[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47416-47483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19460]
[[Page 47415]]
Vol. 83
Wednesday,
No. 182
September 19, 2018
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 660
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2019-20 Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018
/ Proposed Rules
[[Page 47416]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 180625576-8576-01]
RIN 0648-BH93
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2019-20 Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish the 2019-20 harvest
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan. This proposed rule would also revise the management measures that
are intended to keep the total catch of each groundfish stock or stock
complex within the harvest specifications. The proposed measures are
intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks,
achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on
the best scientific information available.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0056, by
either of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0056, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Barry Thom, Regional
Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by
any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after
the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public
record and NMFS will post for public viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name,
address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender is publicly
accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the
required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keeley Kent, phone: 206-526-4655, fax:
206-526-6736, or email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the
Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov/.
Background information and documents including an integrated analysis
for this action (Analysis), which addresses the statutory requirements
of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the National Environmental Policy Act,
Presidential Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html and at
the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org. The final 2018 Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation (SAFE) report for Pacific Coast groundfish, as well as the
SAFE reports for previous years, are available from the Pacific Fishery
Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would implement the 2019-20 harvest
specifications and management measures for groundfish stock taken in
the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon,
and California. The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve and
manage Pacific Coast groundfish fishery resources to prevent
overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield (OY),
and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific
information available. This action proposes harvest specifications for
2019-20 consistent with existing or revised default harvest control
rules for all stocks, and establishes management measures designed to
keep catch within the appropriate limits. The harvest specifications
are set consistent with the OY harvest management framework described
in Chapter 4 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(PCGFMP).
Major Provisions
This proposed rule contains two types of major provisions. The
first are the harvest specifications (overfishing limits (OFLs),
acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs)),
and the second are management measures designed to keep fishing
mortality within the ACLs. The Council developed the harvest
specifications (OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) in this rule through a rigorous
scientific review and decision making process, which is described later
in this proposed rule.
The OFL is the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) harvest level and is
an estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) recommends OFLs based on the best
scientific information available. The ABC is an annual catch
specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an
estimate of scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended method for
incorporating scientific uncertainty is referred to as the P star-sigma
approach, which is discussed in detail in the proposed and final rules
for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010; 76 FR 27508, May 11,
2011) and 2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 12, 2012; 78 FR 580, January
3, 2013) biennial harvest specifications and management measures. The
ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC. The
Council recommends ACLs at a level that should achieve OY from the
fishery, which is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest
overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food
production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the
protection of marine ecosystems. The ACLs are based on consideration of
conservation objectives, socio-economic concerns, management
uncertainty, and other factors. All known sources of fishing and
scientific research catch are counted against the ACL. Many stocks are
further allocated into harvest guidelines (HGs) or annual catch targets
(ACTs) for the purposes of dividing catch between different gear types
and sectors or building in a precautionary approach to prevent catch
from exceeding an ACL.
This proposed rule includes harvest specifications for the two
overfished stocks managed under the PCGFMP, yelloweye rockfish and
cowcod. For the 2019-20 biennium, NMFS proposes changes to the
yelloweye rockfish rebuilding plan, due to its improved
[[Page 47417]]
stock rebuilding outlook and changes to the needs of fishing
communities, described under section C of this rule. This proposed rule
would modify the harvest control rule for this stock and establish
harvest specifications and management measures consistent with those
revisions. The other overfished stock, cowcod, continues to have a
positive rebuilding outlook, and no changes to its rebuilding plan are
proposed. Therefore, this rule proposes to establish harvest
specifications consistent with the existing rebuilding plan provisions
for this stock. Since the 2017-18 biennium, three stocks have been
declared rebuilt: Darkblotched rockfish, bocaccio rockfish (bocaccio),
and Pacific ocean perch. The harvest control rules for these stocks
revert back to those established prior to the stock being declared
overfished.
