcod that results in catch levels no higher than 3 mt per year.
    Response: NMFS fully considered all public comment and other 
relevant information, and has determined that modifying the proposed 
rule to implement a shorter rebuilding period will not cause severe 
short-term economic consequences to communities. Therefore, a shorter 
rebuilding period for cowcod is more consistent with the requirements 
of the MSA. This final rule implements a rebuilding plan for cowcod 
with a TTARGET of 2068, which corresponds to an SPR of 82.7 
percent and an ACL of 3 mt. The TTARGET of 2068 implemented 
by this rule is only 8 years longer than TF=0. In contrast, 
the proposed rule included a cowcod rebuilding plan with a 
TTARGET of 2071, which corresponds to an SPR of 79 percent 
and an ACL of 4 mt. The TTARGET of 2071 in the proposed rule 
was eleven years longer than TF=0.
    The commentor is incorrect in stating that the cowcod population 
may be in decline. The cowcod stock shows a slow but increasing trend 
in stock biomass. Table ES-6 of the 2009 stock assessment presents a 
summary of recent trends in cowcod exploitation and stock levels from 
the base case model. The commenter is correct that the depletion level 
projected by the 2009 stock assessment is 4.5 percent, however, the 
2009 stock assessment, which is the best available scientific 
information, revises the 2007 stock assessment results and indicates 
that the 2007 biomass was at 4 percent not 4.6 percent as the commenter 
indicated. Therefore, the best available scientific information 
available at this time indicates that Cowcod depletion rate is 
improving and the cowcod population is rebuilding.
    Comment 12: The rebuilding plan for yelloweye is inconsistent with 
the MSA. NMFS' conclusion that rebuilding progress on yelloweye has 
been ``moderate'' is too optimistic. The 2009 rebuilding analysis 
indicates that yelloweye rebuilding is three years behind schedule 
under the status quo harvest rate. This is three years beyond the 
target year of 2084, which was invalidated in NRDC v. Locke. There is a 
wide range of possible harvest limits in the 37 year time span between 
TF=0 and the proposed target year of 2084 that would rebuild 
yelloweye more quickly and still allow for bycatch. NMFS should adopt a 
target rebuilding date for yelloweye that results in catch levels 
between 14-17 mt per year.
    Response: NMFS fully considered all public comment and other 
relevant information, and has determined that modifying the proposed 
rule to implement a shorter rebuilding period will not cause severe 
short-term economic consequences to communities. Therefore, a shorter 
rebuilding period for yelloweye rockfish is more consistent with the 
requirements of the MSA. The range of alternatives considered in the 
EIS for yelloweye was reasonable as further explained in the response 
to comments in the FEIS. This final rule implements a rebuilding plan 
for yelloweye rockfish with a TTARGET of 2074, which 
corresponds to an SPR of 76 percent and an ACL of 17 mt. The 
TTARGET of 2074 implemented by this rule is 10 years before 
the current TTARGET and 27 years longer than TF=0. In 
contrast, the proposed rule included a yelloweye rockfish rebuilding 
plan with a TTARGET of 2084, which corresponds to an SPR of 
72.8 percent and an ACL of 20 mt. The TTARGET of 2084 in the 
proposed rule was 37 years longer than TF=0. As discussed below, NMFS 
determined that an ACL lower than 17 mt would have a disastrous short-
term effect on fishing communities.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter regarding the rebuilding progress 
of yelloweye rockfish. The 2009 stock assessment shows that yelloweye 
rockfish stock has shown an increasing trend in stock biomass during 
the rebuilding period, increasing from the estimated depletion level of 
16.3 percent of the unfished biomass in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2009. 
The median year of recovery in the absence of fishing (TF=0) was 
calculated by setting fishing mortality to zero in 2011, and is equal 
to 2047. The value for TMIN, the median year for rebuilding 
to the target level in the absence of fishing since the year of 
declaration (2000) is 2044 (revised downward slightly from 2046 in the 
2007 analysis). Because TMIN is only three years shorter 
than TF=0 in 2011, it indicates that harvest rates during 
this eight-year period have been low enough to have had little effect 
on the stocks rebuilding trajectory.
    Although TTARGETS corresponding to ACLs lower than 17 mt 
were considered, the impacts on the fisheries and communities were 
significantly greater. Small changes to yelloweye rockfish ACLs can 
have disproportionately large effects on the ability of fishers to 
harvest healthy stocks of groundfish, both when considered as part of 
the integrated approach, and when considered in isolation. For the 
recreational fisheries, a yelloweye ACL lower than 17 mt would result 
in northern California recreational seasons that are even shorter than 
the already extremely limited lengths (e.g., three months in the 
Mendocino Management Area). This would include a one and a half month 
season in the Mendocino Management Area if the ACL were at 14 mt. 
Imposing further restrictions due to a lower ACL would cause the 
greatest negative economic impacts to communities north of Point Arena, 
particularly Fort Bragg and Shelter Cove. Under a 14 mt ACL the loss to 
California communities is equivalent to 170,000 fishing trips with an 
estimated revenue of 20 million dollars in expenditures associated with 
these trips (March 2011, Agenda Item H.2.c, CDFG Letter). Those 
dependent

[[Page 27516]]

on the recreational fishery for their incomes would be the most 
affected, though the coastal community as a whole would suffer from the 
loss of expenditures by anglers. In the Oregon recreational fishery, an 
ACL (ACT) less than 17 mt would require shallower depth restrictions, 
decreased bag limits or full fishery closure, on the part of the state 
to prevent adjusted harvest guidelines from being exceeded. This would 
likely cause severe economic impacts to coastal Oregon communities, 
particularly Garibaldi and Gold Beach, which rely heavily on the 
recreational bottomfish and halibut fisheries. With an ACL under 17 mt, 
the Washington recreational management measures may need to be more 
restrictive. More restrictive management measures would negatively 
impact local communities that are dependent on sport fishing. 
Washington's recreational yelloweye impacts are also tied very closely 
to the halibut fishery. The affected communities are mostly remote 
areas that rely on the economic benefits created by recreational 
harvest opportunities.
    In the commercial fisheries, yelloweye rockfish bycatch is also a 
concern for fixed gear longline vessels targeting sablefish north of 
40[deg]10'. The nearshore fishery in many communities serves primarily 
specialty ``live-fish'' markets. For example, the Brookings port group 
(southern Oregon) provides more live-fish landings than any other port 
group along the U.S. west coast. Because the fish buyers are different 
for this fishery than those for other commercial fisheries, severely 
restricting the fishery could influence the primary live-fish buyers in 
some of these specialized ports to leave, which could put an end to 
live-fish deliveries for these specialized fishing communities. Many of 
the affected ports lack the infrastructure to compensate for fish 
buyers leaving the area. The TTARGET of 2074 and ACL of 17 
mt implemented by this rule are projected to rebuild yelloweye rockfish 
a full decade sooner than the previous rebuilding time period, while 
avoiding severe short-term adverse economic impacts to fishing 
communities.
    Comment 13: NMFS received 5 comments in support of the Council's 
final preferred yelloweye rockfish ACL of 20 mt and ACT of 17 mt. The 
comments in support were from the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and two comments from the 
public. These commenters also stated that setting a yelloweye ACL lower 
than 17 mt would add risk to communities that were unjustified by the 
conservation benefits associated with a lower ACL.
    Response: For a detailed description of the basis for the final ACL 
value of 17 mt implemented in this rule refer to the previous comment 
above. The Council recommended a 20 mt ACL with an ACT of 17 mt for 
yelloweye. The Council recommended using an ACT to address the 
uncertainty in accurately monitoring recreational fishery catch 
inseason, and increase the likelihood that the total catch would be 
lower than the ACL. An ACL of 17 mt is specified in this rule. NMFS 
chose not to specify an ACT for yelloweye. This final rule implements 
an ACL for yelloweye that is 2.2 mt above the projected catch. The ACL 
value is based on the high end estimates of projected set aside 
amounts. Therefore NMFS believes that the 2.2 mt difference between the 
ACL and the projected catch means that an ACT is not necessary for 
yelloweye. Further, with the implementation of the Trawl 
Rationalization program NMFS will have better inseason monitoring and 
will be able to track catches relative to set aside allocations and 
close fisheries or take other appropriate action if fisheries are 
projected to attain their allocations. By specifying an ACL of 17 mt 
rather than an ACT, it is predicted that rebuilding will occur in 2074, 
ten years earlier than under the Council's FPA.
    Comment 14: The rebuilding plan for canary rockfish is inconsistent 
with the MSA. The rebuilding plan for canary rockfish is six years 
behind schedule, according to the 2009 stock assessment. The new 
assessment shows a biomass depletion percentage of 23.7 percent instead 
of 32.4 percent seen just two years before. In addition, the cumulative 
OY from 2000-2007 (years with reliable catch data since rebuilding 
began) was exceeded by 14 percent. Rather than responding to new 
information that a species is doing worse than expected by lowering 
catch rates, NMFS again has indicated that it is willing to extend 
target rebuilding dates in order to maintain status quo catch levels. 
Therefore, maintenance of the status quo catch levels at the expense of 
a longer rebuilding period for canary is inconsistent with the MSA's 
mandate to rebuild in a period as short as possible. NMFS should adopt 
a target rebuilding date for canary rockfish that results in catch 
levels no higher than 44 mt per year.
    Response: NFMS disagrees with the commenter. The TARGET 
being implemented by this rule is within 3 years of the shortest time 
possible (TF=0 = 2024). NMFS believes that the rebuilding 
plan being adopted by this action is consistent with the MSA.
    The latest assessment for canary rockfish demonstrates that the 
stock has been rebuilding since 2000. The commenter mischaracterizes 
the projected biomass depletion level from the 2009 stock assessment, 
which is the best available scientific information, relative to biomass 
depletion levels from the 2007 stock assessment. The reduction from 
2007 is largely due to a revised historical catch time series for 
California. The new data resulted in the entire rebuilding trajectory 
(2000 forward) being slightly lower than previously projected. The 
commenter indicated that canary rockfish rebuilding is six years behind 
schedule. The change in our understanding of the rebuilding trajectory 
should not be interpreted as rebuilding having slowed, as this is not 
the case. Throughout the rebuilding period, the stock has continued to 
progress towards rebuilding. The overall lowering of the rebuilding 
trajectory throughout the entire rebuilding period means that it would 
take more time to reach the B40% (biomass level of 40 percent, which is 
used as a proxy for BMSY) than was understood in 2007. The 
new assessment estimated the 2007 depletion level for canary rockfish 
to have been 21.7 percent (below the estimate of 32.4 percent for 2007 
from the 2007 assessment with 95 percent confidence bounds of 24-41 
percent) and the 2009 depletion level to have been 23.7 percent (95 
percent confidence bounds of 17-30 percent). This action maintains the 
same SPR harvest rate that is in place under the No Action Alternative. 
Maintaining the same SPR harvest rate results in an ACL for 2011 that 
is lower than the than the 2010 OY because applying the same SPR 
harvest rate responds to changes in our understanding of the status of 
the stock. Because the rebuilding trajectory was modified, maintaining 
the current target year had to be modified despite the fact that the 
stock has continued to progress towards rebuilding.
    As explained in the proposed rule and disclosed to the public in 
stock assessment documents, following the 1999 declaration that the 
canary rockfish stock was overfished the canary OY was reduced by over 
70 percent in 2000 (to 200 mt) and by the same margin again from 2001 
to 2003 (to 44 mt). In retrospect, revised catch data indicate that 
from 2003 to 2008, when the rebuilding OY was between 47 and 44 mt, the 
OY was exceeded 5 out of 6 years, although catches were well below the 
ABC. These catch estimates were

[[Page 27517]]

done in retrospect using data that were not available during the 
season. Due to the methods used to derive the total mortality 
estimates, the catches made in retrospect were higher than estimates 
made during the season.
    Canary rockfish are caught in all the major fishery sectors, 
including: Research fisheries, Washington, Oregon and California 
recreational fisheries, Tribal fisheries, limited entry non-whiting 
trawl fisheries, limited entry whiting trawl fisheries, limited entry 
fixed gear fisheries, open access directed groundfish fisheries, open 
access directed fisheries with incidental groundfish catch (California 
halibut, pink shrimp and salmon troll).
    Due to the complexity and interconnectivity of the Pacific 
groundfish fishery, the Council and NMFS follow an integrated or 
holistic approach to rebuilding because it would not be appropriate to 
develop rebuilding plans for each of the overfished species independent 
from the rebuilding plans for the others. The rebuilding groundfish 
species are correlated both biologically and economically. Changes to 
the OYs for any of the overfished species affect the time to rebuild 
for that species and the ability of fishermen to harvest other species 
of groundfish. In addition, changes in OYs for groundfish species have 
differing economic impacts on West Coast fishing communities. Setting a 
rebuilding strategy for one species requires the rebuilding strategy 
for the other rebuilding species be considered simultaneously. 
Utilizing this approach, it is reasonable to assume that a 44 mt catch 
level would have similar biological and socio-economic impacts as 
considered under Alternative 1 in the FEIS. Alternative 1 considered a 
TTARGET of 2025, which is one year longer than 
TMIN and has an ACL of 49 mt in 2011 and 51 mt in 2012. 
Under Alternative 1, the canary rockfish ACL and associated 
apportionment to the non-nearshore fisheries is so low that the 
sablefish allocations would have to be reduced by as much as 42 
percent. The California nearshore fishery would also be severely 
constrained, requiring statewide 20 fm (37 m) Shoreward RCA lines and 
large trip limit reductions or total closures for some species would be 
necessary. This is in contrast to status quo where the non-trawl RCAs 
are 20 fm (37 m) in most northern areas and 60 fm (110 m) south of 
34[deg]27' north latitude. All recreational fisheries would experience 
reduced season lengths and restrictive depth restrictions. An ACL of 49 
mt (Alternative 1) equates to a trawl allocation of 13.3 mt--62 percent 
less then what is available in 2010. This will affect both the non-
whiting and whiting sectors negatively. The whiting sectors would 
likely have lower bycatch caps which could preclude them from attaining 
their whiting allocations. In addition, the trawl IFQ fishery is 
intended to provide long-term benefits to the fishery in the form of 
bycatch reduction and economic stability. Given the full catch 
accounting proposed under trawl IFQ program and that all catch, 
discarded and retained, will count towards the individuals IFQ shares, 
the risk of the fishery exceeding the ACL is reduced compared to 2010 
and prior years. In the short term, fishers will need to learn how to 
avoid canary rather than simply discarding them at-sea. Economic 
benefits to the IFQ fishery are expected to result from cost reductions 
and increased access to target species that arise from modifications in 
fishing behavior (overfished species avoidance). Individual 
accountability will put pressure on operators to fish in areas with 
lower encounter rates of constraining overfished species, and the 
ability to transfer catch privileges allows the fleet to consolidate to 
fewer, but more profitable, vessels as the market directs quota in a 
manner that is more economically efficient. Lower ACLs for canary 
rockfish could result in trawl fishers perceiving target fisheries for 
healthy stocks to be risky (high risk of exceeding the individual quota 
pounds) and result in fishers limiting their fishing participation for 
healthy target species; or if fishers hold quota pounds of constraining 
overfished for sale to other fishers who incur overages, they would not 
be able to develop new methods or strategies to avoid catching 
overfished species. Reduced fishing time may result in fishers being 
unable to develop new methods or strategies to avoid overfished 
species. The long-term success of the trawl rationalization program to 
maintain low incidental catch of overfished species in conjunction with 
profitable harvest of healthy stocks is consistent with the needs of 
communities specified in section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP.
    Comment 15: Economic indicators show improvements in the economic 
health of the fishery, thus it should be possible to meet the MSA's 
conservation priorities by establishing shorter rebuilding periods and 
lower catch levels while accommodating the needs of fishing 
communities. Historic revenue data indicate that average ex-vessel 
revenues in the groundfish hook-and-line fishery have rebounded since 
hitting a low of just over $13 million in 2002. Annual ex-vessel 
revenues for the fishery averaged nearly $18 million between 2005-2009, 
reaching a new high of $22.8 million in 2009, which is almost 50% 
greater than average revenue in 1998 adjusted for inflation. After 
overall groundfish fishery revenues hit a low of $63.9 million in 2002 
(concurrent with the disaster declaration in the fishery), they 
rebounded to significantly higher levels: After adjusting for 
inflation, average revenues for the groundfish fishery between 2005 and 
2009 were slightly over $85 million. In 2008, revenues in the fishery 
exceeded $113 million dollars. Per-vessel revenues have rebounded as 
well. Due in part to the reduction in the trawl fleet resulting from 
the buyback program, per-vessel revenues are roughly 40% higher than 
they were in 1998 after adjusted for inflation.
    Response: NMFS does not believe that restricting harvests to 
maintain revenues at or below historically low levels takes into 
account the needs of fishing communities. Communities may still be 
``surviving'' but they are not thriving, and many fishing communities 
remain vulnerable to short-term adverse economic impacts associated 
with rebuilding periods shorter than those adopted by this rule. Small 
increases in revenues of some sectors will help prevent some of the 
more vulnerable communities from even further losses. Except for the 
open access sectors, all other sectors show a decline under NMFS' 
preferred alternative compared to the No-Action Alternative: Non-
whiting trawl (-1.6%), limited entry fixed gear (-10.4%); and Tribal (-
1.9%--including Tribal shoreside whiting). To provide different 
perspectives, revenues are analyzed at several levels. First, the total 
level groundfish of revenues, including those from non-whiting 
groundfish, shoreside whiting, and at-sea whiting, are provided to give 
the perspective of the total fishery. Second, groundfish revenues 
excluding estimates of at-sea whiting are analyzed to better focus the 
analysis on impacts to coastal communities, as most at-sea whiting 
revenues are associated with large Seattle-based companies. Finally, 
shoreside non-whiting groundfish revenues are analyzed alone because 
the shoreside non-whiting fishery is crucial to communities for its 
ability to provide a year-round supply of fish and ``keep the lights 
on'' so community processing facilities can take advantage of the 
income provided from sporadic pulse fisheries such as whiting, salmon, 
crab, and shrimp (Note that San Francisco is a ``coastal community'' 
that receives non-whiting groundfish).

[[Page 27518]]

    According to the Regulatory Impact Review Analysis, the total 
groundfish fishery is projected to reach a level of $91 million 
compared to the No-Action Alternative of $82 million. All of this 
increase is due to the increase in whiting harvests. Under the no-
action alternative, the whiting fishery (shoreside and at-sea) account 
for $22 million in ex-vessel revenues. With the increase in the whiting 
OY from 193,000 mt in 2010 to the 290,000 mt OY in 2011, whiting 
revenues in 2011 are projected to be $33 million. For the shoreside 
fisheries, including whiting, and coastal communities, shoreside ex-
vessel revenues are expected to increase by 2.6%. If whiting is 
excluded, 2011 ex-vessel revenues flowing from shoreside fisheries to 
coastal communities are expected to decrease by 3.3%. Most of this 
decrease is associated with projected decreases in sablefish and 
petrale sole harvests.
    Relative to the needs of communities, the commenter indicates that 
average (annual) ex-vessel revenues in the groundfish hook-and-line 
fishery (includes limited entry fixed gear, open access fixed gear, and 
Tribal fixed gear fisheries) have rebounded since hitting a low of just 
over $13 million in 2002. In 2011 and 2012 the sablefish ACL will 
decline from the 2010 level of approximately 7,700 mt to approximately 
6,800 mt. Therefore, the annual ex-vessel revenues in the groundfish 
hook-and-line fishery are projected to decline. Revenues from hook and 
line gear fishing are just one source of revenue to a community. The 
major source of groundfish revenues to communities are those from 
trawlers. Over the years, hook and line revenues have been a growing 
source of revenue in light of declines in other groundfish fisheries, 
including trawl fisheries. During the 1998 to 2009 period, the 
commercial revenue from trawl gear (includes commercial and Tribal, at 
sea and shoreside trawlers) has varied from a low of $46 million (2009) 
to a high of $91 million (2008). In 1998, total groundfish revenues 
flowing to communities from all gear types was about $80 million, in 
2002 $63 million, and in 2009, $74 million. The hook and line share of 
total revenues has increased from 18% in 1998, to 21% in 2002, and 31% 
in 2009, the lowest year for trawl revenues.
    In light of conservation, management, and economic issues 
associated with overcapacity, three capacity reduction programs have 
been instituted since 2000. In 2001, Amendment 14 to the FMP added a 
fixed gear permit stacking program which has resulted in the 
consolidation of currently 164 sablefish endorsed permits on about 90 
vessels. In 2003, a trawl vessel buyback program was implemented, 
resulting in the retirement of 91 vessels and associated groundfish 
limited entry permits in order to stabilize what had been declining 
per-vessel revenues and to reduce bycatch by the remaining vessels. 
Industry is currently paying back the $36 million loan associated with 
this program. In early 2011, implementation of a catch share program 
under Amendment 20 to the FMP began, changing management of portions of 
the trawl fishery from 2-month cumulative trip limits to individual 
fishing quota (IFQ) management. In addition to improving the 
profitability of the fishery while reducing capacity, the IFQ program 
is expected to reduce bycatch because of the increase in observer 
coverage to 100%, and placement of catch monitors at landing locations 
(typically at processing plants), and the use of electronic reporting 
will lead to better catch accounting and overall quota management of 
the fishery. Fishermen and processors are paying for these observers 
and catch monitors (although for the first three years these costs are 
being partially subsidized by NMFS based on available appropriations). 
The Council and NMFS are now developing a cost-recovery program where 
up to 3 percent of the trawl revenues may be assessed on the industry 
to partially recover the costs of administering the program.
    All of these capacity reduction programs have yielded increased 
average revenues per vessel. However, even if average revenues per 
vessel or total revenues have increased, total industry and sector 
profit levels are likely to be declining especially in light of 
increases in fuel prices. For the Trawl Rationalization Program 
analysis, a shorebased non-whiting model was constructed based on the 
2004 fishery. In 2004, the shorebased non-whiting trawl fishery 
generated about $21 million in groundfish ex-vessel revenues. But 
according to cost estimates, this fishery was at best breaking even or 
perhaps suffering a loss of up to $2 million. Since 2004, shorebased 
non-whiting trawl fisheries have increased their revenues to about $30 
million in 2009 and estimated $27 million in 2010. The increase in 
shorebased revenues have come from increased landings of flatfish and 
sablefish and significant increases in sablefish ex-vessel prices. 
Sablefish now accounts for almost 40 percent of the trawl fleet's 
revenues.
    Increases in revenues must be considered together with significant 
increases in fuel costs. Fuel costs now account for approximately 30 to 
40 percent of the vessels' revenues. The average 2005-2009 revenues 
were about $27 million, or 29 percent greater than 2004. The average 
2005-2009 fuel price was about $2.81 per gallon, 70% greater than that 
of 2004. Therefore, it appears that the profitability of the 2009 
fishery may not be that much improved over that of 2004. In July of 
2009, in Newport Oregon fuel prices were about $2.20 a gallon, in July 
of 2010, $2.50 a gallon and as of April 2011, about $3.75 per gallon.
    While NMFS preferred alternative does result in projected shoreside 
revenue increases over status quo, these are increases from 
historically low levels of revenue. Healthy communities require 
profitable sectors. Profits concern revenues and costs. NMFS and the 
Council have received public comment that low levels of revenue since 
1999 have resulted in numerous negative impacts to community 
infrastructure. Many communities have lost important infrastructure 
such as ice houses, fuel docks, and processing facilities during the 
last decade. Continued low levels of revenue will likely result in 
further losses of infrastructure. Although it is difficult to predict, 
at some point the losses of infrastructure and fishing opportunity 
result in a ``tipping point'' in which a community shifts from a 
fishing community to a non-fishing community. In addition, with 
decreased revenues, fishermen are not making needed repairs or 
improvements to fishing gear, resulting in potential safety issues and 
potentially reducing innovation in the fleet to reduce bycatch or 
impacts to habitat.
    Several other non-groundfish factors also affect fishing 
communities. From a fisheries perspective, for the period from 2006 to 
2010, except for 2007, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a 
disaster under the MSA exists for a major portion of the coastal salmon 
fishery. From a macro-economic perspective, in 2009 and 2010, 
communities have been affected by the overall downturn in the economy 
and now in 2011 and beyond will be affected by the further consequences 
of the economy.
    Comment 16: NMFS should reject changes to the reference points and 
25-5 control rule for petrale sole and other assessed flatfish species, 
as the proposed changes are not adequately precautionary, fail to 
account for the ecological services rendered by these species, and are 
premature without a comprehensive management strategy evaluation.

[[Page 27519]]

    Response: The specifications for flatfish in the proposed rule and 
in this final rule are based on a new proxy for Fmsy (F30%) recommended 
by the SSC and adopted by the Council. NMFS believes that the new 
flatfish proxy is based on the best available science and is consistent 
with the NS1 guidelines and the MSA. Following the 2009 scientific peer 
review of the petrale sole assessment by the Council's stock assessment 
review panel (STAR panel), the STAR panel prepared a report which 
recommended that the SSC review the estimates of FMSY produced by the 
petrale sole assessment and investigate alternatives to the proxies of 
F40%. The SSCs groundfish sub-committee further considered the proxies 
produced by the petrale sole assessment and recommended that a proxy 
for FMSY of F30% be established for all west coast flatfish (PFMC E.2.c 
Supplemental SSC Report September 2009; Agenda Item E.2.c Supplemental 
SSC PowerPoint, September 2009). The full SSC endorsed the groundfish 
subcommittee's recommendation to establish a new proxy of F30% for FMSY 
for flatfish (PFMC G.2.b Supplemental SSC Report, November 2009). This 
value was based on a number of considerations, including evaluation of 
information on flatfish productivity (steepness) for assessed west 
coast flatfish, published meta-analyses of other flatfish stocks, and 
recommendations on appropriate proxies for FMSY and BMSY in the 
scientific literature. The SSC however did not endorse the use of a 
species-specific estimate of FMSY for petrale sole because of high 
variability in the estimates between repeat assessments for other 
stocks and the sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions concerning 
stock structure.
    The SSC also recommended and the Council adopted a new Bmsy proxy 
for flatfish--B25%. This recommendation was developed through the same 
process and with the same considerations described above (PFMC E.2.c 
Supplemental SSC Report September 2009). The commenters point to SSC 
comments recommending a more comprehensive analysis of the control rule 
proxies. However, this long-term recommendation did not change the 
SSC's ultimate recommendation that the new proxies be used for the 
2011-2012 specifications cycle. The SSC's recommendations are the best 
available science at this time.
    The SSC noted that the overfished threshold, or MSST, and default 
precautionary reduction policy, are policy decisions for the Council. 
However, the SSC suggested the options that the Council ultimately 
chose for both of these policy choices. The Council chose to set the 
MSST to 50 percent of B25% (B12.5%), based on advice of the SSC that 
this was the ``lowest value recommended by the NS1 guidelines.'' (PFMC 
G.2.b, Supplemental SSC Report, November 2009). The 25-5 harvest 
control rule is intended to be the flatfish corollary to the 40-10 
harvest control rule used for other groundfish species. The SSC's 
groundfish subcommittee suggested the 25-5 rule provided the same 
benefits as the 40-10 harvest control rule, but took into account the 
higher productivity of flatfish as compared to rockfish. (PFMC E.4.b, 
Supplemental SSC Report 2, March 2010).
    The commenters suggest that these changes to the reference points 
and precautionary reduction policy for flatfish are not supported by 
sufficient analysis of their environmental consequences. They 
specifically identify the services rendered by flatfish in the 
California Current marine ecosystem. Ecosystem impacts of the 
integrated alternatives are described in the FEIS in section 4.1.5. 
However, available data and models limit NMFS' ability to assess the 
impacts of the alternatives in detail. The SSCs groundfish subcommittee 
recognized the need for a management strategy evaluation on harvest 
control rule proxies (PFMC E.2.c, Supplemental SSC report, September 
2009) however, at this time an evaluation has not yet been conducted.
    Comment 17: The rebuilding plans in the proposed rule implicitly 
adopt a Council-designed paradigm to set catch levels for overfished 
species that are inconsistent with the mandates of the MSA to rebuild 
overfished species ``as quickly as possible'' and with the Ninth 
Circuit's directive on how to do that while ``taking into account the 
needs of fishing communities.'' NMFS and the Council appear to have 
substituted this legal directive with a rebuilding paradigm that 
continues to favor long-term economic yields at the expense of 
rebuilding as quickly as possible. The white paper submitted to NMFS at 
the September 2010 Council meeting articulates a rebuilding policy that 
prioritizes the economic goal of long-term cumulative yield over 
conservation, a view that is inconsistent with the MSA.
    Response: The rebuilding plans implemented by this final rule are 
designed to rebuild overfished or depleted species as quickly as 
possible while taking into account the statutory factors of the MSA. 
Although NMFS considered all relevant factors, NMFS did not rely upon 
the white paper or any other rebuilding paradigm that prioritizes the 
economic goal of long-term cumulative yields over conservation as a 
basis for its final decision.
    Comment 18: The rebuilding plan for petrale sole is inconsistent 
with the MSA. The 2011-2012 specifications allow for catch levels that 
exceed the 25-5 control rule and do not result in the quickest 
rebuilding time for this species.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with commenters' assertion that the 
rebuilding plan for petrale sole is inconsistent with the MSA. All of 
the alternatives considered in the FEIS rebuild the stock within 10 
years, as required by the MSA when the stock is biologically capable of 
doing so. The rebuilding plan adopted in this final rule is estimated 
to rebuild the stock by 2016, which is only 2 years longer than the 
estimated minimum time to rebuild (which in this case is equal to 
TF=0). The Council's rebuilding strategy is to set the ACL 
equal to the ABC in 2011 and apply the 25-5 harvest control rule 
starting in 2012. This rebuilding strategy results in a rebuilding time 
period that is as short as possible while taking into consideration the 
important role of petrale sole in the groundfish fishery and the 
relatively high productivity of the stock.
    Petrale sole is one of the primary target stocks in the non-whiting 
trawl fishery and is predominantly caught by that sector. No other 
sector currently targets petrale sole, although other sectors do 
incidentally catch petrale sole in relatively small amounts. For this 
reason, the Council chose to rebuild the petrale sole stock by 
constraining fishing opportunities for the non-whiting trawl sector. 
Specifications in this final rule rebuild the stock in as short a time 
as possible.
    Comment 19: The harvest specifications for POP and widow rockfish 
appear inconsistent with the MSA mandate to rebuild overfished species 
in as short of a time as possible. NMFS chose to maintain the status 
quo harvest rate and catch limits for POP despite POP rebuilding being 
behind schedule according to the 2009 stock assessment. In addition, 
although widow rockfish appears close to being rebuilt, previous 
assessments predicted the stock would be rebuilt by 2009, indicating 
the stock is also behind schedule. Nonetheless, the proposed SPR 
harvest rate for widow rockfish is substantially increased.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters. The 
TTARGET for widow is 2010; the commenters incorrectly state 
that the species was to be rebuilt in

[[Page 27520]]

2009. Because of the delay in final catch impacts data, which will 
enable NMFS to declare the stock not overfished, the change in widow 
rockfish to a healthy stock can not officially occur until a later 
date. This ensures that NMFS uses the best available science in making 
its final determination that a stock is no longer overfished. This 
final rule implements an ACL of 600 mt, which is a modest increase from 
the No Action OY of 509 but is unlikely to result in targeting of the 
stock.
    For POP, the ACL alternatives analyzed in the FEIS were based on 
the new stock assessment. Our current understanding of POP stock status 
and productivity shows that TF=0 is longer than the current 
TTARGET. Therefore, all the ACL alternatives analyzed in the 
FEIS contemplate a change in the median time to rebuild that is greater 
than the current TTARGET. Because the current harvest policy 
will not rebuild the species by TTARGET even in the absence 
of fishing, the rebuilding plan is modified through this final rule. 
The SSC did recommend modifying the rebuilding plan out of the 
necessity to extend the current TTARGET based on our changed 
understanding of stock status and productivity. For the FPA, the 
Council proposed changing TTARGET from 2017 to 2020 while 
maintaining the F86.4 percent SPR harvest rate. Although the same SPR 
harvest rate is being maintained for POP, the new TTARGET of 
2020 is only two years longer than TF=0. In addition, 
maintaining the same SPR harvest rate results in an ACL for 2011 that 
is lower than the former 2010 OY because applying the same SPR harvest 
rate responds to changes in our understanding of the status of the 
stock. The Council also recommended specifying an ACT of 157 mt for POP 
in 2011 and 2012 under the FPA to further reduce fishing-related 
mortality. This revised rebuilding time is based on the best available 
science and rebuilds the stock in as short a time as possible. This 
rule implements an ACL and an ACT for POP. The ACT is discussed in 
detail in Comment 5 above.
    Comment 20: The leeway NMFS has to extend TTARGET beyond 
TMIN is limited to the amount of fish necessary to prevent 
severe short-term hardship to fishing communities. Therefore, any 
TTARGET longer than TMIN must be specifically 
demonstrated as necessary to prevent this hardship. The rebuilding 
plans continue to place undue reliance on TMAX. The Ninth 
Circuit decision in NRDC v. NMFS makes it clear that rebuilding plans 
can no longer be based on TMAX but instead must be oriented 
around TMIN in order to comply with the mandate to rebuild 
as quickly as possible.
    Response: NMFS notes that the MSA requires that overfished stocks 
be rebuilt as quickly as possible, taking into account the status and 
biology of the overfished stock, the needs of fishing communities and 
the interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine 
ecosystem. NMFS believes that TMIN is the starting point, 
and that it is important to assess the impacts on fishing communities 
of TMIN (or TF=0), and alternative levels above 
that amount in order to determine the appropriate rebuilding time 
period. The FMP, as amended by Amendment 16-4, is clear that the time 
to rebuild may be adjusted upward from TMIN (the minimum 
time in which an overfished stock can rebuild to its target biomass) 
under certain circumstances, and as such, TMIN is the 
starting point for considering appropriate time periods for rebuilding. 
See FMP section 4.5.2. Procedures for Calculating Rebuilding 
Parameters. TTARGET is established based on the factors 
specified in MSA section 304(e)(4) with TMIN and 
TMAX serving as a starting point and reference point, 
respectively. The use of TMAX as one rebuilding reference 
point is consistent with the NS1 Guidelines. However, the rebuilding 
plans implemented by the final rule are not ``based on'' 
TMAX.

Bycatch Accounting, CCAs, Processing at Sea, EFP and Other Comments

    Comment 21: The PFMC requested the yellowtail rockfish set aside 
for exempted fishing permit (EFP) activities be 10 mt for 2011, rather 
than the proposed 2 mt. This is because the EFP was approved in 2010, 
but all of the catch of yellowtail rockfish would occur in 2011.
    Response: NMFS has made the appropriate changes to the EFP set 
aside amounts and addresses this issue in the Changes from the proposed 
rule section of this rule.
    Comment 22: Bycatch accounting methods are insufficient to meet the 
MSA mandate to prevent overfishing, and 2011-2012 specifications and 
management measures do not include new measures to make bycatch 
accounting more timely and more accurate.
    Response: The commenter does not specify additional management 
measures that might make bycatch accounting methods more timely and 
accurate, therefore it is difficult to respond to this comment. In the 
trawl fishery, new management measures being implemented as part of the 
trawl catch shares program are expected to improve bycatch accounting 
and include increased observation and monitoring as follows: One 
observer on every IFQ vessel and mothership catcher vessel; two 
observers on every at-sea processing vessel 125 ft and over; one 
observer on at-sea processing vessels under 125 ft; catch monitors at 
all IFQ first receivers; full catch accounting of retained and 
discarded catch; and real-time catch reporting through observer reports 
and electronic fish tickets. Together these monitoring measures are 
expected to result in significant improvements to the timeliness and 
accuracy of catch accounting in the trawl fisheries.
    IFQs are expected to constrain the total catch mortality to a level 
within the trawl allocations. Full catch accounting and real time 
reporting in the shoreside IFQ program is expected to reduce management 
uncertainty relative to inseason catch accounting in the trawl fishery. 
Under an IFQ program there is a greater likelihood that the trawl 
fishery will stay within the trawl allocations. Given the full catch 
accounting under trawl IFQ program and that all catch, discarded and 
retained counts towards the individuals' IFQ shares, the risk of the 
fishery exceeding an ACL is further reduced compared to 2010 and prior 
years. Management of the bottom trawl fishery under the IFQ program is 
expected to reduce bycatch. This is because the pace of the fishery 
under IFQ is expected to slow such that fishers have time to use 
innovative techniques to avoid non-target species or reduce bycatch by 
increasing the utilization of non-target species.
    Bycatch accounting in the non-trawl fisheries has significantly 
improved since implementation of the West Coast Groundfish Observer 
Program (WCGOP) in 2003. Total catch is modeled using the best 
available WGCOP data (see model descriptions in Appendix A of the 
FEIS). Unlike the trawl fisheries where every vessel in the fleet will 
be monitored in 2011 and 2012, vessels in the non-trawl fisheries are 
sub-sampled meaning that observers collect data from a portion of the 
vessels in the various non-trawl fisheries. The data collected by 
observers, in combination with data from state landing receipts (fish 
tickets), is used together to estimate bycatch. Although the 
availability of data to inform the understanding of discards in the 
non-trawl fisheries has significantly improved since 2003; neither the 
WCGOP observer data on catch discarded at sea nor the landed catch data 
reported on fish ticket data submitted to the states are available in 
realtime. The WCGOP for the non-trawl fisheries is a developing program 
that is