To keep mortality of the stocks managed under the PCGFMP within the
ACLs, the Council also recommended management measures. Generally
speaking, management measures are intended to rebuild overfished
stocks, prevent catch from exceeding the ACLs, and allow for the
harvest of healthy stocks. Management measures include time and area
restrictions, gear restrictions, trip or bag limits, size limits, and
other management tools. Management measures may vary by fishing sector
because different fishing sectors require different types of management
to control catch. Most of the management measures the Council
recommended for 2019-20 were slight variations to existing management
measures, and do not represent a change from current management
practices. Additionally, the Council recommended several new management
measures, including: Establishment of salmon bycatch mitigation
measures, modifications to depth restrictions in the Western Cowcod
Conservation Area (CCA), modification of discard mortality rates for
IFQ lingcod and sablefish, removal of the Shorebased Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) Program daily vessel limits, removal of the automatic
authority on at-sea set-asides, continuation of the IFQ adaptive
management pass through, and modification of the retention ratios for
incidentally caught lingcod in the salmon troll fishery.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process
II. Harvest Specifications
A. Proposed OFLs for 2019 and 2020
B. Proposed ABCs for 2019 and 2020
C. Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020
D. Summary of ACL Changes From 2018 to 2019-20
III. Management Measures
A. Deductions From the ACLs
B. Stock Complex Composition Restructuring
C. Biennial Fishery Allocations
D. Tribal Fisheries
E. Routine Modifications to the Boundaries Defining Rockfish
Conservation Areas (RCAs)
F. Limited Entry Trawl
G. Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Nontrawl Fishery
H. Recreational Fisheries
I. Salmon Bycatch Mitigation Measures
J. Modifications to Depth Restrictions Within the Western CCA
K. Modification of Lingcod and Sablefish Discard Mortality Rates
L. Removal of IFQ Daily Vessel Limits
M. Removal of Automatic Authority for Darkblotched Rockfish and
Pacific Ocean Perch Set-Asides for At-Sea Sector
N. Continuation of Adaptive Management Pass Through
O. Modification of the Incidental Lingcod Retention Ratio in the
Salmon Troll Fishery
P. Administrative Actions
IV. Classification
I. Background
The PCGFMP requires the harvest specifications and management
measures for groundfish to be set at least biennially. This proposed
rule is based on the Council's final recommendations made at its June
2018 meeting, as well as harvest specifications for some stocks adopted
at the Council's April 2018 meeting.
A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted full stock
assessments in 2017 for 9 of the 128 stocks \1\ included under the
PCGFMP (Blue/deacon rockfish (CA, WA, OR), California scorpionfish,
lingcod [north and south], Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail rockfish
north of 40[deg]10' N lat., yelloweye rockfish). Additionally, the
NWFSC conducted assessment updates that run new data through existing
models for eight stocks (arrowtooth flounder, blackgill rockfish south
of 40[deg]10' N lat., bocaccio S of 43[deg] N lat., darkblotched
rockfish). The NWFSC did not update assessments for the remaining
stocks, so harvest specifications for these stocks are based on
assessments from previous years. The stock assessment reports are
available on the Council website (https://www.pcouncil.org/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stocks for which ACLs or ACL contributions to stock complex
ACLs are calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council's stock assessment review panel (STAR panel) reviews
the stock assessments, including data moderate assessments, for
technical merit, and to determine that each stock assessment document
is sufficiently complete. Finally, the SSC reviews the stock assessment
and STAR panel reports and makes recommendations to the Council.
When spawning stock biomass (B) falls below the minimum stock size
threshold (MSST), a stock is declared overfished, and the Council must
develop a rebuilding plan that sets the strategy for rebuilding the
stock to BMSY in the shortest time possible, while
considering needs of fishing communities and other factors. The current
MSST reference point for assessed flatfish stocks is 12.5 percent of
initial biomass or B12.5. For all other assessed
groundfish stocks, the current MSST reference point is 25 percent of
initial biomass or B25. The following overfished
groundfish stocks would continue be managed under rebuilding plans in
2019-20: Cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. and yelloweye rockfish.
For overfished stocks, in addition to any stock assessments or
stock assessment updates, the NWFSC may also prepare rebuilding
analyses. The rebuilding analysis is used to project the future status
of the overfished resource under a variety of alternative harvest
strategies and to determine the probability of recovering to
BMSY or its proxy within a specified timeframe.
The Council considered new stock assessments, stock assessment
updates, a rebuilding analysis for yelloweye rockfish, public comment,
and advice from its advisory bodies over the course of six Council
meetings during development of its recommendations for the 2019-20
harvest specifications and management measures. At each Council meeting
between June 2017 and June 2018, the Council made a series of decisions
and recommendations that were, in some cases, refined after further
analysis and discussion. Detailed information, including the supporting
documentation the Council considered at each meeting is available at
the Council's website, www.pcouncil.org.
The 2019-20 biennial management cycle was the second cycle
following PCGFMP Amendment 24 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015), which
established default harvest control rules and included an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS described the ongoing implementation of
the PCGFMP and default harvest control rules, along with ten-year
projections for harvest specifications and a range of management
measures. Under Amendment 24, the default harvest control rules used to
determine the
[[Page 47418]]
previous biennium's harvest specifications (i.e., OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs)
are applied automatically to the best scientific information available
to determine the future biennium's harvest specifications. NMFS
implements harvest specifications based on the default harvest control
rules unless the Council makes a different recommendation. Therefore,
this rule implements the default harvest control rules, consistent with
Amendment 24, for most stocks, and discusses departures from the
defaults. The Analysis identifies the preferred alternative harvest
control rules, new management measures, and other decision points that
were not described in the 2015 EIS and is posted on the NMFS WCR web
page (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) along with this proposed rule.
Information regarding the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs proposed for
groundfish stocks and stock complexes in 2019-20 is presented below,
followed by a discussion of the proposed management measures for
commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries.
II. Harvest Specifications
This proposed rule would set 2019-20 harvest specifications and
management measures for all of the 128 groundfish stocks which have
ACLs or ACL contributions to stock complexes managed under the PCGFMP,
except for Pacific whiting. Pacific whiting harvest specifications are
established annually through a separate bilateral process with Canada.
The proposed OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs are based on the best available
biological and socioeconomic data, including projected biomass trends,
information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised
technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. The PCGFMP specifies
a series of three categories to define OFLs and ABCs based on the level
of reliable information available to fishery scientists. Category one
represents the highest level of information quality available, while
category three represents the lowest. Category one stocks are the
relatively few stocks for which the NWFSC can conduct a ``data rich,''
quantitative stock assessment that incorporates catch-at-age, catch-at-
length, or other data. The SSC can generally calculate OFLs and
overfished/rebuilding thresholds for these stocks, as well as ABCs,
based on the uncertainty of the biomass estimated within an assessment
or the variance in biomass estimates between assessments for all stocks
in this category. The set of category two stocks includes a large
number of stocks for which some biological indicators are available,
yet status is based on a ``data-moderate'' quantitative assessment. The
category three stocks include minor stocks which are caught, but for
which there is, at best, only information on landed biomass. For stocks
in this category, there is limited data available for the SSC to
quantitatively determine MSY, OFL, or an overfished threshold.
Typically, catch-based methods (e.g., depletion-based stock reduction
analysis (DBSRA), depletion corrected average catch (DCAC), and average
catches) are used to determine the OFL for category three stocks.
A. Proposed OFLs for 2019 and 2020
The SSC derives OFLs for groundfish stocks with stock assessments
by applying the harvest rate to the current estimated biomass.
Fx harvest rates represent the rates of fishing mortality that
will reduce the female spawning potential ratio (SPR) to X percent of
its unfished level. As an example, a harvest rate of
F40 is more aggressive than F45
or F50 harvest rates because F40
allows more fishing mortality on a stock (as it allows a harvest rate
that would reduce the stock to 40 percent of its unfished level).
For 2019-20, the Council maintained its policy of using a default
harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected
to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). A proxy is
used because there is insufficient information for most Pacific Coast
groundfish stocks to estimate stock-specific FMSY values.
Taxon-specific proxy fishing mortality rates are used due to perceived
differences in the productivity among different taxa of groundfish. A
lower value is used for stocks with relatively high resilience to
fishing while higher values are used for less resilient stocks with low
productivity. In 2019-20, the Council proposed the following default
harvest rate proxies, based on the SSC's recommendations:
F30 for flatfish (meaning an SRP harvest rate that
would reduce the stock to 30 percent of its unfished level),
F40 for Pacific whiting, F50 for
rockfish (including longspine and shortspine thornyheads),
F50 for elasmobranchs, and F45
for other groundfish such as sablefish and lingcod. For unassessed
stocks, the Council recommended using a historical catch-based approach
(e.g., average catch, depletion-corrected average catch, or depletion-
based stock reduction analysis) to set the OFL.