[[Page 27521]]

continually being refined. Even as a developing program, NMFS believes 
that the bycatch accounting methods meet the MSA requirements.
    Comment 23: NMFS received 13 letters from private citizens and 
fishing associations in support of provisions for allowing fishing 
within the CCA out to 30 fm and allowing the retention of shelf 
rockfish within the CCA. Many of the comments indicated that the 
analysis submitted by CDFG represented the best available science and 
indicates that when the CCAs were first established more area was 
closed than is necessary, as evidenced by the California commercial 
passenger fishing vessels (CPFV or California recreational charter) 
data showing one cowcod caught in 20-30 fm in the last 10 years. CDFG 
also supported these changes in its comment letter.
    Response: Because cowcod are significantly depleted and the stock's 
productivity is extremely low, an extremely low incidental harvest rate 
is necessary to achieve rebuilding progress. Tenets of the cowcod 
rebuilding plan are to prohibit harvest in all fisheries and to close 
the primary habitats where cowcod are known to occur. Closure of the 
CCAs in the southern California Bight in 2001 effectively reduced 
harvest to very low levels; a strategy anticipated to work well for 
reducing adult cowcod mortality given their sedentary nature. Using the 
CCA closures to reduce fishing pressure in significant portions of 
known cowcod habitat addresses management uncertainty by reducing the 
likelihood that a management mistake would compromise rebuilding, even 
under data-poor management conditions. The FMP states that as new 
information become available on cowcod behavior and fisheries 
interactions with cowcod, the boundaries or related regulations 
concerning the current CCAs may change, and additional CCAs may be 
established by regulation. Recent submersible surveys have provided 
some information on cowcod distribution and indicate that juvenile 
cowcod occur over a wide range of habitat types, at depths between 28 
and 180 fathoms and typically avoid soft sediment substrate, favoring 
hard substrate such as cobble and boulder fields or rock ridges (Love 
and Yoklavich, 2008). However, Love and Yaklovich (2008) also indicated 
that characterizing nursery habitat is important when evaluating 
survival and recruitment strength of juvenile cowcod and the subsequent 
persistence of local cowcod populations and that careful delineation of 
essential nursery habitats for young cowcod is especially critical when 
considering effective management strategies. There is little data 
currently available to understand fishery interactions and the 
distribution of cowcod as the stock rebuilds.
    While the CDFG analysis indicated that modifying the depth 
restriction in the CCA is not projected to result in increased catch of 
adult cowcod, changes in the encounters of juvenile cowcod are unknown 
(recreational data does not currently report maturity status). The main 
conservation considerations pertain to how the proposed changes to 
depth restrictions will change fishing effort distribution such that 
changes in effort would result in increased encounters with cowcod 
(adult and juvenile) such that there is a risk of exceeding the ACL, or 
rebuilding being delayed (i.e., reproductive potential affected by 
disturbing or losing nursery habitat). The CDFG analysis indicated that 
an increase in the depth restriction from 20 fm to 30 fm or 40 fm may 
not result in a significant increase in bycatch of adult (greater than 
45 cm) cowcod in recreational fishery or appreciably increase the risk 
of the ACL being exceeded. However, NMFS believes that the uncertainty 
with the cowcod stock assessment and the general lack of information on 
fishery interactions warrant precaution. Because limited data are 
available and given the potential disturbance and loss of nursery areas 
that could have long-lasting effects on rebuilding, NMFS believes that 
new information on cowcod behavior and fishery interaction must be 
analyzed and considered in cooperation with the NMFS scientists and SSC 
prior to making changes in the existing CCAs. In addition, NMFS 
believes that the risks to the stock and further management measures to 
improve catch accounting relative to changes in the CCAs must be 
considered. This final rule does not include changes to the No Action 
CCA boundaries or retention allowances.
    Comment 24: NMFS received a comment from a member of the public who 
participates in the limited entry trawl fishery requesting that the 
current regulations prohibiting processing at sea be changed to allow 
the commenter an exemption. This exemption was supported by ODFW in one 
of its comment letters on this action.
    Response: NMFS understands the considerable expense of modifying a 
fishing vessel to process at sea, however, this issue was not 
considered within the EIS for the 2011-2012 management measures. 
Because modification of the regulations could result in changes in 
fishing practices, it is not appropriate to modify the regulations 
without an analysis that specifically considers the effects of allowing 
the expansion of processing at sea. Further, regulations prohibiting 
processing at sea were approved by the Council during its development 
of the Trawl Rationalization program. NMFS suggests that the commenter 
consider submitting a request for consideration by the Council for the 
2013-2014 biennial management cycle.
    Comment 26: There were several inaccuracies in the preamble of the 
proposed rule noted by CDFG and ODFW in their comment letters. They 
pertained to sector allocations in the preamble.
    Response: NMFS has corrected these errors for the final rule.
    Comment 27: NMFS received letters that did not contain statements 
that require a response but instead contained information that provided 
NMFS with more background information regarding the impacts of the 
alternatives considered.
    Response: NMFS considered all the relevant information and comments 
received during the comment period and took that information into 
account when making its final decision.
    Comment 28: NMFS should conduct stock assessments and set stock-
specific catch limits for china, quillback and rougheye rockfish, which 
appear to be subject to overfishing according to recent analyses.
    Response: The selection of species for stock assessment purposes is 
conducted through the Council's planning of the 2013-2014 Harvest 
Specifications. This process will begin at the September 2011 Council 
meeting. Comments regarding species that should have stock assessments 
are most appropriately submitted at that time.
    Comment 29: NMFS received one comment from WDFW in support of NMFS 
decision not to remove dusky and dwarf red rockfish from the FMP at 
this time.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter and has disapproved the 
portion of Amendment 23 that would have removed dusky and dwarf red 
rockfish from the FMP.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
    The November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67850) proposed rule contained 
incorrect amendatory instructions for the proposed changes to the 
harvest specification tables. The biennial harvest specifications, 
including OFLs, ACLs, HGs, allocations etc. are published in 50 CFR 
part 660, subpart C in tables 1a through 2d. Instruction 14a contained 
amendatory instructions

[[Page 27522]]

that described the proposed changes, incorrectly, as ``Tables 1a 
through 1c, subpart C, are proposed to be revised * * *.'' The 
instruction was incorrect and incomplete. This final rule includes all 
eight of the harvest specification tables, including: Table 1a, Table 
1b, Table 1c, Table 1d, Table 2a, Table 2b, Table 2c and Table 2d to 
subpart C. The tables that are revised in this final rule are unchanged 
from the tables that published in the proposed rule, unless otherwise 
noted in the Changes from the Proposed Rule section. This final rule 
also adds Table 1.e., to subpart C, as depicted in the proposed rule.
    In Sec.  660.131 NMFS proposed to revise the term ``end'' and 
replace it with the term ``closed'' as a housekeeping measure. The 
proposed rule contained a mistake in the amendatory language, and 
listed the paragraphs to be revised as Sec.  660.131(b)(4)(ii). The 
paragraph that was intended to be amended is actually Sec.  
660.131(b)(3)(ii). This final rule corrects that mistake in the 
amendatory language and makes the changes that were proposed, but in 
the correct paragraph.
    CDFG informed NMFS that there was a mistake in a Council motion and 
the new boundary line that approximates the 40 fm depth contour inside 
the CCAs (around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank, 
and Cortes Bank) should not have been recommended to NMFS for 
implementation. CDFG requested that the latitude and longitude 
coordinates that were part of the proposed changes at Sec.  660.71 
paragraphs (s) through (v) be removed from the final rule, as they were 
not intended to be used for management of groundfish fisheries that 
occur within the CCA. Therefore, NMFS has removed the proposed 
additions at Sec.  660.71 paragraphs (s) through (v), so that boundary 
lines approximating the 40 fm depth contour around Santa Barbara 
Island, San Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank will not be 
defined in regulations at this time.
    The November 3, 2010 proposed rule included changes for consistency 
with the new annual catch limit (ACL) framework that was added to the 
PCGFMP under Amendment 23. In Sec.  660.140, two paragraphs were 
proposed to be revised to either replace or augment the term ``OY'' 
with the new terminology that has been added to the PCGFMP and in other 
sections of the groundfish regulations. The paragraphs at Sec.  660.140 
were revised in a December 15, 2010 final rule (75 FR 78344) that 
implemented the final program components for the IFQ fishery. This 
final rule modifies the revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1), as they 
appear in the codified regulations, by adding language that is 
consistent with what was in the proposed rule to reflect the new ACL 
and ACT terminology.
    The proposed rule included a 499 mt set-aside deduction from the 
proposed 2011 yellowtail rockfish ACL of 4,364 mt. This resulted in a 
proposed harvest guideline of 3,865 mt for 2011. The Council sent a 
letter to NMFS on December 1, 2010 recommending that NMFS increase the 
set-aside for EFP catch from 2 mt to 10 mt to allow the Oregon 
Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) to prosecute their EFP in 2011. The 
Oregon RFA will be fishing under an EFP to catch underutilized 
yellowtail rockfish while keeping bycatch of overfished species low. A 
2 mt set aside for EFPs in 2011 was initially recommended when the 
Oregon RFA project was anticipated to be concluded before the start of 
2011. However, issuance of the EFP by NMFS later in 2010 than was 
anticipated resulted in a continuation in EFP activities into 2011. 
Therefore, NMFS is increasing the set-aside for yellowtail rockfish 
from 499 mt to 507 mt to allow the Oregon RFA EFP for yellowtail 
rockfish to be prosecuted in 2011. The slightly lower 2011 fishery 
harvest guideline of 3,857 mt for yellowtail rockfish is shown in Table 
1.a and Table 1.b, to subpart C.
    This final rule also refines the fishery harvest guidelines that 
are shown in Table 1a and Table 1b, subpart C, for POP and petrale 
sole. The calculation and deductions from the ACL are unchanged, but 
the fishery harvest guideline is modified to show one decimal place. As 
a result, the fishery harvest guideline in these tables for petrale 
sole is 910.6 mt instead of 911 mt, and the fishery harvest guideline 
for POP is 144.2 mt instead of 144 mt.
    Footnote ``n/'' to Table 1a, subpart C was corrected so that the 
coastwide OFL of 1,802 mt for starry flounder was correctly referenced 
to be for the year 2011 and not for 2010. Changes to footnote ``o/'' to 
Table 1a, subpart C and footnote ``o/'' to Table 2a, subpart C were 
added to clarify that all species within the ``other flatfish'' complex 
are all category 3 stocks and that the 2011 ACL and 2012 ACL are both 
equivalent to the 2010 OY for that species complex. Clarifying text is 
added to footnote ``hh/'' of Table 1a, subpart C to state that the 2011 
ACL is equivalent to the 2010 OY for longnose skate. Edits are also 
made to footnote ``ii/'' of Table 1a, subpart C and to footnote ``ii/'' 
of Table 2a, subpart C, to clarify that the ABC for the ``other fish'' 
complex is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) 
because all of the stocks in the complex are category 3 species. 
Clarifying text is also added to footnote ``ii/'' of Table 1a, subpart 
C and to footnote ``ii/'' of Table 2a, subpart C, to state that 2011 
ACL and 2012 ACL are both equivalent to the 2010 OY for the ``other 
fish'' complex, and that the fishery HG is equal to the ACL. Clarifying 
language is added in footnotes ``b/'' through ``e/'' to Table 1b, 
subpart C, such that the descriptions of the allocations to the three 
sectors of the whiting fisheries are clearly articulated and contain 
cross-references to pertinent shorebased IFQ fishery regulations at 
Sec.  660.140, subpart D.
    Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C, are corrected to specify that 
there is a formal allocation of Pacific whiting to the at-sea whiting 
fishery. References are added to Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C, to 
the pertinent regulations in Table 1b, subpart C and Table 2b, subpart 
C, respectively.
    This rule publishes boundaries for the non-trawl commercial 
fisheries as well as cumulative limits for the limited entry fixed gear 
and opens access fisheries. Table 2 (North) and 2 (South), to subpart E 
and Table 3 (North) and 3 (South), to subpart F in this final rule are 
identical to those tables that published in the proposed rule, except 
for the trip limits for sablefish. Since the trip limits for sablefish 
that were published in the proposed rule were developed, the most 
recent fishery information indicates that changes to sablefish trip 
limits are warranted. On March 1, 2011, NMFS reduced sablefish trip 
limits in the open access fishery coastwide and increased or 
restructured trip limits for sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear 
fishery coastwide, through the remainder of the year. This action was 
consistent with the Council's recommendations from its November 2010 
meeting, and was based on the most recently available fishery 
information. At its March 2011 meeting, the Council considered the most 
recent fishery information and recommended a reduction in the bi-
monthly cumulative limits for sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear 
fishery in the area north of 36[deg] N. latitude. The recommended 
reduction was in response to an error in the calculation of sablefish 
landings discovered over the winter. The error affected the landings 
estimates that the Council has been using for establishing the 
cumulative limits in the limited entry sablefish daily trip limit 
fishery. This resulted in cumulative limits in this fishery that were 
too high, because catch of sablefish was being underestimated. 
Therefore, NMFS is reducing the bi-monthly cumulative limits for 
sablefish in the limited entry

[[Page 27523]]

fixed gear fishery in the area north of 36[deg] N. latitude. in this 
rule.
    There are many instances throughout 50 CFR part 660, subparts C 
through G where the tables in the regulations at 50 CFR part 660, 
subpart C that contain the biennial harvest specifications are referred 
to as ``tables 1a through 2d''. Generally, Tables 1a through 1d, 
subpart C, would contain harvest specifications for the first year of 
the biennium. In this case, those tables would contain the 2011 harvest 
specifications. Generally, Table 2a through 2d, subpart C, would 
contain the harvest specifications for the second year of the biennium 
and beyond. In this case those tables would contain the 2012 and beyond 
harvest specifications. Two of the harvest specification tables that 
published in the proposed rule collapsed each year's harvest 
specifications into a single table. By doing this, it left no content 
for the 2012 tables, at Table 2c and 2d, to subpart C. This created an 
inconsistency with the cross-references that are systemic throughout 
the groundfish regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G. To 
maintain the integrity of the cross-references, and to maintain the 
split of annual harvest specifications into two sets of tables (one set 
for the first year of the biennium, and one set for the second year of 
the biennium, and beyond) this final rule removes the 2012 harvest 
specifications from Table 1c and Table 1d, subpart C, and re-publishes 
those 2012 harvest specifications, unchanged, in Tables 2c and 2d, 
subpart C.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, this final rule 
does not implement a single value for harvest specifications for 
Pacific whiting, but describes a range of harvest levels that were 
considered for 2011 and 2012. In Tables 1a and 1b, and Tables 2a and 
2b, subpart C, the proposed rule announced Pacific whiting harvest 
specifications as ``TBA'' or ``to be announced''. To clarify that the 
range of harvest specifications is what are implemented in this final 
rule, ``TBA'' has been removed from these tables and has been replaced 
with a reference to the range of harvest specifications.
    In the preamble of the proposed rule, NMFS described how two 
options for the trawl RCA and trawl trip limits were proposed. One 
option was proposed in the event that rationalization was delayed and 
the fishery was managed with trip limits (proposed Table 1a (North) and 
Table 1a (South) to subpart D). The other option was proposed for the 
rationalized fishery (proposed Table 1b (North) and Table 1b (South) to 
subpart D). Due to the delay in final implementation of the biennial 
specifications and management measures, the tables that included the 
RCA boundaries and trip limits during 2010 would remain in place until 
superseded. So, on December 30, 2010 Table 1b (North) and Table 1b 
(South) to subpart D from the proposed rule were redesignated as Table 
1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart D and were implemented in an 
emergency rule. NMFS implemented these tables (Table 1b (North) and 
Table 1b (South) to subpart D from the proposed rule) so that fishing 
in the rationalized groundfish fishery could begin in January 2011 
under appropriate RCA structures and with appropriate landing 
allowances for non-IFQ species that are set forth in those tables. This 
final rule supersedes the tables set forth in that December 30, 2010 
emergency rule with very similar tables, which will be in effect for 
2011 and beyond (see Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart D).
    This rule publishes Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart 
D, which has identical trawl RCA boundaries and landing allowances for 
non-IFQ species as Table 1b (North) and Table 1b (South) to subpart D 
that published in the proposed rule. However, a grammatical correction 
is made to the introductory text of each table to clarify that these 
tables describe the RCA boundaries that apply to vessels that are using 
groundfish trawl gear. A further clarification is also made to both 
tables by adding language to the introductory text to cite regulations 
regarding gear switching and which RCA applies to vessels operating 
under gear switching provisions at Sec.  660.140, subpart D. Technical 
corrections to the numbering of footnotes to these tables are also 
made.
    Related to the redesignation of Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) 
to subpart D, regulatory text at Sec.  660.60(g) and (h)(1) do not need 
to be revised as proposed. This is because the current regulatory text 
correctly references Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) to subpart D. 
This rule keeps those tables with their current designations, and 
therefore the proposed changes to cross-references at Sec.  660.60(g) 
and (h)(1) are no longer necessary.
    The Tribal sablefish allocations for the area north of 36[deg] N. 
latitude. that were proposed for 2011 and 2012 were 552 mt and 535 mt 
per year, respectively (Sec.  660.50(f)(2)(ii)). These were calculated 
by taking 10 percent of the ACL, for 2011 and 2012, respectively, for 
the area North of 36[deg] N. latitude. and then reducing that amount by 
1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality. The December 30, 2010 
emergency rule (75 FR 82296) implemented an interim sablefish Tribal 
allocation of 543 mt. That amount was calculated by taking 10 percent 
of the 2011 ACL for the area North of 36[deg] N. latitude. and then 
reducing that amount by 1.6 percent for estimated discard mortality. 
The 1.6 percent was the amount deducted for discard mortality in 
regulations for 2010, and therefore that is what was used in the 
emergency rule. This final rule implements the Tribal allocations that 
were announced in the November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67850) proposed rule, and 
were calculated using the proposed 1.5 percent deduction for discard 
mortality. This final rule also makes a grammatical correction by 
adding the acronym ``ACL'' in the description that was in the proposed 
rule. This grammatical correction is needed so that the allocation is 
correctly described as 10 percent of the Monterey through Vancouver 
area ACL.
    The proposed changes to Sec.  660.140(c)(1) removed the term 
``OYs'' and replaced it with ``ACLs or ACTs'' and made additional 
clarifying changes to surrounding text. The proposed clarifications to 
surrounding text were confusing. Therefore, the final rule simply 
removes the term ``OYs'' and replaces it with ``ACLs or ACTs'' with no 
further changes to the existing regulatory text at Sec.  660.140(c)(1).
    The December 30, 2010 emergency rule (75 FR 82296) implemented 
interim changes to Sec. Sec.  660.60 and 660.130 to remove obsolete 
language about trip limits in the trawl fishery because that emergency 
rule removed trip limits for IFQ species. This final rule makes the 
removal of trip limits for IFQ species permanent, consistent with the 
proposed rule (see above regarding Table 1 (North) and Table 1 
(South)). This final rule makes additional regulatory changes to what 
was in the proposed rule, which are a natural extension of the removal 
of trip limits in the proposed rule. This final rule keeps the obsolete 
language out of the regulations at Sec. Sec.  660.60 and 660.130, 
consistent with the emergency rule. NMFS acknowledges that some 
obsolete language regarding trip limits, crossover provisions, and 
varying trip limits based on the gear type that is used will remain in 
regulations. NMFS intends to issue a follow-up rulemaking that will 
remove or revise outdated language.
    The December 30, 2010 emergency rule (75 FR 82296) implemented 
interim shorebased trawl allocations for the start of the 2011 trawl 
fishery at Sec.  660.140. The interim allocations allowed quota pounds 
for IFQ species to be available at the start of the 2011 fishery, but