Stocks may be grouped into complexes for various reasons,
including: When stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot be targeted
independently of one another and MSY cannot be defined on a stock-by-
stock basis; when there is insufficient data to measure the stocks'
status; or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish
individual stocks among their catch. Most groundfish stocks managed in
a stock complex are data-poor stocks without full stock assessments.
The proposed OFLs for stock complexes are the sum of the OFL
contributions for the component stocks, when known. In the 2017-18
harvest specifications, there were eight stock complexes used to manage
groundfish stocks pursuant to the PCGFMP. These stock complexes were:
(1) Minor Nearshore Rockfish north; (2) Minor Nearshore Rockfish south;
(3) Minor Shelf Rockfish north; (4) Minor Shelf Rockfish south (5)
Minor Slope Rockfish north; (6) Minor Slope Rockfish south; (7) Other
Flatfish; and (8) Other Fish. This rule proposes the following changes
to stock complexes: (1) Remove blue/deacon rockfish from the Minor
Nearshore Rockfish north complex and group with Oregon black rockfish
to create a new complex (Oregon black rockfish/blue rockfish/deacon
rockfish); (2) remove Washington kelp greenling from the Other Fish
complex and pair with Washington cabezon to create a new complex
(Washington cabezon/kelp greenling); (3) remove Oregon kelp greenling
from the Other Fish complex and pair with Oregon cabezon to create a
new complex (Oregon cabezon/kelp greenling). This proposed rule, if
approved, would increase the total of number of stock complexes from
eight to eleven.
A detailed description of the scientific basis for all of the SSC-
recommended OFLs proposed in this rule is included in the Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) document for 2018, available
at the Council's website, www.pcouncil.org.
B. Proposed ABCs for 2019 and 2020
The ABC is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount
associated with scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended P star-
sigma approach determines the amount by which the OFL is reduced to
establish the ABC. Under this approach, the SSC recommends a sigma
([sigma]) value. The [sigma] value is generally based on the scientific
uncertainty in the biomass estimates generated from stock assessments.
After the SSC determines the appropriate [sigma] value, the Council
chooses a P star (P*) based on its chosen level of risk aversion
considering the scientific uncertainties. A P* of 0.5 equates to no
additional reduction for scientific
[[Page 47419]]
uncertainty beyond the sigma value reduction. The PCGFMP specifies that
the upper limit of P* will be 0.45. In combination, the P* and [sigma]
values determine the amount by which the OFL will be reduced to
establish the SSC-endorsed ABC.
The SSC quantified major sources of scientific uncertainty in the
estimates of OFLs and generally recommended a [sigma] value of 0.36 for
category one stocks, a [sigma] value of 0.72 for category two stocks,
and a [sigma] value of 1.44 for category three stocks. For category two
and three stocks, there is greater scientific uncertainty in the OFL
estimate because the assessments for these stock assessments are
informed by less data than the assessments for category one stocks.
Therefore, the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than
that recommended for stocks with quantitative stock assessments.
Assuming the same P* is applied, a larger [sigma] value results in a
larger reduction from the OFL. For 2019-20, the Council continued the
general policy of using the SSC-recommended [sigma] values for each
stock category. However, the SSC made a few exceptions to the standard
[sigma] values assigned to each category. For some stocks, the SSC did
not deem the proxy [sigma] values the best scientific information
available because the uncertainty in estimated spawning biomass is
greater than the [sigma] used as a proxy for other stocks in that
category. For 2019-20, the SSC calculated unique [sigma] values for
five stocks. For kelp greenling off Oregon, a category 1 stock, the SSC
calculated a [sigma] value of 0.44, which is more precautionary than
the standard [sigma] value of 0.36 for this category of stocks. For
aurora rockfish, also a category 1 stock, the SSC calculated a [sigma]
value of 0.39. And for California scorpionfish, the SSC calculated a
[sigma] value of 0.582. The SSC also calculated a [sigma] value of
0.783 for California blue/deacon rockfish, and a [sigma] value of 0.803
for Oregon blue/deacon rockfish, both category 2 stocks. These [sigma]
values are higher than the standard [sigma] value of 0.72 for this
category of stocks.
For 2019-20, the Council maintained the P* policies it established
for the previous biennium for most stocks. As was done in 2015-16 and
2017-18, the Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for all
individually managed category one stock, except sablefish. Combining
the category one [sigma] value of 0.36 with the P* value of 0.45
results in a reduction of 4.4 percent from the OFL when deriving the
ABC. For category two and three stocks, the Council's general policy
was to use a P* of 0.4, with a few exceptions. The Council recommended
a P* of 0.45 for all of the stocks managed in the Minor Rockfish
complexes and the Other Fish complex, as was done in 2017-18. When
combined with the [sigma] values of 0.72 and 1.44 for category two and
three stocks, a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 16.7 percent and 30.6
percent reductions, respectively. The Council recommended using P*
values of 0.40 for all individually managed category two and three
stocks, except those described below. The Council recommended a P* of
0.45 for big skate, black rockfish off Oregon, cowcod, English sole,
and yellowtail rockfish south of 40[deg]10' N lat., as was done in
2015-16 and 2017-18, because there was no new scientific information
indicating a change in P* value was warranted.
C. Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020
The Council recommends ACLs for each stock and stock complex that
is ``in the fishery'', as defined in the PCGFMP. Under the PCGFMP, the
biomass level that produces MSY, or BMSY, is defined as the
precautionary threshold. When the biomass for an assessed category one
or two stock falls below the precautionary threshold, the ACL is set
below the ABC using a harvest rate reduction to help the stock return
to the BMSY level, which is the management target for
groundfish stocks. If a stock biomass is larger than BMSY,
the ACL may be set equal to the ABC. Alternatively, even if a stock
biomass is larger than BMSY, an ACL may be set below the ABC
to address conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management
uncertainty, or other factors necessary to meet management objectives.
Under PCGFMP Amendment 24, the Council set up default harvest
control rules, which established default policies that would be applied
to the best available scientific information to set ACLs each biennial
cycle, unless the Council has reasons to diverge from that harvest
control rule. A complete description of the default harvest control
rules for setting ACLs is described in the proposed and final rule for
the 2015-16 harvest specifications and management measures and PCGFMP
Amendment 24 (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015; 80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015).
Many groundfish stocks are managed with stock-specific harvest
specifications. Often these stocks are category one or category two
stocks and their stock status is known. The default harvest control
rule for stocks with biomass estimates above MSY is to set the ACL
equal to the ABC. The default harvest control rule for stocks with
biomass estimates below MSY but above the overfished threshold is to
set the ACL below the ABC using a standard reduction on the harvest
rate, which is described in the proposed and final rules for the 2015-
16 biennium (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015; 80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015).
The PCGFMP defines the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with a
BMSY proxy of B40 that are in the
precautionary zone as the standard reduction. The analogous harvest
control rule with the standard reduction for assessed flatfish stocks
is the 25-5 harvest control rule. Both ACL harvest control rules are
applied after the ABC deduction is made. The further the stock biomass
is below the precautionary threshold, the greater the reduction in ACL
relative to the ABC, until at B10 for a stock with a
BMSY proxy of B40, or
B5 for a stock with a BMSY proxy of
B25, the ACL would be set at zero. These harvest
policies foster a quicker return to the BMSY level and serve
as an interim rebuilding policy for stocks that are below the MSST.
All of the ACLs for stock complexes are less than or equal to the
summed ABC contributions of each component stock in each complex.
Default harvest control rules are based on stock status. Thus, when the
Council revises the stock composition of a stock complex, the default
harvest control rule may adjust based on status of the stocks that
remain in the complex.
Under the PCGFMP, the Council may recommend setting the ACL at a
different level than what the default harvest control rules specify as
long as the ACL does not exceed the ABC and complies with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For many of the stocks or
stock complexes in the fishery, the Council chose to maintain the
default harvest control rules from the previous biennial cycle. Table 1
presents a summary table of the proposed changes to ACL policies for
certain stocks for 2019-20.
[[Page 47420]]
Table 1--Proposed Changes to Harvest Control Rules for 2019-20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Alternative Harvest control rule ACL \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Scorpionfish S of 34[deg]27' N Current............................ 150 mt constant catch 150 mt
lat. Proposed change.................... ACL. 313 mt
ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45)...