[[Page 27524]]

before the final 2011 harvest specifications were implemented. This 
final rule adds new regulations, from what was in the proposed rule. 
The new regulations implement the allocation structure that is 
articulated in Sec.  660.55 and are, therefore, a natural extension of 
the trawl allocations that published in the proposed rule. This final 
rule updates the initial shorebased trawl allocations that published in 
the emergency rule, with the final 2011 shorebased trawl allocations. 
The final shorebased trawl allocations are increasing for the following 
species: sablefish south of 36[deg] N. latitude.; splitnose rockfish 
south of 40[deg]10' N. latitude.; Dover sole; english sole; arrowtooth 
flounder; starry flounder; petrale sole; cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N. 
latitude.; yelloweye rockfish; POP and widow rockfish. Specifically, 
the yelloweye rockfish shorebased trawl allocation is increasing from 
0.3 mt to 0.6 mt consistent with the Council's recommendations 
associated with a 17 mt harvest level, and the cowcod shorebased trawl 
allocation is increasing from 1.3 mt to 1.8 mt consistent with the 
Council's recommendations regarding the trawl and non-trawl allocations 
for cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N. latitude.
    This final rule publishes 2011 harvest specifications for 
overfished groundfish species in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c and 1e that are 
identical to the proposed harvest specifications for all of the 
groundfish species except cowcod and yelloweye rockfish. Therefore, the 
cowcod and yelloweye rockfish ACLs in Table 1a to subpart C are lower 
in this final rule than those from the proposed rule. Footnotes z/for 
cowcod and bb/for yelloweye rockfish to Table 1a and have also been 
modified for consistency with the changes in Table 1a. Also, the cowcod 
fishery HG in Table 1b has been modified for consistency with the 
changes in Table 1a.
    NMFS is implementing changes to the overfished species rebuilding 
plans. However, final 2012 ACLs, ACTs, and fishery HGs in for the 
overfished species will be contingent upon potential changes to the FMP 
with regard to the rebuilding plans for the overfished species. 
Therefore, the proposed 2012 harvest specifications for overfished 
species are not implemented in this final rule. ACLs, ACTs and fishery 
HGs for overfished species, in Table 2a and Table 2b, subpart C, are 
equal to the 2011 values.
    NMFS is implementing changes to the status determination criteria 
and harvest control rules for flatfish. However, final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, 
ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs, for flatfish species will be contingent 
upon potential changes to the FMP with regard to status determination 
criteria and harvest control rules for flatfish. Therefore, the 
proposed 2012 harvest specifications for flatfish are not implemented 
in this final rule. Assessed flatfish, OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and 
fishery HGs, in Table 2a and Table 2b, subpart C, are equal to the 2011 
values.
    NMFS is disapproving the Council-recommended changes to depth 
restrictions and groundfish retention regulations for vessels fishing 
within the CCAs. Therefore, this final rule does not implement the 
proposed changes to recreational fishing restrictions that modified the 
depth restrictions within the CCAs or that allowed retention of shelf 
rockfish within the fishing areas that are open in the CCAs. 
Regulations at Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)(5) and (c)(3)(i)(B) keep the 
depth restrictions and species retention regulations within the CCAs 
for the California recreational fishery the same as those that were in 
place in 2009 and 2010: Fishing for minor nearshore rockfish, cabezon, 
kelp greenling, lingcod, California scorpionfish and ``other flatfish'' 
is permitted within the CCAs, shoreward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth 
contour when the season for those species is open south of 34[deg]27' 
N. latitude. Also, as part of NMFS' disapproval of changes to the depth 
restrictions for vessels fishing within the CCAs, the latitude and 
longitude points that were proposed to define the 30 fm depth contour 
inside the CCAs (around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, 
Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank) are not included in this final rule. 
Therefore, NMFS has removed the proposed additions at Sec.  660.71, 
paragraphs (k) through (n), so that boundary lines approximating the 30 
fm depth contour around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, 
Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank will not be defined in regulations at this 
time.
    NMFS is disapproving the Council's recommendation to remove dusky 
rockfish (Sebastes ciliatus) and dwarf-red rockfish (Sebastes rufianus) 
from the FMP as discussed above in the response to Comment 29. As a 
result of this disapproval, this final rule does not implement the 
proposed changes to the definition of ``Groundfish'' in paragraphs (7), 
(7)(ii)(A) and (7)(ii)(B) to Sec.  660.11, subpart C.

Classification

    The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, determined that FMP 
Amendment 23 and the 2011 groundfish harvest specifications and 
management measures, which this final rule implements, are necessary 
for the conservation and management of the pacific coast groundfish 
fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
    As described in the preamble to the December 30, 2010 emergency 
rule and as discussed above in Background, there was not adequate time, 
given the complexity of the rulemaking and associated documentation and 
other work, to have this final rule effective by January 1, 2011. 
Therefore, most of the 2010 specifications and management measures 
remained in place for the January-April cumulative limit periods, 
except that an emergency rule made interim changes to allow the start 
of the rationalized trawl fishery and routine adjustments to fishery 
management measures, within the scope of the 2009-2010 regulations, 
were made. At the time NMFS anticipated that this final rule would 
implement the 2011-2012 biennial specifications and management measures 
beginning on April 29, 2011. NMFS is under court order to establish 
rebuilding plans by April 29, 2011 for the overfished species. The 
2011-2012 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures are 
intended to rebuild overfished stocks as quickly as possible, taking 
into account the appropriate factors. NMFS utilizes the most recently 
available fishery information, scientific information, and stock 
assessments, to implement specifications and management measures 
biennially. Generally these management measures are implemented on 
January 1 of odd numbered years. The 2011-2012 specifications and 
management measures were developed using the most recently available 
information and therefore reflect the current status of the stock being 
managed.
    NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become 
effective on May 11, 2011. Leaving the 2010 harvest specifications and 
management measures in place could cause harm to some stocks because 
those management measures are not based on the most current scientific 
information, or they could cause drastic management changes later in 
the year to prevent exceeding some lower 2011 harvest specifications 
once they are implemented. For example, the cowcod rockfish ACL is 
lower in 2011 than it was in 2010 and is taken in commercial and 
recreational fisheries north of Cape Mendocino, California. Therefore, 
if higher than anticipated catch of cowcod occurs, changes to 
management

[[Page 27525]]

measures that could reduce incidental catch of cowcod could be delayed 
because of the higher harvest level that is in place. This could 
increase the risk of exceeding the lower 2011 ACL or causing more 
severe closures later in the year for fisheries that take cowcod 
incidentally. Also, for some species, leaving 2010 harvest 
specifications in place could unnecessarily delay fishing opportunities 
until later in the year, as this final rule will increase the catch 
limits for several species for 2011. Thus, a delay in effectiveness 
could ultimately cause economic harm to the fishing industry and 
associated fishing communities. These reasons constitute good cause 
under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to establish an 
effective date less than 30 days after date of publication.
    NMFS prepared a final environmental impact statement for Amendments 
16-5 and 23 and the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management 
measures. A notice of availability was published on March 11, 2011 (76 
FR 13401). FMP amendment 23 was approved on December 23, 2010. NMFS 
issued a ROD identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the ROD is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The 
FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised 
by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to 
those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the 
action. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a 
summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), follows: 
Amendment 23 and the biennial harvest specifications and management 
measures are intended to respond to court orders in NRDC v. Locke and 
to implement a groundfish management scheme for the 2011-2012 
groundfish fisheries. During the comment period on the proposed rule, 
NMFS received 35 letters of comment, but none of the comments received 
addressed the IRFA, although one letter directly or indirectly 
addressed the economic effects of the rule, as discussed above in the 
response to Comment 10, Comment 12 Comment 15 and Comment 17. The FRFA 
compares all the alternatives by discussing the impacts of each 
alternative on commercial vessels, buyers and processors, recreational 
charter vessels, seafood consumers, recreational anglers, non-
consumptive users, non-users, and enforcement. Based on analyses 
discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS, the following summary is based on 
the Council's RIR/IRFA with the focus on the NMFS preferred alternative 
that will be implemented by this action. In terms of expected harvests, 
ex-vessel values, and recreational trips, there are no differences 
between the Council's FPA and the NMFS preferred alternative, relative 
to the IRFA/FRFA.
    The overall economic impact of NMFS' preferred alternative is that 
many sectors are expected to achieve social and economic benefits 
similar to those under the current regulations, or the No Action 
alternative. The combined total ex-vessel revenues associated with the 
NMFS preferred alternative including at sea whiting is $90 million, 
compared with the No-Action level of $82 million. On a coastwide basis, 
excluding at-sea whiting, commercial ex-vessel revenues for the non-
Tribal and Tribal groundfish sectors are estimated to be approximately 
$70 million per year under NMFS' preferred alternative compared with 
approximately $68 million under No Action, and the number of 
recreational bottom fish trips is estimated to be 646 thousand under 
NMFS' preferred alternative compared with 609 thousand under No Action. 
However, there are differences in the distribution of ex-vessel revenue 
and angler trips on a regional basis and on a sector-by-sector basis. 
These changes are driven by changes in the forecast abundance for 
target species and overfished species. The major changes to major 
commercial species target species are associated with Pacific whiting, 
Dover Sole, petrale sole and sablefish. Compared to the No-Action 
Alternative, Pacific whiting harvests are expected to increase by 50 
percent and Dover sole by 25 percent while sablefish harvests are 
expected to decrease by 10 percent and petrale sole harvests by 23 
percent. With the exception of the Pacific whiting and nearshore open 
access sectors, all other non-Tribal commercial fisheries sectors are 
expected to achieve lower levels of ex-vessel revenues than under No 
Action. The limited entry fixed gear sector shows the greatest 
projected decline (-10 percent) in revenue as a result of the sablefish 
ACL decrease. The Pacific whiting fishery at-sea sector (including 
Tribal) revenues are expected to increase by 51 percent and the 
shoreside whiting trawl (excluding Tribal) revenues are expected to 
increase by 33 percent. Ex-vessel revenues in both the non-whiting 
trawl (excluding Tribal) and the Tribal shoreside fisheries (trawl and 
fixed, including whiting) are both expected to decrease by about 2 
percent.
    A variety of time/area closures applicable to commercial vessels 
have been implemented in recent years. The most extensive of these are 
the RCAs, which have been in place since 2002 to prohibit vessels from 
fishing in depths where overfished groundfish species are more 
abundant. Different RCA configurations apply to the limited entry trawl 
sector and the limited entry fixed gear and open access sectors. In 
addition, the depth ranges covered can vary by latitudinal zone and 
time period. The alternatives vary somewhat in terms of the extent of 
RCAs. In addition to the RCAs, two CCAs have been in place since 1999 
in the Southern California Bight to reduce bycatch of the overfished 
cowcod stock and yelloweye conservation areas have been established off 
the Washington Coast to reduce bycatch of the overfished yelloweye 
rockfish stock. The NMFS preferred alternative for the limited entry 
non-whiting trawl fleet generates slightly lower ex-vessel revenue on a 
coastwide basis when compared to revenues under the current regulations 
or No Action alternative. This is primarily driven by a decrease in the 
abundance of sablefish and petrale sole as opposed to changes in status 
of constraining species. Area-based management for the limited entry 
non-whiting trawl fleet under the NMFS preferred alternative will be 
comparable to what was in place in 2009 and 2010--the area north of 
Cape Alava, Washington and shoreward of the trawl RCA will remain 
closed in order to protect overfished rockfish species. Given the 
decreased amount of fishable area in northern Washington since 2009, 
higher costs for fishery participants from increases in fuel required 
to travel to and fish at those deeper depths would remain.
    The fixed gear sablefish sector will generate lower revenue under 
NMFS' preferred alternative than No Action because the sablefish ACL 
has decreased. However, the fixed gear fleet will have somewhat more 
area available than under No Action, because fishing will be open at 
depths deeper than 100 fm (183 m) north of 40[deg]10' north latitude 
whereas under No Action, depths between 100 fm (183 m) and 125 fm (229 
m) were only open on days when the Pacific halibut fishery was open. 
Fixed gear fisheries south of 36[deg] north latitude will see sablefish 
harvest close to status quo levels. There are no recommended changes to 
area management relative to status quo.
    Under NMFS' preferred alternative, the nearshore groundfish fishery 
is

[[Page 27526]]

expected to have a moderate increase in ex-vessel revenues compared 
with No Action due to increased targeting opportunities for black 
rockfish (between 42[deg] north latitude and 40[deg]10' north latitude) 
and cabezon south (south of 42[deg] north latitude). Fishing areas open 
to the nearshore fleets will be roughly the same as under No Action. 
Fishing opportunity and economic impacts to the nearshore groundfish 
sector are largely driven by the need to protect canary and especially 
yelloweye rockfish.
    Excluding whiting, the NMFS preferred alternative is projected to 
provide the west coast economy with slightly lower ex-vessel revenues 
than was generated by the fishery under No Action--a 3 percent 
decrease. However, effects on buyers and processors along the coast 
will vary depending on location. In addition, NMFS' preferred 
alternative attempts to take into account the desire expressed by 
buyers and processors to have a year round groundfish fishery. 
Individual quota management for trawl fisheries should help accommodate 
this preference; however in practice in the absence of trip limits it 
is somewhat uncertain how trawl landings will be distributed in time 
and space.
    In terms of recreational angler effort, the number of angler trips 
under NMFS preferred alternative is slightly higher compared to No 
Action, but somewhat less than in 2009. However, an increase in angler 
effort under NMFS preferred alternative is occurring primarily in south 
and central California, while northern Washington shows a slight 
increase and Oregon shows no change compared with No Action. It is 
expected that under the proposed 2011-2012 management measures, Tribal 
groundfish fisheries will generate less revenue and personal income 
than under No Action due to a reduction in sablefish harvest.
    The 2011-2012 period will be the first groundfish management cycle 
in which the shoreside trawl sector fisheries would be conducted under 
the Amendment 20 trawl rationalization program, including issuance and 
tracking of individual fishing quotas (IFQ) for most trawl-caught 
groundfish species. IFQ management is designed to provide opportunities 
for fisherman and processors to maximize the value of their fishery by 
creating incentives to make the optimum use of available target and 
bycatch species. Since all trawl trips will be observed, catch of 
constraining overfished species will be monitored in real time, and 
individuals will be held directly responsible for ``covering'' all 
catch of groundfish species with IFQ. Since IFQ for constraining, 
overfished species represents a real cost in terms of money and/or 
fishing opportunity, it is expected that fishers will take 
extraordinary steps to avoid unnecessary catch of these species. At the 
same time there is uncertainty about how individuals will be able to 
manage the individual risk inherent in a system based on personal 
responsibility. This issue may present a considerable challenge, 
especially to small businesses that have access to only a single 
limited entry trawl permit. Exhausting all readily available supplies 
of IFQ for a particularly constraining species, such as yelloweye, may 
result in the business being effectively shut down for the remainder of 
the season. Partly for this reason it is expected that over time the 
number of vessels and permits engaging in the limited entry trawl 
fishery will decline as fishers strive to consolidate available IFQ 
onto a smaller number of vessels in order to reduce the costs of 
harvesting the quotas. A smaller number of active vessels will mean 
reductions in the number of crew hired and in expenditures made in 
local ports for materials, equipment, supplies and vessel maintenance. 
As such, while wages and profits for those crew and vessel owners that 
do remain in the fishery should increase, the amount and distribution 
of ex-vessel revenues and community income will change in ways that are 
not yet foreseeable, but probably to the detriment of some businesses 
and communities currently involved in the groundfish trawl fishery. Due 
to these types of countervailing uncertainties, impacts on trawl 
fisheries under the 2011-2012 management measures used in this analysis 
were estimated using a model designed to project overfished species 
bycatch levels under a status quo cumulative trip limit management 
regime. Likewise, the model used to estimate community income impacts 
was calibrated based on recently estimated spending patterns for 
regional vessels and processors. While providing a useful starting 
point for comparing gross-level effects under the alternatives, the 
true range of economic impacts achievable under the rationalized, IFQ-
managed fishery may reflect a considerable departure from these 
estimates.
    The FRFA analysis includes a discussion of small businesses. This 
final rule will regulate businesses that harvest groundfish. According 
to the Small Business Administration, a small commercial harvesting 
business is one that has annual receipts under $4.0 million and a small 
charter boat business is one that has annual receipts under $7 million. 
The FRFA estimates that implementation of NMFS preferred alternative 
will affect about 2,600 small entities. These small entities are those 
that are directly regulated by this final rule that is being 
promulgated to support implementation of NMFS preferred alternative. 
These entities are associated with those vessels that either target 
groundfish or harvest groundfish as bycatch. Consequently, these are 
the vessels, other than catcher-processors, that participate in the 
limited entry portion of the fishery, the open access fishery, the 
charter boat fleet, and the Tribal fleets. Catcher/processors also 
operate in the Alaska pollock fishery, and all are associated with 
larger companies such as Trident and American Seafoods. Therefore, it 
is assumed that all catcher/processors are ``large'' entities. Best 
estimates of the limited entry groundfish fleet are taken from the NMFS 
Limited Entry Permits Office. As of June 2010, there are 399 limited 
entry permits including 177 endorsed for trawl (172 trawl only, 4 trawl 
and longline, and 1 trawl and trap-pot); 199 endorsed for longline (191 
longline only, 4 longline and trap-pot, and 4 trawl and longline); 32 
endorsed for trap-pot (27 trap-pot only, 4 longline and trap-pot, and 1 
trawl and trap-pot). Of the longline and trap-pot permits, 164 are 
sablefish endorsed. Of these endorsements 130 are ``stacked'' (e.g. 
more than one permit registered to a single vessel) on 50 vessels. Ten 
of the limited entry trawl endorsed permits are used or owned by 
catcher/processor companies associated with the whiting fishery. The 
remaining 389 entities are assumed to be small businesses based on a 
review of sector revenues and average revenues per entity. The open 
access or nearshore fleet, depending on the year and level of 
participation, is estimated to be about 1,300 to 1,600 vessels. Again, 
these are assumed to be ``small entities.'' The Tribal fleet includes 
about 53 vessels, and the charter boat fleet includes 525 vessels that 
are also assumed to be ``small entities.''
    NMFS preferred alternative represents efforts to address the 
directions provided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which 
emphasizes the need to rebuild stocks in as short a time as possible, 
taking into account: (1) The status and biology of the stocks, (2) the 
needs of fishing communities, and (3) interactions of depleted stocks 
within the marine ecosystem. By taking into account the ``needs of 
fishing communities'' NMFS was also simultaneously taking into account 
the

[[Page 27527]]