Lingcod N of 40[deg]10' N lat.... Current............................ ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45 in 3,110 mt
OR & WA; P* = 0.4 in
CA) w/40-10 adj. for
the CA contribution to
the ABC and ACL Assumes
1,000 mt and 750 mt
removals for 2017 and
2018 in the north and
south, respectively and
full ACL attainment
thereafter.
Proposed change.................... ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45) w/ 4,871 mt
40-10 adj. for the CA
contribution to the ABC
and ACL Assumes 40% and
75% ACL attainment for
2017 and 2018 in the
north and south,
respectively and full
ACL attainment
thereafter.
Lingcod S of 40[deg]10' N lat.... Current............................ ACL = ABC (P* = 0.4) w/ 1,144 mt
40-10 adj. Assumes
1,000 mt and 750 mt
removals for 2017 and
2018 in the north and
south, respectively and
full ACL attainment
thereafter.
Proposed change.................... ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45) w/ 1,039 mt
40-10 adj. Assumes 40%
and 75% ACL attainment
for 2017 and 2018 in
the north and south,
respectively and full
ACL attainment
thereafter.
Yelloweye Rockfish............... Current............................ ABC (P* = 0.4), ACL (SPR 20 mt
Proposed change.................... = 76.0%); TTARGET = 48 mt
2027.
ABC (P* = 0.4), ACL (SPR
= 65.0%); TTARGET =
2029.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current ACL is for 2018, Proposed change ACL is for 2019.
The following sections discuss proposed ACLs for the stocks for
which the Council's recommended ACLs depart from the existing default
harvest control rule.
California Scorpionfish
For the 2017-18 biennium, the default harvest control rule set the
ACL for California scorpionfish at a constant value of 150 mt rather
than on a rate-based value. The NWFSC conducted a new assessment of
California scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27' N lat. in 2017. The
assessment indicated the stock was healthy at a 54 percent depletion at
the start of 2017. The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing an
alternative harvest control rule for California scorpionfish. The
revised harvest control rule would set the ACL equal to the ABC using a
P* value of 0.45, consistent with other category one stocks. The
resulting 2019-20 ACLs would more than double compared to the 2018 ACL
under this new harvest control rule. The stock is projected to remain
healthy (i.e., greater than 40 percent depletion) for the next ten
years under the proposed alternative harvest control rule.
Lingcod
The NWFSC conducted two assessments for lingcod in 2017--one each
for the areas north and south of the California/Oregon border at
42[deg] N lat. Current spawning stock biomass is estimated to be 57.9
percent in the northern assessment area relative to unfished spawning
biomass, and has continued to increase over the last five years as a
result of high recruitment in 2008 and 2013. Current spawning stock
biomass is estimated to be 32.1 percent in the southern assessment area
relative to unfished spawning biomass. Although spawning biomass in the
southern assessment area is estimated to have been increasing in recent
years, recruitment is estimated to have been well below average over
the last 10 to 15 years, which suggests that stock biomass is not
increasing for the southern portion of the stock at the same rate as
for the northern portion of the stock. The SSC endorsed the 2017 north
and south lingcod stock assessments as the best scientific information
available for status determination and management, and designated both
portions of the stock as category one. The stocks had been previously
managed as category two stocks. The current harvest control rule sets
the ACL equal to the ABC for the portion of the northern stock off
Oregon, but applies the 40-10 precautionary reduction to the portion of
the northern stock off California (i.e., between 42[deg] and 40[deg]10'
N lat.), and to the whole of the southern stock using the most recent
5-year (2012-2016) average percentage of swept area biomass estimates.
This proposed rule would change the P* value from 0.4 to 0.45 for
both portions of the stock, reflecting greater confidence in the
current stock assessments. The resulting 2019 and 2020 ACLs for the
northern portion of the stock would increase by approximately 64
percent and 68 percent, respectively, compared to the 2018 ACL under
this new harvest control rule. The resulting 2019 and 2020 ACL under
this new harvest control rule for the southern portion of the stock
would decrease by approximately 9 percent and 24 percent, respectively,
compared to the 2018 ACL. This proposed action is expected to allow
moderate growth of the stock under an average recruitment assumption in
the next ten years.
Overfished Stocks and Changes to Rebuilding Plans
When a stock has been declared overfished, the Council must develop
and manage the stock in accordance with a rebuilding plan. For
overfished stocks in the PCGFMP, this means that the harvest control
rule for overfished stocks sets the ACL based on the rebuilding plan.