``needs of small businesses'' as fishing communities rely on small 
businesses as a source of economic activity and income. Therefore, it 
may be useful to review whether the Council's three-meeting process for 
selecting the FPA can be seen as means of trying to mitigate impacts of 
the proposed rule on small entities. The FEIS and RIR/IRFA include 
analysis of a range of alternatives that were considered by the 
Council, including analysis of the effects of setting allowable harvest 
levels necessary to rebuild the seven groundfish species that were 
previously declared overfished. An eighth species, petrale sole, was 
declared overfished in 2010 and the final action includes a new 
rebuilding plan for this species along with the ACLs and management 
measures consistent with the adopted rebuilding plan. Associated 
rebuilding analyses for all eight species estimate the time to rebuild 
under various levels of harvest.
    The Council initially considered a wider range of alternatives, but 
ultimately rejected from further analysis alternatives allowing harvest 
levels higher than what is generally consistent with current policies 
for rebuilding overfished stocks and a ``no fishing'' scenario (F=0). 
Section 2.4 of the FEIS describes six integrated alternatives including 
No Action, the Council's FPA, the NMFS preferred alternative, and three 
other alternatives (including the Council's Preliminary Preferred 
Alternative, which is similar to the Council's FPA). NMFS finds that 
the F=0 and Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2, while resulting in shorter 
rebuilding times for most of the overfished species, lead to projected 
major decreases in commercial revenues and recreational activity. 
Allowing too many communities to suffer commercial or recreational 
losses greater than 10 percent fails to take into account the needs of 
fishing communities. Alternative 3, the Council FPA, and NMFS preferred 
alternative all reduce the impacts to communities to less than 10 
percent, but they differ in their impacts on rebuilding times. 
Alternative 3 reduces rebuilding times from status quo for many of the 
overfished species, but does not reduce the rebuilding time for 
yelloweye rockfish, and results in only minor reductions for cowcod and 
darkblotched and rockfish. The Council's FPA improves upon Alternative 
3 by reducing the rebuilding time for darkblotched rockfish by two 
years while maintaining Alternative 3's small positive increases in 
commercial revenues and recreational activity. The NMFS preferred 
alternative improves over the Council FPA by further reducing the 
rebuilding times of cowcod and yelloweye by three years and ten years, 
respectively. Comparison of the action alternatives with the No Action 
alternative allows an evaluation of the economic implications to 
groundfish sectors, ports, and fishing communities; and the interaction 
of depleted species within the marine ecosystem of reducing ACLs for 
overfished species to rebuild stocks faster than they would under the 
rebuilding strategies that NMFS adopted and has modified consistent 
with new, scientific information on the status and biology of these 
stocks.
    Alternative 2011-2012 groundfish management measures are designed 
to provide opportunities to harvest healthy, target species within the 
constraints of alternative ACLs for overfished species. The integrated 
alternatives allow estimation of target species catch under the suite 
of ACLs for overfished species both to demonstrate if target species 
ACLs are projected to be exceeded and to estimate related socioeconomic 
impacts.
    The Council reviewed these analyses and read and heard testimony 
from Council advisors, fishing industry representatives, 
representatives from non-governmental organizations, and the general 
public before deciding the Council's FPA in June 2010. The Council's 
final preferred management measures are intended to stay within all the 
final recommended harvest levels for groundfish species decided by the 
Council at their April and June 2010 meetings. NMFS reviewed these 
analyses, read and heard testimony from Council advisors, fishing 
industry representatives, representatives from non-governmental 
organizations, the general public, and considered legal obligations to 
comply with a court order (NRDC v. Locke) before deciding NMFS' 
preferred alternative in February 2011. The NMFS preferred management 
measures are intended to stay within all the final recommended harvest 
levels for groundfish species that were part of the NMFS preferred 
alternative.
    There are no additional projected reporting, record-keeping, and 
other compliance requirements of this rule not already envisioned 
within the scope of current requirements. References to collections-of-
information made in this action are intended to properly cite those 
collections in Federal regulations, and not to alter their effect in 
any way.
    No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this action.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects 
of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget 
Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia 
River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento 
River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon 
(Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California 
coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye 
salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and 
lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, 
central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central 
California, northern California, southern California). These biological 
opinions concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast 
groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species under the 
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 
2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the 
groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999, Biological 
Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the 
Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the 
11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering 
reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish 
Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an 
analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.
    NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 
2006, which addressed salmon take in both the Pacific whiting midwater 
trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental 
Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 
2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered 
during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 
fish over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the 
reinitiation trigger of 11,000 fish.
    Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450 fish. 
The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the whiting fishery have 
generally improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation. 
Although these

[[Page 27528]]

species remain at risk, as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS 
concluded that the higher observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a 
reconsideration of its prior ``no jeopardy'' conclusion with respect to 
the fishery. For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded 
that incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall 
limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 
Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion 
was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data 
to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination 
that implementation of the Groundfish FMP is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
    Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) were 
recently listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) 
were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological 
opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting 
fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch 
of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
    The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon 
was listed as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006). 
The southern DPS of Pacific eulachon was listed as threatened on March 
18, 2010, under the ESA (75 FR 13012). NMFS has reinitiated 
consultation on the fishery, including impacts on green sturgeon, 
eulachon, marine mammals, and turtles. After reviewing the available 
information, NMFS has concluded that, consistent with Sections 7(a)(2) 
and 7(d) of the ESA, the action would not jeopardize any listed 
species, would not adversely modify any designated critical habitat, 
and would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 
resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or 
implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed 
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials 
from the area covered by the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 
U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In 
addition, regulations implementing the FMP establish a procedure by 
which the Tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the 
FMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the Tribes, in 
writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council 
considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 
660.50(d)(2) further state ``the Secretary will develop Tribal 
allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with 
the affected Tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with Tribal 
consensus.'' The Tribal management measures in this final rule have 
been developed following these procedures.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian Fisheries.

    Dated: April 28, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 
16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

Subpart C--West Coast Groundfish Fisheries

0
2. In Sec.  660.11,
0
a. Add definitions of ``Acceptable Biological Catch'', ``Annual Catch 
Limit'', ``Annual Catch Target'', and ``Overfishing limit'' in 
alphabetical order.
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Fishery harvest guideline''.
0
c. In the definition for ``Groundfish'', revise paragraph (9).
0
d. In the definition of ``North-South management area'' redesignate 
paragraphs (2)(xvii) through (xxii) as (2)(xviii) through (xxiii).
0
e. In the definition of ``North-South management area'', add paragraph 
(2)(xvii).


Sec.  660.11  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) means a harvest specification 
that is set below the overfishing limit to account for scientific 
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL, and other scientific uncertainty.
* * * * *
    Annual Catch Limit (ACL) is a harvest specification set equal to or 
below the ABC threshold in consideration of conservation objectives, 
socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty and other factors. The 
ACL is a harvest limit that includes all sources of fishing-related 
mortality including landings, discard mortality, research catches, and 
catches in exempted fishing permit activities. Sector-specific annual 
catch limits can be specified, especially in cases where a sector has a 
formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of a stock or 
stock complex.
    Annual Catch Target (ACT) is a management target set below the 
annual catch limit and may be used as an accountability measure in 
cases where there is great uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring to 
ensure against exceeding an annual catch limit. Since the annual catch 
target is a target and not a limit it can be used in lieu of harvest 
guidelines or strategically to accomplish other management objectives. 
Sector-specific annual catch targets can also be specified to 
accomplish management objectives.
* * * * *
    Fishery harvest guideline means the harvest guideline or quota 
after subtracting from the ACL or ACT when specified, any allocation 
for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian Tribes, projected research catch, 
deductions for fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as 
necessary, and set-asides for EFPs.
* * * * *
    Groundfish * * *
    (9) ``Other fish'': Where regulations of subparts C through G of 
this part refer to landings limits for ``other fish,'' those limits 
apply to all groundfish listed here in paragraphs (1) through (8) of 
this definition except for the following: Those groundfish species 
specifically listed in Tables 1a and 2a of this subpart with an OFL for 
that area (generally north and/or south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.); spiny 
dogfish coastwide. ``Other fish'' may include all sharks (except spiny 
dogfish), skates (except longnose skate), ratfish, morids, grenadiers, 
and kelp greenling listed in this section, as well as cabezon in waters 
off Washington.
* * * * *
    North-South management area * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xvii) Cape Vizcaino, CA--39[deg]44.00[min] N. lat.
* * * * *
    Overfishing limit (OFL) is the MSY harvest level or the annual 
abundance of exploitable biomass of a stock or stock complex multiplied 
by the maximum fishing mortality threshold or proxy thereof and is an 
estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  660.12 revise paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.12  General groundfish prohibitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 27529]]

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

0
4. In Sec.  660.30, paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(6) are revised to 
read as follows:


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

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

0
5. Revise Sec.  660.40 to read as follows:


Sec.  660.40  Overfished species rebuilding plans.

    For each overfished groundfish stock with an approved rebuilding 
plan, this section contains the standards to be used to establish 
annual or biennial ACLs, specifically the target date for rebuilding 
the stock to its MSY level and the harvest control rule to be used to 
rebuild the stock. The harvest control rule is expressed as a 
``Spawning Potential Ratio'' or ``SPR'' harvest rate.
    (a) Bocaccio. The target year for rebuilding the bocaccio stock 
south of 40[deg]10' N. latitude to BMSY is 2022. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the southern bocaccio stock is an 
annual SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent.
    (b) Canary rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the canary 
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2027. The harvest control rule to 
be used to rebuild the canary rockfish stock is an annual SPR harvest 
rate of 88.7 percent.
    (c) Cowcod. The target year for rebuilding the cowcod stock south 
of 40[deg]10' N. latitude to BMSY is 2068. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual SPR 
harvest rate of 82.7 percent.
    (d) Darkblotched rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the 
darkblotched rockfish stock to BMSY is 2025. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the darkblotched rockfish stock is 
an annual SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent.
    (e) Pacific Ocean Perch (POP). The target year for rebuilding the 
POP stock to BMSY is 2020. The harvest control rule to be 
used to rebuild the POP stock is an annual SPR harvest rate of 86.4 
percent.
    (f) Petrale Sole. The target year for rebuilding the petrale sole 
stock to BMSY is 2016. The harvest control rule is to set 
the ACL equal to the ABC, which corresponds to an annual SPR harvest 
rate of 31 percent in 2011.
    (g) Widow rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the widow 
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2010. The harvest control rule is 
a constant catch of 600 mt, which corresponds to an annual SPR harvest 
rate of 91.7 percent in 2011.
    (h) Yelloweye rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the 
yelloweye rockfish stock to BMSY is 2074. The harvest control rule to 
be used to rebuild the yelloweye rockfish stock is an annual SPR 
harvest rate of 76.0 percent.


0
6. In Sec.  660.50, paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii), (f)(4), (g)(2), and 
(g)(7) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.50  Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

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

0
7. In Sec.  660.55, paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, (f)(1)(ii), 
and (k) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.55  Allocations.

* * * * *
    (a) General. An allocation is the apportionment of a harvest 
privilege for a specific purpose, to a particular person, group of 
persons, or fishery sector. The opportunity to harvest Pacific Coast 
groundfish is allocated among participants in the fishery when the ACLs 
for a given year are established in the biennial harvest 
specifications. For any stock that has been declared overfished, any 
formal allocation may be temporarily revised for the duration of the 
rebuilding period. For certain species, primarily trawl-dominant 
species, beginning with the 2011-2012 biennial specifications process, 
separate allocations for the trawl and nontrawl

[[Page 27530]]

fishery (which for this purpose includes limited entry fixed gear, 
directed open access, and recreational fisheries) will be established 
biennially or annually using the standards and procedures described in 
Chapter 6 of the PCGFMP. Chapter 6 of the PCGFMP provides the 
allocation structure and percentages for species allocated between the 
trawl and nontrawl fisheries. Also, separate allocations for the 
limited entry and open access fisheries may be established using the 
procedures described in Chapters 6 and 11 of the PCGFMP and this 
subpart. Allocation of sablefish north of 36[deg] N. lat. is described 
in paragraph (h) of this section and in the PCGFMP. Allocation of 
Pacific whiting is described in paragraph (i) of this section and in 
the PCGFMP. Allocation of black rockfish is described in paragraph (l) 
of this section. Allocation of Pacific halibut bycatch is described in 
paragraph (m) of this section. Allocations not specified in the PCGFMP 
are established in regulation through the biennial harvest 
specifications and are listed in Tables 1 a through d and Tables 2 a 
through d of this subpart.
    (b) Fishery harvest guidelines and reductions made prior to fishery 
allocations. Beginning with the 2011-2012 biennial specifications 
process and prior to the setting of fishery allocations, the ACL or ACT 
when specified is reduced by the Pacific Coast treaty Indian Tribal 
harvest (allocations, set-asides, and estimated harvest under 
regulations at Sec.  660.50); projected scientific research catch of 
all groundfish species, estimates of fishing mortality in non-
groundfish fisheries and, as necessary, set-asides for EFPs. The 
remaining amount after these deductions is the fishery harvest 
guideline or quota. (note: recreational estimates are not deducted 
here).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Catch accounting for the nontrawl allocation. All groundfish 
caught by a vessel not registered to a limited entry permit and not 
fishing in the non-groundfish fishery will be counted against the 
nontrawl allocation. All groundfish caught by a vessel registered to a 
limited entry permit when the fishery for a vessel's limited entry 
permit has closed or they are not declared in to a limited entry 
fishery, will be counted against the nontrawl allocation, unless they 
are declared in to a non-groundfish fishery. Catch by vessels fishing 
in the non-groundfish fishery, as defined at Sec.  660.11, will be 
accounted for in the estimated mortality in the non-groundfish fishery 
that is deducted from the ACL or ACT when specified.
* * * * *
    (k) Exempted fishing permit set-asides. Annual set-asides for EFPs 
described at Sec.  660.60(f), will be deducted from the ACL or ACT when 
specified. Set-aside amounts will be adjusted through the biennial 
harvest specifications and management measures process.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  660.60 paragraph (c)(1)(i) introductory text is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.60  Specifications and management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip 
landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the 
following species or species groups: widow rockfish, canary rockfish, 
yellowtail rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, black 
rockfish, blue rockfish, splitnose rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 
bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor 
nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope 
rockfish; DTS complex which is composed of Dover sole, sablefish, 
shortspine thornyheads, longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex sole, 
arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the other flatfish complex, 
which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species 
listed at Sec.  660.11, subpart C; Pacific whiting; lingcod; Pacific 
cod; spiny dogfish; cabezon in Oregon and California and ``other fish'' 
as a complex consisting of all groundfish species listed at Sec.  
660.11, subpart C and not otherwise listed as a distinct species or 
species group. Specific to the IFQ fishery, sub-limits or aggregate 
limits may be specified for the following species: longnose skate, big 
skate, California skate, California scorpionfish, leopard shark, 
soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific rattail (grenadier), ratfish, 
kelp greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon in Washington. Size limits have 
been designated as routine for sablefish and lingcod. Trip landing and 
frequency limits and size limits for species with those limits 
designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more 
frequent basis for the purpose of keeping landings within the harvest 
levels announced by NMFS, and for the other purposes given in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 660.65 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.65  Groundfish harvest specifications.

    Harvest specifications include OFLs, ABCs, and the designation of 
OYs and ACLs. Management measures necessary to keep catch within the 
ACL include ACTs, harvest guidelines (HGs), or quotas for species that 
need individual management, and the allocation of fishery HGs between 
the trawl and nontrawl segments of the fishery, and the allocation of 
commercial HGs between the open access and limited entry segments of 
the fishery. These specifications include fish caught in state ocean 
waters (0-3 nm offshore) as well as fish caught in the EEZ (3-200 nm 
offshore). Harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d 
of this subpart.


0
10. Section 660.71 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (e)(78),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(79) through (e)(333) as (e)(78) through 
(e)(332) respectively.
0
c. Revise paragraphs (k)(149) and (150), redesignate paragraphs 
(k)(151) through (212) as (k)(153) through (214), add new paragraphs 
(k)(151) and (152) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    * * * * *
    (149) 36[deg]18.40' N. lat., 121[deg]57.93' W. long.;
    (150) 36[deg]16.80' N. lat., 121[deg]59.97' W. long.;
    (151) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]55.95' W. long.;
    (152) 36[deg]15.00' N. lat., 121[deg]54.41' W. long.;
* * * * *

0
11. Section 660.72 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(143) through (f)(144), and remove 
paragraph (f)(198),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(122) through (a)(195) as (a)(127) through 
(a)(200), paragraphs (f)(145) through (f)(197) as (f)(146) through 
(f)(198), paragraphs (j)(16) through (j)(254) as (j)(18) through 
(j)(256), and paragraphs (j)(4) through (j)(15) as (j)(5) through 
(j)(16),
0
c. Revise paragraphs (a)(121), newly designated (a)(193), (b), (f)(140) 
through

[[Page 27531]]

(f)(142), and newly designated (j)(183) through (j)(185),
0
d. Add paragraphs (a)(122) to (a)(126), add and reserve paragraph 
(a)(145), and add paragraphs (j)(4), and (j)(17), to read as follows:


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

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

0
12. Section 660.73 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(118) through (a)(120), (a)(156), (d)(134), 
(d)(180), (h)(157) and (h)(158),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(16) as (a)(4) through 
(a)(17), paragraphs (a)(17) through (a)(117) as (a)(19) through 
(a)(119), paragraphs (a)(121) through (a)(155) as (a)(128) through 
(a)(162), paragraphs (a)(157) through (a)(307) as (a)(165) through 
(a)(315), paragraphs (d)(135) through (d)(179) as (d)(138) through 
(d)(182), paragraphs (d)(181) through (d)(350) as (d)(185) through 
(d)(354), and paragraphs (h)(159) through (h)(302) as (h)(158) through 
(h)(301),
0
c. Add paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(18), (a)(120) through (a)(127), (a)(163) 
and (a)(164), (d)(134) through (d)(137), (d)(183), (d)(184), and 
(h)(157) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]40.00' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (18) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]17.81' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (120) 44[deg]02.34' N. lat., 124[deg]55.46' W. long.;
    (121) 43[deg]59.18' N. lat., 124[deg]56.94' W. long.;
    (122) 43[deg]56.74' N. lat., 124[deg]56.74' W. long.;
    (123) 43[deg]55.76' N. lat., 124[deg]55.76' W. long.;
    (124) 43[deg]55.41' N. lat., 124[deg]52.21' W. long.;
    (125) 43[deg]54.62' N. lat., 124[deg]48.23' W. long.;
    (126) 43[deg]55.90' N. lat., 124[deg]41.11' W. long.;
    (127) 43[deg]57.36' N. lat., 124[deg]38.68' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (163) 40[deg]30.37' N. lat., 124[deg]37.30' W. long.;
    (164) 40[deg]28.48' N. lat., 124[deg]36.95' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (134) 43[deg]59.43' N. lat., 124[deg]57.22' W. long.;
    (135) 43[deg]57.49' N. lat., 124[deg]57.31' W. long.;
    (136) 44[deg]55.73' N. lat., 124[deg]55.41' W. long.;
    (137) 44[deg]54.74' N. lat., 124[deg]53.15' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (183) 40[deg]30.35' N. lat., 124[deg]37.52' W. long.;
    (184) 40[deg]28.39' N. lat., 124[deg]37.16' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (157) 40[deg]30.30' N. lat., 124[deg]37.63' W. long.;
* * * * *

0
13. Section 660.74 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(159), (g)(136),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(160) through (a)(284) as (a)(161) through 
(a)(285), (g)(137) through (g)(256) as (g)(138) through (g)(257),
0
c. Revise paragraphs (g)(133), (l)(84) and (l)(85),
0
d. Add paragraphs (a)(159) and (a) (160), (g)(136) and (g)(137), to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (159) 40[deg]30.22' N. lat., 124[deg]37.80' W. long.;
    (160) 40[deg]27.29' N. lat., 124[deg]37.10' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (133) 40[deg]30.16' N. lat., 124[deg]37.91' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (136) 40[deg]22.34' N. lat., 124[deg]31.22' W. long.;
    (137) 40[deg]14.40' N. lat., 124[deg]35.82' W. long.;
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (84) 43[deg]57.88' N. lat., 124[deg]58.25' W. long.;
    (85) 43[deg]56.89' N. lat., 124[deg]57.33' W. long.;
* * * * *
0
14. Tables to Part 660, Subpart C are amended as follows:
0
a. Revise Tables 1a through 1d and 2a through 2c, Subpart C,
0
b. Add Table 1.e. and Table 2d, Subpart C, to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 27532]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    a/ACLs and HGs are specified as total catch values. Fishery 
harvest guidelines (HGs) means the harvest guideline or quota after 
subtracting from the ACL or ACT any allocation for the Pacific Coast 
treaty Indian Tribes, projected research catch, deductions for 
fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as necessary, and 
set-asides for EFPs.
    b/Lingcod north (Oregon and Washington). A new lingcod stock 
assessment was prepared in 2009. The lingcod north biomass was 
estimated to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
OFL of 2,438 mt was calculated using an FMSY proxy of 
F45%. The ABC of 2,330 mt was based on a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/

[[Page 27533]]

P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the stock is above 
B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. ACL is 
further reduced for the Tribal fishery (250 mt), incidental open 
access fishery (16 mt) and research catch (5 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 2,059 mt.
    c/Lingcod south (California). A new lingcod stock assessment was 
prepared in 2009. The lingcod south biomass was estimated to be at 
74 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 2,523 mt was 
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The 
ABC of 2,102 mt was based on a 17 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the 
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. An incidental open access set-aside of 7 mt is deducted 
from the ACL, resulting in a fishery HG of 2,095 mt.
    d/Pacific Cod. The 3,200 mt OFL is based on the maximum level of 
historic landings. The ABC of 2,222 mt is a 31 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as it's a category 3 species. 
The 1,600 mt ACL is the OFL reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary 
adjustment. A set-aside of 400 mt is deducted from the ACL for the 
Tribal fishery resulting in a fishery HG of 1,200 mt.
    e/Pacific whiting. A range of ACLs were considered in the EIS 
(96,968 mt-290,903 mt). A new stock assessment will be prepared 
prior to the Council's March 2011 meeting. Final adoption of the 
Pacific whiting specifications have been deferred until the 
Council's March 2011 meeting.
    f/Sablefish north. A coastwide sablefish stock assessment was 
prepared in 2007. The coastwide sablefish biomass was estimated to 
be at 38.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The coastwide 
OFL of 8,808 mt was based on the 2007 stock assessment with a 
FMSY proxy of F45%. The ABC of 8,418 mt is a 4 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. The 40-10 harvest policy was applied to the ABC 
to derive the coastwide ACL and then the ACL was apportioned north 
and south of 36[deg] N. lat, using the average of annual swept area 
biomass (2003-2008) from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, between the 
northern and southern areas with 68 percent going to the area north 
of 36[deg] N. lat. and 32 percent going to the area south of 36[deg] 
N. lat. The northern portion of the ACL is 5,515 mt and is reduced 
by 552 mt for the Tribal allocation (10 percent of the ACL north of 
36[deg] N. lat.) The 552 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5 
percent to account for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish 
allocations are shown in Table 1c.
    g/Sablefish South. That portion of the coastwide ACL apportioned 
to the area south of 36[deg] N. lat. is 2,595 mt (32 percent). An 
additional 50 percent reduction was made for uncertainty resulting 
in an ACL of 1,298 mt. A set-aside of 34 mt is deducted from the ACL 
for EFP catch (26 mt), the incidental open access fishery (6 mt) and 
research catch (2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,264 mt.
    h/Cabezon (Oregon). A new cabezon stock assessment was prepared 
in 2009. The cabezon biomass in Oregon was estimated to be at 51 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 52 mt was 
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The 
ABC of 50 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the 
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal 
to the ACL at 50 mt. Cabezon in waters off Oregon were removed from 
the ``other fish'' complex, while cabezon of Washington will 
continue to be managed within the ``other fish'' complex.
    i/Cabezon (California). A new cabezon stock assessment was 
prepared in 2009. The cabezon south biomass was estimated to be at 
48 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 187 mt was 
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The 
ABC of 179 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the 
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal 
to the ACL at 179 mt.
    j/Dover sole. A 2005 Dover sole assessment estimated the stock 
to be at 63 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 
44,400 mt is based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment with 
an FMSY proxy of F30%. The ABC of 42,436 mt is 
a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. Because the stock is above B25% 
coastwide, the ACL could be set equal to the ABC. However, the ACL 
of 25,000 mt is set at a level below the ABC and higher than the 
maximum historical landed catch. A set-aside of 1,590 mt is deducted 
from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (1,497 mt), the incidental open 
access fishery (55 mt) and research catch (38 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 23,410 mt.
    k/English sole. A stock assessment update was prepared in 2007 
based on the full assessment in 2005. The stock was estimated to be 
at 116 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL of 20,675 mt 
is based on the results of the 2007 assessment update with an 
FMSY proxy of F30%. The ABC of 19,761 mt is a 
4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. Because the stock is above B25%, the 
ACL was set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 100 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (91 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (4 mt) and research catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG 
of 19,661 mt.
    l/Petrale sole. A petrale sole stock assessment was prepared for 
2009. In 2009 the petrale sole stock was estimated to be at 12 
percent of its unfished biomass coastwide, resulting in the stock 
being declared as overfished. The OFL of 1,021 mt is based on the 
2009 assessment with a F30% FMSY proxy. The 
ABC of 976 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL is set equal to the 
ABC and corresponds to an SPR harvest rate of 31 percent. A set-
aside of 65.4 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery 
(45.4 mt), the incidental open access fishery (1 mt), EFP catch (2 
mt) and research catch (17 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 911 mt.
    m/Arrowtooth flounder. The stock was last assessed in 2007 and 
was estimated to be at 79 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. 
The OFL of 18,211 mt is based on the 2007 assessment with a 
F30% FMSY proxy. The ABC of 15,174 mt is a 17 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a 
category 2 species. Because the stock is above B25%, the 
ACL is set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 2,078 mt is deducted 
from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt), the incidental open 
access fishery (30 mt), and research catch (7 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 13,096 mt.
    n/Starry Flounder. The stock was assessed for the first time in 
2005 and was estimated to be above 40 percent of its unfished 
biomass in 2005. For 2011, the coastwide OFL of 1,802 mt is based on 
the 2005 assessment with a FMSY proxy of F30%. 
The ABC of 1,502 mt is a 17 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the 
stock is above B25%, the ACL could have been set equal to 
the ABC. As a precautionary measure, the ACL of 1,352 mt is a 25 
percent reduction from the OFL, which is a 10 percent reduction from 
the ABC. A set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal 
fishery (2 mt), the incidental open access fishery (5 mt), resulting 
in a fishery HG of 1,345 mt.
    o/``Other flatfish'' are the unassessed flatfish species that do 
not have individual OFLs/ABC/ACLs and include butter sole, curlfin 
sole, flathead sole, Pacific sand dab, rex sole, rock sole, and sand 
sole. The other flatfish OFL of 10,146 mt is based on the summed 
contribution of the OFLs determined for the component stocks. The 
ABC of 7,044 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as all species in this complex are category 3 
species. The ACL of 4,884 mt is equivalent to the 2010 OY, because 
there have been no significant changes in the status or management 
of stocks within the complex. A set-aside of 198 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (125 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery 
HG of 4,686 mt.
    p/POP. A POP stock assessment update was prepared in 2009, based 
on the 2003 full assessment, and the stock was estimated to be at 29 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 1,026 mt for the 
Vancouver and Columbia areas is based on the 2009 stock assessment 
update with an F50% FMSY proxy. The ABC of 981 
mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as 
it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 180 mt is based on a 
rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2020 and an SPR 
harvest rate of 86.4 percent. An ACT of 157 mt is being established 
to address management uncertainty and increase the likelihood that 
total catch remains within the ACL. A set-aside of 12.8 mt is 
deducted from the ACT for the Tribal fishery (10.9 mt), EFP catch 
(0.1 mt) and research catch (1.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 
144.2 mt.
    q/Shortbelly rockfish. A non quantitative assessment was 
conducted in 2007. The spawning stock biomass of shortbelly rockfish 
was estimated at 67 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL 
of 6,950 mt was recommended for the stock in 2011 with an ABC of 
5,789 mt ([sigma]=0.72 with a P* of 0.40). The 50 mt ACL is slightly 
higher than recent landings, but much lower than previous OYs in 
recognition of the stock's importance as a forage species in the 
California Current ecosystem. A set-aside of

[[Page 27534]]

1 mt for research catch results in a fishery HG of 49 mt.
    r/Widow rockfish. The stock was assessed in 2009 and was 
estimated to be at 39 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
OFL of 5,097 mt is based on the 2009 stock assessment with an 
F50% FMSY proxy. The ABC of 4,872 mt is a 4 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. A constant catch strategy of 600 mt, which 
corresponds to an SPR harvest rate of 91.7 percent, will be used to 
rebuild the widow rockfish stock consistent with the rebuilding plan 
and a TTARGET of 2010. A set-aside of 61 mt is deducted 
from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (45 mt), the incidental open 
access fishery (3.3 mt), EFP catch (11 mt) and research catch (1.6 
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 539.1 mt.
    s/Canary rockfish. A canary rockfish stock assessment update, 
based on the full assessment in 2007, was completed in 2009 and the 
stock was estimated to be at 23.7 percent of its unfished biomass 
coastwide in 2009. The coastwide OFL of 614 mt is based on the new 
assessment with a FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC 
of 586 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 102 mt is based on 
a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2027 and a SPR 
harvest rate of 88.7 percent. A set-aside of 20 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (9.5 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (2 mt), EFP catch (1.3 mt) and research catch (7.2 mt) 
resulting in a fishery HG of 82 mt. Recreational HGs are being 
specified as follows: Washington recreational, 2.0; Oregon 
recreational 7.0 mt; and California recreational 14.5 mt.
    t/Chilipepper rockfish. The coastwide chilipepper stock was 
assessed in 2007 and estimated to be at 71 percent of its unfished 
biomass coastwide in 2006. Given that chilipepper rockfish are 
predominantly a southern species, the stock is managed with stock-
specific harvest specifications south of 40[deg]10 N. lat. and 
within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10 N. lat. South of 
40[deg]10 N. lat., the OFL of 2,073 mt is based on the 2007 
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC 
of 1,981 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the biomass is 
estimated to be above 40 percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL 
was set equal to the ABC. The ACL is reduced by the incidental open 
access fishery (5 mt), and research catch (9 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 1,966 mt.
    u/Bocaccio. A bocaccio stock assessment was prepared in 2009 
from Cape Mendocino to Cape Blanco (43[deg] N. lat.) Given that 
bocaccio rockfish are predominantly a southern species, the stock is 
managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of 
40[deg]10 N. lat. and within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10 
N. lat. The bocaccio stock was estimated to be at 28 percent of its 
unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 737 mt is based on the 2009 
stock assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50%. 
The ABC of 704 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The 263 mt ACL 
is based on a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2022 
and a SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent. A set-aside of 13.4 mt is 
deducted from the ACL for the incidental open access fishery (0.7 
mt), EFP catch (11 mt) and research catch (1.7 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 249.6 mt.
    v/Splitnose rockfish. A new coastwide assessment was prepared in 
2009 that estimated the stock to be at 66 percent of its unfished 
biomass in 2009. Splitnose in the north is managed under the minor 
slope rockfish complex and south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. with species-
specific harvest specifications. South of 40[deg]10 N. lat. the OFL 
of 1,529 mt is based on the 2009 assessment with an FMSY 
proxy of F50%. The ABC of 1,461 mt is a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. Because the unfished biomass is estimated to be above 40 
percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. A 
set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL for research catch, 
resulting in a fishery HG of 1,454 mt.
    w/Yellowtail rockfish. A yellowtail rockfish stock assessment 
was last prepared in 2005 for the Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka 
areas. Yellowtail rockfish was estimated to be at 55 percent of its 
unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 4,566 mt is based on the 2005 
stock assessment with the FMSY proxy of F50%. 
The ABC of 4,364 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL was set 
equal to the ABC, because the stock is above B40%. A set-
aside of 507 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (490 
mt), the incidental open access fishery (3 mt), EFP catch (10 mt) 
and research catch (4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 3,857 mt.
    x/Shortspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was 
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 63 percent of 
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 2,384 mt is based 
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSY 
proxy. The coastwide ABC of 2,279 mt is a 4 percent reduction from 
the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. For the 
portion of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., the ACL is 
1,573 mt, 66 percent of the coastwide OFL. A set-aside of 45 mt is 
deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (38 mt), the incidental 
open access fishery (2 mt), and research catch (5 mt) resulting in a 
fishery HG of 1,528 mt for the area north of 34[deg]27' N. lat. For 
that portion of the stock south of 34[deg]27' N. lat. the ACL is 405 
mt which is 34 percent of the coastwide OFL, reduced by 50 percent 
as a precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 42 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the incidental open access fishery (41 mt), and research 
catch (1 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 363 mt for the area south 
of 34[deg]27' N. lat. The sum of the northern and southern area ACLs 
(1,978 mt) is a 13 percent reduction from the coastwide ABC.
    y/Longspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was 
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 71 percent of 
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 3,577 mt is based 
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50 
FMSY proxy. The ABC of 2,981 mt is a 17 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. 
For the portion of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., 
the ACL is 2,119 mt, and is 79 percent of the coastwide OFL for the 
biomass found in that area reduced by an additional 25 percent as a 
precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 44 mt is deducted from the 
ACL for the Tribal fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (1 mt), and research catch (13 mt) resulting in a fishery HG 
of 2,075 mt. For that portion of the stock south of 34[deg]27' N. 
lat. the ACL is 376 mt and is 21 percent of the coastwide ABC 
reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 
3 mt is deducted from the ACL for the incidental open access fishery 
(2 mt), and research catch (1 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 373 
mt. The sum of the northern and southern area ACLs (2,495 mt) is a 
16 percent reduction from the coastwide ABC.
    z/Cowcod. A stock assessment update was prepared in 2009 and the 
stock was estimated to be 5 percent (bounded between 4 and 21 
percent) of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFLs for the Monterey 
and Conception areas were summed to derive the south of 40[deg]10 N. 
lat. OFL of 13 mt. The ABC for the area south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. 
is 10 mt. The assessed portion of the stock in the Conception Area 
was considered category 2, with a Conception Area contribution to 
the ABC of 5 mt, which is a 17 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.35). The unassessed portion of the stock in the 
Monterrey area was considered a category 3 stock, with a 
contribution to the ABC of 5 mt, which is a 29 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40). A single ACL of 3 mt is being 
set for both areas combined. The ACL of 3 mt is based on a 
rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2068 and an SPR 
rate of 82.7 percent. The amount anticipated to be taken during 
research activity is 0.1 mt and the amount expected to be taken 
during EFP activity is 0.2 mt, which results in a fishery HG of 2.7 
mt.
    aa/Darkblotched rockfish. A stock assessment update was prepared 
in 2009, based on the 2007 full assessment, and the stock was 
estimated to be at 27.5 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
OFL is projected to be 508 mt and is based on the 2009 stock 
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50. 
The ABC of 485 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 298 
mt is based on a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 
2025 and an SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent. A set-aside of 18.7 mt 
is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (0.1 mt), the 
incidental open access fishery (15 mt), EFP catch (1.5 mt) and 
research catch (2.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 279.3 mt.
    bb/Yelloweye rockfish. The stock was assessed in 2009 and was 
estimated to be at 20.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
48 mt coastwide OFL was derived from the base model in the new stock 
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50. 
The ABC of 46 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The 17 mt ACL 
is based on a rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2074 
and an SPR harvest rate of 76 percent. A set-aside of 5.9 mt is 
deducted from the ACT for the Tribal fishery (2.3 mt), the 
incidental open access fishery (0.2 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt) and 
research catch (3.3 mt) resulting in a

[[Page 27535]]

fishery HG of 11.1 mt. Recreational HGs are being established as 
follows: Washington recreational, 2.6; Oregon recreational 2.4 mt; 
and California recreational 3.1 mt.
    cc/California Scorpionfish was assessed in 2005 and was 
estimated to be at 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The 
OFL of 141 mt is based on the new assessment with a harvest rate 
proxy of F50. The ABC of 135 mt is a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. Because the stock is above B40, the ACL 
is set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 2 mt is deducted from the 
ACL for the incidental open access fishery, resulting in a fishery 
HG of 133 mt.
    dd/Black rockfish north (Washington). A stock assessment was 
prepared for black rockfish north of 45[deg]56' N. lat. (Cape 
Falcon, Oregon) in 2007. The biomass in the north was estimated to 
be at 53 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL from the 
assessed area is based on the 2007 assessment with a harvest rate 
proxy of F50. The resulting OFL for the area 
north of 46[deg]16' N. lat. (the Washington/Oregon Border) is 445 mt 
and is 97 percent of the OFL from the assessed area. The ABC of 426 
mt for the north of 46[deg] 16' N. Lat. is a 4 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. 
The ACL was set equal to the ABC, since the stock is above 
B40. A set-aside of 14 mt for the Tribal fishery 
results in a fishery HG of 412 mt.
    ee/Black rockfish south (Oregon and California). A 2007 stock 
assessment was prepared for black rockfish south of 45[deg]56' N. 
lat. (Cape Falcon, Oregon) to the southern limit of the stock's 
distribution in Central California in 2007. The biomass in this area 
was estimated to be at 70 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. 
The OFL from the assessed area is based on the 2007 assessment with 
a harvest rate proxy of F50. Three percent of the 
OFL from the stock assessment prepared for black rockfish north of 
45[deg]56' N. lat. is added to the OFL from the assessed area south 
of 45[deg] 56' N. lat. The resulting OFL for the area south of 
46[deg]16' N. lat. is 1,217 mt. The ABC of 1,163 mt is a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. The ACL was set at 1,000 mt, which is a constant catch 
strategy designed to keep the stock biomass above 
B40. There are no set-asides thus the fishery HG 
is equal to the ACL. The black rockfish ACL in the area south of 
46[deg]16' N. lat., is subdivided with separate HGs being set for 
the area north of 42[deg] N. lat. (580 mt/58 percent) and for the 
area south of 42[deg] N. lat. (420 mt/42 percent).
    ff/Minor rockfish north is comprised of three minor rockfish 
sub-complexes: nearshore, shelf, and slope rockfish. The OFL of 
3,767 mt is the sum of OFLs for nearshore (116 mt), shelf (2,188 mt) 
and slope (1,462 mt) north sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is 
the sum of the OFLs of the component species within the complex. The 
ABCs for the minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes are based on 
a sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (splitnose and 
chilipepper rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (greenstriped 
rockfish and blue rockfish in California) and 1.44 for category 3 
stocks (all others) with a P* of 0.45. The resulting minor rockfish 
north ABC, which is the summed contribution of the ABCs for the 
contributing species in each sub-complex (nearshore, shelf, and 
slope) is 3,363 mt. The ACL of 2,227 mt for the complex is the sum 
of the sub-complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the 
component stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC 
contribution of each component stock. There are no set-asides for 
the nearshore sub-complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, 
which is 99 mt. The set-aside for the shelf sub-complex is 43 mt--
Tribal fishery (9 mt), the incidental open access fishery (26 mt), 
EFP catch (4 mt) and research catch (4 mt) resulting in a shelf 
fishery HG of 925 mt. The set-aside for the slope sub-complex is 68 
mt--Tribal fishery (36 mt), the incidental open access fishery (19 
mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (11 mt), resulting in a 
slope fishery HG of 1,092 mt.
    gg/Minor rockfish south is comprised of three minor rockfish 
sub-complexes: nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL of 4,302 mt is 
the sum of OFLs for nearshore (1,156 mt), shelf (2,238 mt) and slope 
(907 mt) south sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of the 
OFLs of the component species within the complex. The ABCs for the 
minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes are based on a sigma 
value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher rockfish north of 
34[deg]27' N. lat., blackgill), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (blue 
rockfish in the assessed area, greenstriped rockfish, and bank 
rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks (all others) with a P* of 
0.45. The resulting minor rockfish south ABC, which is the summed 
contribution of the ABCs for the contributing species in each sub-
complex, is 3,723 mt (1,001 mt nearshore, 1,885 mt shelf, and 836 mt 
slope). The ACL of 2,341 mt for the complex is the sum of the sub-
complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the component 
stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC contribution of 
each component stock. There are no set-asides for the nearshore sub-
complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, which is 1,001 mt. 
The set-aside for the shelf sub-complex is 13 mt for the incidental 
open access fishery (9 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (2 
mt), resulting in a shelf fishery HG of 701 mt. The set-aside for 
the slope sub-complex is 27 mt for the incidental open access 
fishery (17 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (8 mt), 
resulting in a slope fishery HG of 599 mt.
    hh/Longnose skate. A stock assessment was prepared in 2007 and 
the stock was estimated to be at 66 percent of its unfished biomass. 
The OFL of 3,128 mt is based on the 2007 stock assessment with an 
FMSY proxy of F45. The ABC of 2,990 mt 
is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's 
a category 1 species. The ACL of 1,349 is equivalent to the 2010 OY 
and represents a 50 percent increase in the average 2004-2006 
mortality (landings and discard mortality). The set-aside for 
longnose skate is 129 mt for the Tribal fishery (56 mt), incidental 
open access fishery (65 mt), and research catch (8 mt), resulting in 
a fishery HG of 1,220 mt.
    ii/``Other fish'' contains all unassessed groundfish FMP species 
that are neither rockfish (family Scorpaenidae) nor flatfish. These 
species include big skate, California skate, leopard shark, soupfin 
shark, spiny dogfish, finescale codling, Pacific rattail, ratfish, 
cabezon off Washington, and kelp greenling. The OFL of 11,150 mt is 
equivalent to the 2010 MSY harvest level minus the 50 mt 
contribution made for cabezon off Oregon, which is a newly assessed 
stock to be managed with stock-specific specifications. The ABC of 
7,742 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/
P*=0.40) as all of the stocks in the ``other fish'' complex are 
category 3 species. The ACL of 5,575 mt is equivalent to the 2010 
OY, minus half of the OFL contribution for Cabezon off of Oregon (25 
mt). The fishery HG is equal to the ACL.

[[Page 27536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.001

    \a\/ Allocations decided through the biennial specification 
process.
    \b\/ 30 mt of the total trawl allocation for POP is allocated to 
the whiting fisheries, as follows: 12.6 mt for the shorebased IFQ 
fishery, 7.2 mt for the mothership fishery, and 10.2 mt for the 
catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here for the 
whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to the 
total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140 
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
    \c\/ 14.1 mt of the total trawl allocation of canary rockfish is 
allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 5.9 mt for the 
shorebased IFQ fishery, 3.4 mt for the mothership fishery, and 4.8 
mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here 
for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to 
the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140 
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
    \d\/ 25 mt of the total trawl allocation for darkblotched 
rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 10.5 mt 
for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 6.0 mt for the mothership fishery, 
and 8.5 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated 
here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery 
contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found 
at 660.140 (d)(1)(ii)(D).
    \e\/ 52 percent (255 mt) of the total trawl allocation for widow 
rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 107.1 mt 
for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 61.2 mt for the mothership fishery, 
and 86.7 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage 
calculated here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ 
fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which 
is found at 660.140 (d)(1)(ii)(D).

[[Page 27537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.017


[[Page 27538]]


BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

  Table 1d. To Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
                               Asides 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Species of species complex                 Set-aside (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod..................................  6
Pacific Cod..............................  5
Pacific Whiting..........................  Allocation \a\
Sablefish N. of 36[deg]..................  50
Sablefish S. of 36[deg]..................  NA
PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH......................  Allocation \a\
WIDOW ROCKFISH...........................  Allocation \a\
Chilipepper S. of 40[deg]10'.............  NA
Splitnose S. of 40[deg]10'...............  NA
Yellowtail N. of 40[deg]10'..............  300
Shortspine Thornyhead N. of 34[deg]27'...  20
Shortspine Thornyhead S. of 34[deg]27'...  NA
Longspine Thornyhead N. of 34[deg]27'....  5
Longspine Thornyhead S. of 34[deg]27'....  NA
DARKBLOTCHED.............................  Allocation \a\
Minor Slope RF N.........................  55
Minor Slope RF S.........................  NA
Dover Sole...............................  5
English Sole.............................  5
Petrale Sole--coastwide..................  5
Arrowtooth Flounder......................  10
Starry Flounder..........................  5
Other Flatfish...........................  20
CANARY ROCKFISH..........................  Allocation \a\
BOCACCIO.................................  NA
COWCOD...................................  NA
YELLOWEYE................................  0
Black Rockfish...........................  NA
Blue Rockfish (CA).......................  NA
Minor Nearshore RF N.....................  NA
Minor Nearshore RF S.....................  NA
Minor Shelf RF N.........................  35
Minor Shelf RF S.........................  NA
California scorpionfish..................  NA
Cabezon (off CA only)....................  NA
Other Fish...............................  520
Longnose Skate...........................  5
Pacific Halibut..........................  10 \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a See Table 1.b., to Subpart C, for the at-sea whiting allocations for
  these species.
b As stated in Sec.   660.55(m), the Pacific halibut set-aside is 10 mt,
  to accommodate bycatch in the at-sea Pacific whiting fisheries and in
  the shorebased trawl sector south of 40[deg]10' N lat. (estimated to
  be approximately 5 mt each).

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 27539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.002


[[Page 27540]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.003

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    a/ ACLs and HGs are specified as total catch values. Fishery 
harvest guideline (HG) means the harvest guideline or quota after 
subtracting from the ACL of ACT any allocation for the Pacific Coast 
treaty Indian Tribes, projected research catch, deductions for 
fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as necessary, and 
set-asides for EFPs.
    b/ Lingcod north (Oregon and Washington). A new lingcod stock 
assessment was prepared in 2009. The lingcod north biomass was 
estimated to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
OFL of 2,251 mt was calculated using an FMSY proxy of 
F45%. The ABC of 2,151 mt was based on a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. Because the stock is above B40% coastwide, the 
ACL is set equal to the ABC. ACL is further reduced for the Tribal 
fishery (250 mt), incidental open access fishery (16 mt) and

[[Page 27541]]

research catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,880 mt.
    c/ Lingcod south (California). A new lingcod stock assessment 
was prepared in 2009. The lingcod south biomass was estimated to be 
at 74 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 2,597 mt 
was calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. 
The ABC of 2,164 mt was based on a 17 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the 
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. An incidental open access set-aside of 7 mt is deducted 
from the ACL, resulting in a fishery HG of 2,157 mt.
    d/ Pacific Cod. The 3,200 mt OFL is based on the maximum level 
of historic landings. The ABC of 2,222 mt is a 31 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as it's a category 3 species. 
The 1,600 mt ACL is the OFL reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary 
adjustment. A set-aside of 400 mt is deducted from the ACL for the 
Tribal fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 1,200 mt.
    e/ Pacific whiting. A range of ACLs were considered in the EIS 
(96,968 mt-290,903 mt). A new stock assessment will be prepared 
prior to the Council's March 2012 meeting. Final adoption of the 
Pacific whiting specifications have been deferred until the 
Council's March 2012 meeting.
    f/ Sablefish north. A coastwide sablefish stock assessment was 
prepared in 2007. The coastwide sablefish biomass was estimated to 
be at 38.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The coastwide 
OFL of 8,623 mt was based on the 2007 stock assessment with a 
FMSY proxy of F45%. The ABC of 8,242 mt is a 4 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. The 40-10 harvest policy was applied to the ABC 
to derive the coastwide ACL and then the ACL was apportioned north 
and south of 36[deg] N. lat, using the average of annual swept area 
biomass (2003-2008) from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, between the 
northern and southern areas with 68 percent going to the area north 
of 36[deg] N. lat. and 32 percent going to the area south of 36[deg] 
N. lat. The northern portion of the ACL is 5,347 mt and is reduced 
by 535 mt for the Tribal allocation (10 percent of the ACL north of 
36[deg] N. lat.) The 535 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5 
percent to account for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish 
allocations are shown in Table 1c.
    g/ Sablefish South. That portion of the coastwide ACL (32 
percent) apportioned to the area south of 36[deg] N. lat. is 2,516 
mt. An additional 50 percent reduction for uncertainty was made, 
resulting in an ACL of 1,258 mt. A set-aside of 34 mt is deducted 
from the ACL for EFP catch (26 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (6 mt) and research catch (2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG 
of 1,224 mt.
    h/ Cabezon (Oregon). A new cabezon stock assessment was prepared 
in 2009. The cabezon biomass in Oregon was estimated to be at 51 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 50 mt was 
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The 
ABC of 48 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the 
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal 
to the ACL at 48 mt. Cabezon in waters off Oregon were removed from 
the ``other fish'' complex, while cabezon of Washington will 
continue to be managed within the ``other fish'' complex.
    i/ Cabezon (California)--A new cabezon stock assessment was 
prepared in 2009. The cabezon south biomass was estimated to be at 
48 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 176 mt was 
calculated using an FMSY proxy of F45%. The 
ABC of 168 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the 
stock is above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. No set-asides were removed so the fishery HG is also equal 
to the ACL at 168 mt.
    j/ Dover sole. Final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs 
for assessed flatfish species are contingent upon potential changes 
to the flatfish status determination criteria and harvest control 
rule.
    k/ English sole. Final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and fishery 
HGs for assessed flatfish species are contingent upon potential 
changes to the flatfish status determination criteria and harvest 
control rule.
    l/ Petrale sole. Final 2012 petrale sole OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT and 
fishery HG are contingent upon potential changes to the flatfish 
status determination criteria and harvest control rule, and 
potential changes to rebuilding plans.
    n/ Starry Flounder. Final 2012 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, ACTs and 
fishery HGs, for assessed flatfish species are contingent upon 
potential changes to the flatfish status determination criteria and 
harvest control rule.
    o/ ``Other flatfish'' are the unassessed flatfish species that 
do not have individual OFLs/ABC/ACLs and include butter sole, 
curlfin sole, flathead sole, Pacific sand dab, rex sole, rock sole, 
and sand sole. The other flatfish OFL of 10,146 mt is based on the 
summed contribution of the OFLs determined for the component stocks. 
The ABC of 7,044 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as all species in this complex are category 3 
species. The ACL of 4,884 mt is equivalent to the 2010 OY, because 
there have been no significant changes in the status or management 
of stocks within the complex. A set-aside of 198 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (125 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery 
HG of 4,686 mt.
    p/ POP. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for overfished 
species are contingent upon potential changes to rebuilding plans.
    q/ Shortbelly rockfish. A non quantitative assessment was 
conducted in 2007. The spawning stock biomass of shortbelly rockfish 
was estimated at 67 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL 
of 6,950 mt was recommended for the stock in 2011 with an ABC of 
5,789 mt ([sigma]=0.72 with a P* of 0.40). The 50 mt ACL is slightly 
higher than recent landings, but much lower than previous OYs in 
recognition of the stock's importance as a forage species in the 
California Current ecosystem. A set-aside of 1 mt for research 
catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 49 mt.
    r/ Widow rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for 
overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to 
rebuilding plans.
    s/ Canary rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for 
overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to 
rebuilding plans.
    t/ Chilipepper rockfish. The coastwide chilipepper stock was 
assessed in 2007 and estimated to be at 71 percent of its unfished 
biomass coastwide in 2006. Given that chilipepper rockfish are 
predominantly a southern species, the stock is managed with stock-
specific harvest specifications south of 40[deg]10 N. lat. and 
within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10 N. lat. South of 
40[deg]10 N. lat., the OFL of 1,872 mt is based on the 2007 
assessment with an FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC 
of 1,789 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/
P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the biomass is 
estimated to be above 40 percent the unfished biomass, the ACL was 
set equal to the ABC. The ACL is reduced by the incidental open 
access fishery (5 mt), and research catch (9 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 1,774 mt.
    u/ Bocaccio. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for 
overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to 
rebuilding plans.
    v/ Splitnose rockfish. A new coastwide assessment was prepared 
in 2009 that estimated the stock to be at 66 percent of its unfished 
biomass in 2009. Splitnose in the north is managed under the minor 
slope rockfish complex and in the south (south of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat.), with species-specific harvest specifications. The 1,610 mt 
OFL south of 40[deg]10 N. lat. is based on the 2009 assessment with 
an FMSY proxy of F50%. The ABC of 1,538 mt is 
a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. Because the unfished biomass is estimated to be 
above 40 percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. A set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL for research 
catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 1,531 mt.
    w/ Yellowtail rockfish. A yellowtail rockfish stock assessment 
was last prepared in 2005 for the Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka areas. 
Yellowtail rockfish was estimated to be at 55 percent of its 
unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 4,573 mt is based on the 2005 
stock assessment with the FMSY proxy of F50%. 
The ABC of 4,371 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL was set 
equal to the ABC, because the stock is above B40%. A set-
aside of 499 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (490 
mt), the incidental open access fishery (3 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and 
research catch (4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 3,872 mt.
    x/ Shortspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was 
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 63 percent of 
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 2,358 mt is based 
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSY 
proxy. The coastwide ABC of 2,254 mt is a 4 percent reduction from 
the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. For the 
portion of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., the ACL is 
1,556 mt, 66 percent of the coastwide

[[Page 27542]]

OFL. A set-aside of 45 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal 
fishery (38 mt), the incidental open access fishery (2 mt), and 
research catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,511 mt for the 
area north of 34[deg]27' N. lat. For that portion of the stock south 
of north of 34[deg]27' N. lat. the ACL is 401 mt which is 34 percent 
of the coastwide OFL for the portion of the biomass found south of 
34[deg]27' N. lat reduced by 50 percent as a precautionary 
adjustment. A set-aside of 42 mt is deducted from the ACL for the 
incidental open access fishery (41 mt), and research catch (1 mt), 
resulting in a fishery HG of 359 mt for the area south of 34[deg]27' 
N. lat. The sum of the northern and southern area ACLs (1,957 mt) is 
a 13 percent reduction from the coastwide ABC.
    y/ Longspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was 
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 71 percent of 
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 3,483 mt is based 
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSY 
proxy. The ABC of 2,902 mt is a 17 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. For the portion 
of the stock that is north of 34[deg]27' N. lat., the ACL is 2,064 
mt, and is 79 percent of the coastwide OFL for the biomass in that 
area. A set-aside of 44 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal 
fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access fishery (1 mt), and 
research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,020 mt. For 
that portion of the stock south of 34[deg]27' N. lat. the ACL is 366 
mt and is 21 percent of the coastwide OFL reduced by 50 percent as a 
precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 3 mt is deducted from the 
ACL for the incidental open access fishery (2 mt), and research 
catch (1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 363 mt. The sum of the 
northern and southern area ACLs (2,430 mt) is a 16 percent reduction 
from the coastwide ABC.
    z/ Cowcod. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs for overfished 
species are contingent upon potential changes to rebuilding plans.
    aa/ Darkblotched rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs 
for overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to 
rebuilding plans.
    bb/ Yelloweye rockfish. Final 2012 ACLs, ACTs and fishery HGs 
for overfished species are contingent upon potential changes to 
rebuilding plans.
    cc/ California Scorpionfish south was assessed in 2005 and was 
estimated to be at 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The 
OFL of 132 mt is based on the new assessment with a harvest rate 
proxy of F50%. The ABC of 126 mt is a 4 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. 
Because the stock is above B40%, the ACL is set equal to 
the ABC. A set-aside of 2 mt is deducted from the ACL for the 
incidental open access fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 124 mt.
    dd/ Black rockfish north (Washington). A stock assessment was 
prepared in 2007 for black rockfish north of 45[deg]56'N. lat. (Cape 
Falcon, Oregon). The biomass in this area was estimated to be at 53 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL from the assessed 
area is based on the 2007 assessment with a harvest rate proxy of 
F50%. The resulting OFL for the area north of 46[deg]16' 
N. lat. (the Washington/Oregon border) is 435 mt, which is 97 
percent of the OFL from the assessed area. The ABC of 415 mt for the 
area north of 46[deg]16' N. lat. is a 4 percent reduction from the 
OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL was 
set equal to the ABC, since the stock is above B40%. A 
set-aside of 14 mt for the Tribal fishery results in a fishery HG of 
401 mt.
    ee/ Black rockfish south (Oregon and California). A 2007 stock 
assessment was prepared for black rockfish south of 45[deg]56' N. 
lat. (Cape Falcon, Oregon) to the southern limit of the stock's 
distribution in Central California. The biomass in the south was 
estimated to be at 70 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The 
OFL from the assessed area is based on the 2007 assessment with a 
harvest rate proxy of F50%. Three percent of the OFL from 
the stock assessment prepared for black rockfish north of 45[deg]56' 
N. lat. is added to the OFL from the assessed area south of 
45[deg]56'. The resulting OFL for the area south of 46[deg]16' N. 
lat. is 1,169 mt. The ABC of 1,117 mt for the south is a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. The ACL was set at 1,000 mt, which is a constant catch 
strategy designed to keep the stock biomass above B40%. 
The black rockfish ACL in the area south of 46[deg]16' N. lat., is 
subdivided with separate HGs being set for the area north of 42[deg] 
N. lat. (580 mt/58 percent) and for the area south of 42[deg] N. 
lat. (420 mt/42 percent).
    ff/ Minor rockfish north is comprised of three minor rockfish 
sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL of 3,767 mt is 
the sum of OFLs for nearshore (116 mt), shelf (2,197 mt) and slope 
(1,507 mt) north sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of 
the OFLs of the component species within the complex. The ABCs for 
the minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes are based on a sigma 
value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (splitnose and chilipepper 
rockfish), 0,72 for category 2 stocks (greenstriped rockfish and 
blue rockfish in California) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks (all 
others) with a P* of 0.45. The resulting minor rockfish north ABC, 
which is the summed contribution of the ABCs for the contributing 
species in each sub-complex (nearshore, shelf, and slope) is 3,414 
mt. The ACL of 2,227 mt for the complex is the sum of the sub-
complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the component 
stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC contribution of 
each component stock. There are no set-asides for the nearshore sub-
complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, which is 99 mt. 
The set-aside for the shelf sub-complex is 43 mt--Tribal fishery (9 
mt), the incidental open access fishery (26 mt), EFP catch (4 mt) 
and research catch (4 mt), resulting in a shelf fishery HG of 925 
mt. The set-aside for the slope sub-complex is 68 mt--Tribal fishery 
(36 mt), the incidental open access fishery (19 mt), EFP catch (2) 
and research catch (11 mt), resulting in a slope fishery HG of 1,092 
mt.
    gg/ Minor rockfish south is comprised of three minor rockfish 
sub-complexes: Nearshore, shelf, and slope. The OFL of 4,291 mt is 
the sum of OFLs for nearshore (1,145 mt), shelf (2,243 mt) and slope 
(903 mt) south sub-complexes. Each sub-complex OFL is the sum of the 
OFLs of the component species within the complex. The ABCs for the 
minor rockfish complexes and sub-complexes are based on a sigma 
value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (gopher rockfish north of Point 
Conception, blackgill), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (blue rockfish in 
the assessed area, greenstriped rockfish, and bank rockfish) and 
1.44 for category 3 stocks (all others) with a P* of 0.45. The 
resulting minor rockfish south ABC, which is the summed contribution 
of the ABCs for the contributing species in each sub-complex, is 
3,712 mt. The ACL of 2,341 mt for the complex is the sum of the sub-
complex ACLs. The sub-complex ACLs are the sum of the component 
stock ACLs, which are less than or equal to the ABC contribution of 
each component stock. There are no set-asides for the nearshore sub-
complex, thus the fishery HG is equal to the ACL, which is 990 mt. 
The set-asides for the shelf sub-complex is 13 mt for the incidental 
open access fishery (9 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (2 
mt), resulting in a shelf fishery HG of 701 mt. The set-asides for 
the slope sub-complex is 27 mt for the incidental open access 
fishery (17 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research catch (8 mt), 
resulting in a slope fishery HG of 599 mt.
    hh/ Longnose skate. A stock assessment update was prepared in 
2007 and the stock was estimated to be at 66 percent of its unfished 
biomass. The OFL of 3,128 mt is based on the 2007 stock assessment 
with an FMSY proxy of F45%. The ABC of 2,990 
mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as 
it's a category 1 species. The ACL of 1,349 is the 2010 OY and 
represents a 50 percent increase in the average 2004-2006 catch 
mortality (landings and discard mortality). The set-asides for 
longnose skate is 129 mt for the Tribal fishery (56 mt), incidental 
open access fishery (65 mt), and research catch (8 mt), resulting in 
a fishery HG of 1,220 mt.
    ii/ ``Other fish'' contains all unassessed groundfish FMP 
species that are neither rockfish (family Scorpaenidae) nor 
flatfish. These species include big skate, California skate, leopard 
shark, soupfin shark, spiny dogfish, finescale codling, Pacific 
rattail, ratfish, cabezon off Washington, and kelp greenling. The 
OFL of 11,150 mt is the 2010 MSY harvest level minus the 50 mt 
contribution made for cabezon off Oregon, which is a newly assessed 
stock to be managed with stock-specific specifications. The ABC of 
7,742 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=1.44/
P*=0.40) as all of the stocks in the ``other fish'' complex are 
category 3 species. The ACL of 5,575 mt is equal to the 2010 OY, 
minus half of the OFL contribution for Cabezon off of Oregon (25 
mt). The fishery HG is equal to the ACL.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 27543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.004


[[Page 27544]]


    a/ Allocations decided through the biennial specification 
process.
    b/ /30 mt of the total trawl allocation for POP is allocated to 
the whiting fisheries, as follows: 12.6 mt for the shorebased IFQ 
fishery, 7.2 mt for the mothership fishery, and 10.2 mt for the 
catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here for the 
whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to the 
total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140 
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
    c/ 14.1 mt of the total trawl allocation of canary rockfish is 
allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 5.9 mt for the 
shorebased IFQ fishery, 3.4 mt for the mothership fishery, and 4.8 
mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here 
for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to 
the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140 
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
    d/ 25 mt of the total trawl allocation for darkblotched rockfish 
is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 10.5 mt for the 
shorebased IFQ fishery, 6.0 mt for the mothership fishery, and 8.5 
mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage calculated here 
for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to 
the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at 660.140 
(d)(1)(ii)(D).
    e/ 52 percent (255 mt) of the total trawl allocation for widow 
rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 107.1 mt 
for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 61.2 mt for the mothership fishery, 
and 86.7 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The tonnage 
calculated here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ 
fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which 
is found at 660.140 (d)(1)(ii)(D).

[[Page 27545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.005


[[Page 27546]]



  Table 2d. To Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
                         Asides, 2012 and beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Species or species complex                 Set-aside (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod..................................  6
Pacific Cod..............................  5
Pacific Whiting..........................  Allocation a
Sablefish N. of 36[deg]..................  50
Sablefish S. of 36[deg]..................  NA
PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH......................  Allocation a
WIDOW ROCKFISH...........................  Allocation a
Chilipepper S. of 40[deg]10[min].........  NA
Splitnose S. of 40[deg]10[min]...........  NA
Yellowtail N. of 40[deg]10[min]..........  300
Shortspine Thornyhead N. of                20
 34[deg]27[min].
Shortspine Thornyhead S. of                NA
 34[deg]27[min].
Longspine Thornyhead N. of 34[deg]27[min]  5
Longspine Thornyhead S. of 34[deg]27[min]  NA
DARKBLOTCHED.............................  Allocation a
Minor Slope RF N.........................  55
Minor Slope RF S.........................  NA
Dover Sole...............................  5
English Sole.............................  5
Petrale Sole--coastwide..................  5
Arrowtooth Flounder......................  10
Starry Flounder..........................  5
Other Flatfish...........................  20
CANARY ROCKFISH..........................  Allocation a
BOCACCIO.................................  NA
COWCOD...................................  NA
YELLOWEYE................................  0
Black Rockfish...........................  NA
Blue Rockfish (CA).......................  NA
Minor Nearshore RF N.....................  NA
Minor Nearshore RF S.....................  NA
Minor Shelf RF N.........................  35
Minor Shelf RF S.........................  NA
California scorpionfish..................  NA
Cabezon (off CA only)....................  NA
Other Fish...............................  520
Longnose Skate...........................  5
Pacific Halibut..........................  10 b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a/ See Table 2.b., to Subpart C, for the at-sea whiting allocations for
  these species.
b As stated in Sec.   660.55(m), the Pacific halibut set-aside is 10 mt,
  to accommodate bycatch in the at-sea Pacific whiting fisheries and in
  the shorebased trawl sector south of 40[deg]10' N lat. (estimated to
  be approximately 5 mt each).

* * * * *

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

0
15. In Sec.  660.130 paragraph (d) introductory text is revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  660.130  Trawl fishery--management measures.

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

0
16. In Sec.  660.131, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.131  Pacific whiting fishery management measures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) If, during a primary whiting season, a whiting vessel harvests 
a groundfish species other than whiting for which there is a midwater 
trip limit, then that vessel may also harvest up to another footrope-
specific limit for that species during any cumulative limit period that 
overlaps the start or close of the primary whiting season.
* * * * *

0
17. In Sec.  660.140, paragraphs (a)(3), (c)(1), and (d)(1)(ii)(D), are 
revised as follows:


Sec.  660.140  Shorebased IFQ program.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The Shorebased IFQ Program may be restricted or closed as a 
result of projected overages within the Shorebased IFQ Program, the MS 
Coop Program, or the C/P Coop Program. As determined necessary by the 
Regional Administrator, area restrictions, season closures, or other 
measures will be used to prevent the trawl sector in aggregate or the 
individual trawl sectors (Shorebased IFQ, MS Coop, or C/P Coop) from 
exceeding an ACL, OY, ACT or formal allocation specified in the PCGFMP 
or regulation at Sec.  660.55, subpart C, or Sec. Sec.  660.140, 
660.150, or 660.160, subpart D.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) IFQ species. IFQ species are those groundfish species and 
Pacific halibut in the exclusive economic zone or adjacent state waters 
off Washington, Oregon and California, under the jurisdiction of the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, for which QS and IBQ will be 
issued. Groupings and area subdivisions for IFQ species are those 
groupings and area subdivisions for which ACLs or ACTs are specified in 
the Tables 1a through 2d, subpart C, and those for which there is an 
area-specific precautionary harvest policy. The lists of individual 
groundfish species included in the minor shelf complex north of 
40[deg]10' N. lat., minor shelf complex south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., 
minor slope complex north 40[deg]10' N. lat., minor slope complex south 
of 40[deg]10' N. lat., and in the other flatfish complex are specified 
under the definition of ``groundfish'' at Sec.  660.11. The following 
are the IFQ species:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) For the 2011 trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the 
following shorebased trawl allocations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Shorebased
                                                               trawl
            IFQ Species                Management area      allocation
                                                               (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod...........................  ....................        1,863.30
Pacific cod.......................  ....................        1,135.00
Pacific Whiting...................  ....................       92,817.90
Sablefish.........................  North of 36[deg] N.         2,546.34
                                     lat..
Sablefish.........................  South of 36[deg] N.           530.88
                                     lat..
Dover sole........................  ....................       22,234.50
English sole......................  ....................       18,672.95
PETRALE SOLE......................  ....................          871.00
Arrowtooth flounder...............  ....................       12,431.20
Starry flounder...................  ....................          667.50
Other flatfish....................  ....................        4,197.40
PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH...............  North of 40[deg]10'           119.36
                                     N. lat..
WIDOW ROCKFISH....................  ....................          342.62

[[Page 27547]]

 
CANARY ROCKFISH...................  ....................           25.90
Chilipepper rockfish..............  South of 40[deg]10'         1,475.25
                                     N. lat..
BOCACCIO ROCKFISH.................  South of 40[deg]10'            60.00
                                     N. lat..
Splitnose rockfish................  South of 40[deg]10'         1,381.30
                                     N. lat..
Yellowtail rockfish...............  North of 40[deg]10'         3,094.16
                                     N. lat..
Shortspine thornyhead.............  North of 34[deg]27'         1,431.60
                                     N. lat..
Shortspine thornyhead.............  South of 34[deg]27'            50.00
                                     N. lat..
Longspine thornyhead..............  North of 34[deg]27'         1,966.25
                                     N. lat..
COWCOD............................  South of 40[deg]10'             1.80
                                     N. lat..
DARKBLOTCHED ROCKFISH.............  ....................          250.84
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH................  ....................            0.60
Minor shelf rockfish complex......  North of 40[deg]10'           522.00
                                     N. lat..
Minor shelf rockfish complex......  South of 40[deg]10'            86.00
                                     N. lat..
Minor slope rockfish complex......  North of 40[deg]10'           829.52
                                     N. lat..
Minor slope rockfish complex......  South of 40[deg]10'           377.37
                                     N. lat..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
18. In Sec.  660.150 paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.150  Mothership (MS) Coop program.

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

0
19. In Sec.  660.160 paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as follows:


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

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

0
20. Table 1 (North), Table 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D are revised 
to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 27548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.006


[[Page 27549]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.007

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

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

0
21. In Sec.  660.230 paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), and (d)(5) through 
(9) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.230  Fixed gear fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Under Sec.  660.12(a)(8), subpart C, it is unlawful for any 
person to ``fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after offloading, 
those groundfish species or species groups for which there is a trip 
limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, harvest 
guideline, ACL or ACT or OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area 
during a time when such trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting 
designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACL or ACT or OY applied.'' The 
States of Washington, Oregon, and California may also require that 
vessels record their landings as sorted on their state landing 
receipts.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, Cabezon 
(Oregon and California);
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Point St. George YRCA. The latitude and longitude coordinates 
of the Point St. George YRCA boundaries are specified at Sec.  660.70, 
subpart C. Fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within 
the Point St. George YRCA, on dates when the closure is in effect. It 
is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with 
limited entry fixed gear within the Point St. George YRCA, on dates 
when the

[[Page 27550]]

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

0
22. In Sec.  660.231, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3)(i) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.231  Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

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

0
23. In Sec.  660.232 paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (2) Following the start of the primary season, all landings made by 
a vessel authorized by Sec.  660.231(a) of this subpart to fish in the 
primary season will count against the primary season cumulative 
limit(s) associated with the permit(s) registered for use with that 
vessel. A vessel that is eligible to fish in the sablefish primary 
season may fish in the DTL fishery for sablefish once that vessels' 
primary season sablefish limit(s) have been taken, or after the close 
of the primary season, whichever occurs earlier. Any subsequent 
sablefish landings by that vessel will be subject to the restrictions 
and limits of the limited entry DTL fishery for sablefish for the 
remainder of the fishing year.
* * * * *

0
24. Table 2 (North) and Table 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E are 
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 27551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.008


[[Page 27552]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.009


[[Page 27553]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.010


[[Page 27554]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.011

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

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

0
25. In Sec.  660.330 paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2) and 
(d)(5) through (9) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.330  Open access fishery--management measures.

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

[[Page 27555]]

inseason adjustment. Open access gear vessels may transit through the 
Reading Rock YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
    (8) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Point Delgada (North) YRCA boundaries are specified 
at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited 
within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in 
effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish 
taken with open access gear within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, on 
dates when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at 
this time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. 
Open access gear vessels may transit through the Point Delgada (North) 
YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
    (9) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Point Delgada (South) YRCA boundaries are specified 
at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. Fishing with open access gear is prohibited 
within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on dates when the closure is in 
effect. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish 
taken with open access gear within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, on 
dates when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at 
this time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment. 
Open access gear vessels may transit through the Point Delgada (South) 
YRCA, at any time, with or without groundfish on board.
* * * * *

0
26. Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F are 
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 27556]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.012


[[Page 27557]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.013


[[Page 27558]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.014


[[Page 27559]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY11.015

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Subpart G--West Coast Groundfish--Recreational Fisheries

0
27. In Sec.  660.360,
0
a. Remove paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(C), (c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) as (c)(1)(iv), (c)(3)(i)(A)(6) as 
(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(i)(D) through (J) as (c)(3)(i)(C) through (I), 
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(6) as (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(A) and (B), 
(c)(3)(i)(A)(5), (c)(3)(i)(D) through (H), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(5),
0
d. Revise paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(1)(i)(D), (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) and (2), 
(c)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(i)(A)(1) through (4), (c)(3)(i)(B), 
(c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4), (c)(3)(iii)(C), (c)(3)(iii)(D),
0
d. Add paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D)(3), (c)(1)(iii), to read as follows:

[[Page 27560]]

Sec.  660.360  Recreational fishery--management measures.

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

[[Page 27561]]

October 31, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is open); and is closed entirely 
from January 1 through May 13, 2011 and from November 1 through 
December 31, 2011. Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited 
seaward of 20 fm (37 m) from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012 
(shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is closed entirely from January 1 
through May 11, 2012 and from November 1, 2012 through December 31, 
2012.
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section) is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 
14, 2011 through August 15, 2011 (shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is 
closed entirely from January 1, 2011 through May 13, 2011 and from 
August 16, 2011 through December 31, 2011; Recreational fishing for 
groundfish is prohibited seaward of 20 fm (37 m) and from May 12, 2012 
through August 15, 2012 (shoreward of 20 fm is open); and is closed 
entirely from January 1, 2012 through May 11, 2012 and from August 16, 
2012 through December 31, 2012.
    (3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. San 
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish 
(except ``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section) is prohibited seaward of the boundary line approximating the 
30 fm (55 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands 
and offshore seamounts from June 1 through December 31; and is closed 
entirely from January 1 through May 31. Closures around Cordell Banks 
(see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section) also apply in this area. 
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 
contour are listed in Sec.  660.71.
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section) is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 
fm (73 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and 
offshore seamounts from May 1 through December 31; and is closed 
entirely from January 1 through April 30 (i.e. prohibited seaward of 
the shoreline). Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 40 
fm (73 m) depth contour are specified in Sec.  660.71.
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for all groundfish (except California scorpionfish 
as specified below in this paragraph and in paragraph (v) of this 
section and ``other flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of 
this section) is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating 
the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour from March 1 through December 31 along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts, except in 
the CCAs where fishing is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth 
contour when the fishing season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section). Recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
California scorpionfish and ``other flatfish'') is closed entirely from 
January 1 through February 28 (i.e., prohibited seaward of the 
shoreline). Recreational fishing for California scorpionfish south of 
34[deg]27' N. lat. is prohibited seaward of a boundary line 
approximating the 60 fm (110 m) depth contour from January 1 through 
December 31, except in the CCAs where fishing is prohibited seaward of 
the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour when the 
fishing season is open. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating 
the 30 fm (55 m) and 60 fm (110 m) depth contours are specified in 
Sec. Sec.  660.71 and 660.72.
    (B) Cowcod conservation areas. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs) boundaries are 
specified at Sec.  660.70, subpart C. In general, recreational fishing 
for all groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, except that fishing 
for ``other flatfish'' is permitted within the CCAs as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. However, recreational fishing for 
the following species is permitted shoreward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth 
contour when the season for those species is open south of 34[deg]27' 
N. lat.: Minor nearshore rockfish, cabezon, kelp greenling, lingcod, 
California scorpionfish, and ``other flatfish'' (subject to gear 
requirements at paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section during January-
February). [NOTE: California state regulations also permit recreational 
fishing for California sheephead, ocean whitefish, and all greenlings 
of the genus Hexagrammos shoreward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour in 
the CCAs when the season for the RCG complex is open south of 
34[deg]27' N. lat.] It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land 
groundfish within the CCAs, except for species authorized in this 
section.
    (C) Cordell banks. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited in waters less than 100 fm (183 m) around Cordell Banks as 
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, 
subpart C, except that recreational fishing for ``other flatfish'' is 
permitted around Cordell Banks as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of 
this section. [Note: California state regulations also prohibit fishing 
for all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos, California sheephead and 
ocean whitefish.]
    (D) Point St. George Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). 
Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited within the Point St. 
George YRCA, as defined by latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  
660.70, subpart C, on dates when the closure is in effect. The closure 
is not in effect at this time. This closure may be imposed through 
inseason adjustment.
    (E) South reef YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited within the South Reef YRCA, as defined by latitude and 
longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates when the 
closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This 
closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
    (F) Reading Rock YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited within the Reading Rock YRCA, as defined by latitude and 
longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates when the 
closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this time. This 
closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
    (G) Point Delgada (North) YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish 
is prohibited within the Point Delgada (North) YRCA, as defined by 
latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates 
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this 
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
    (H) Point Delgada (South) YRCA. Recreational fishing for groundfish 
is prohibited within the Point Delgada (South) YRCA, as defined by 
latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, subpart C, on dates 
when the closure is in effect. The closure is not in effect at this 
time. This closure may be imposed through inseason adjustment.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and 
40[deg]10' N. lat. (North Management Area), recreational fishing for 
the RCG complex is open from May 14, 2011 through October 31, 2011 
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 13 and from November 1 
through December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 
2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 and from November 
1 through December 31 in 2012).

[[Page 27562]]

    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG Complex is open from 
May 14, 2011 through August 15, 2011 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 
through May 13 and August 16 through December 31 in 2011), and from May 
12, 2012 through August 15, 2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 
through May 11 and August 16 through December 31 in 2012). (3) Between 
38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. (San Francisco Management 
Area), recreational fishing for the RCG complex is open from June 1 
through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 31).
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for the RCG complex is open from 
May 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through 
April 30).
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for the RCG Complex is open from March 1 through 
December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through February 28).
    (B) Bag limits, hook limits. In times and areas when the 
recreational season for the RCG Complex is open, there is a limit of 2 
hooks and 1 line when fishing for the RCG complex and lingcod. The bag 
limit is 10 RCG Complex fish per day coastwide. Retention of canary 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, bronzespotted and cowcod is prohibited. 
Within the 10 RCG Complex fish per day limit, no more than 2 may be 
bocaccio, no more than 2 may be greenling (kelp and/or other 
greenlings) and no more than 3 may be cabezon. Multi-day limits are 
authorized by a valid permit issued by California and must not exceed 
the daily limit multiplied by the number of days in the fishing trip.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Between 42[deg] N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and 
40[deg]10.00' N. lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing 
for lingcod is open from May 14, 2011 through October 31, 2011 (i.e. 
it's closed from January 1 through May 13 and from November 1 through 
December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 through October 31, 2012 
(i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 and from November 1 
through December 31 in 2012).
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open from May 14, 
2011 through August 15, 2011 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through 
May 13 and August 16 through December 31 in 2011) and from May 12, 2012 
through August 15, 2012 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through May 11 
and August 16 through December 31 in 2012).
    (3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N. lat. and 37[deg]11' N. lat. (San 
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open 
from June 1 through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 
through May 31).
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for lingcod is open from May 1 
through December 31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through April 30).
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N. lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for lingcod is open from March 1 through December 
31 (i.e. it's closed from January 1 through February 28).
* * * * *
    (C) Size limits. Lingcod may be no smaller than 22 in (56 cm) total 
length.
    (D) Dressing/filleting. Lingcod filets may be no smaller than 14 in 
(36 cm) in length.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-10799 Filed 5-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P