The proposed rules for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010) and
2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 14, 2012) harvest specifications and
management measures contain extensive discussions on the management
approach used for overfished stocks, which are not repeated here. In
addition, the SAFE document posted on the Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/ contains a detailed
description of each overfished stock, its status and management, as
well as the SSC's approach for rebuilding analyses. This document
discusses several previously overfished stocks that have rebuilt since
the last biennium, as well as provisions for the two remaining
overfished stocks in the PCGFMP, namely cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N
lat. and yelloweye rockfish. The Council proposed cowcod ACLs for 2019
and 2020 based on the current cowcod rebuilding plan, so additional
details are not repeated here. Appendix F to the PCGFMP contains the
most recent rebuilding plan parameters, as well as a history of each
overfished stock, and can be found at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fisherymanagement-plan/.
[[Page 47421]]
Stocks Rebuilt Since Last Biennium
When a stock is determined to be rebuilt, its harvest control rule
automatically reverts back to the default harvest control rule for the
next biennium. For the 2019-20 biennium, three stocks were declared
rebuilt: Bocaccio, Pacific ocean perch, and darkblotched rockfish. In
addition to the harvest control rules for these stocks reverting back
to the defaults for the 2019-20 biennium, other requirements for
overfished stocks are removed. One such change is that these stocks
would no longer be listed under the priority stock observer reporting
requirements at Sec. 660.140(h)(1)(i)(3). This proposed change is
described further under the heading, P. Administrative Actions, in this
preamble.
Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes Ruberrimus)
Yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished in 2002. The Council
adopted a rebuilding plan for the stock in 2004, and revised the
rebuilding plan in 2011 under Amendment 16-4 to the PCGFMP. The current
rebuilding plan parameters include an SPR harvest rate of 76 percent
and a median target time for rebuilding (TTARGET) of 2074
(the year for which there is a 50 percent probability that the stock is
rebuilt). The NWFSC conducted a new stock assessment for yelloweye
rockfish in 2017, and the SSC conducted a rebuilding analysis using the
updated assessment. The rebuilding analysis includes a recalculation of
rebuilding parameters that inform the Council's decision-making
process. According to the rebuilding analysis, should the Council
decide to revise the existing rebuilding plan, the new minimum time to
rebuild (TMIN; the time to rebuild if there was no fishing)
would be 2026 and TTARGET would be changed from 2074 (in the
2011 assessment) to 2027 (in the 2017 assessment). Under the current
harvest control rule, the ACL for yelloweye would increase to 29 mt and
30 mt in 2019 and 2020, respectively, an increase from 20 mt in 2018.
This improvement in stock status outlook is due to several factors,
including: Lower than expected catches of yelloweye rockfish in recent
years; a more optimistic value on stock recruit steepness, which
corresponds to a more productive stock; and strong year classes
entering the spawning population in recent years.
As a result of the improvement in stock outlook, the Council
recommended, and NMFS is proposing, changing the SPR harvest rate for
yelloweye rockfish to 65 percent and changing the TTARGET to
2029. This change in the rebuilding plan would allow an ACL for
yelloweye rockfish of 48 mt in 2019 and 49 mt in 2020. Within the ACL,
for 2019, the Council recommended a fishery harvest guideline (HG) of
42.1 mt, of which 3.4 mt is the trawl HG and 38.6 mt is the nontrawl
HG. For 2020, NMFS proposes a fishery HG of 42.1 mt, of which 3.4 is
the trawl HG and 39.5 is the nontrawl HG. For more discussion of the
use of HGs, see section II (Harvest Specifications), C, entitled ``C.
Biennial Fishery Allocations'' in this preamble.
Additionally, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to
establish Annual Catch Targets (ACTs) within the nontrawl allocation
HG. The nontrawl sector includes the limited entry fixed gear and open
access fixed gear fisheries as well as the recreational fisheries for
Washington, Oregon, and California. The nearshore fisheries occur off
of Oregon and California and are subject to both Federal and state HGs
as well as other state-specific management measures. The non-nearshore
fisheries include the limited entry and federal open access fixed gear
fleets. Table 2 outlines the harvest specifications that were in place
for yelloweye rockfish for 2018 for comparison purposes. Tables 3 and 4
outline the proposed harvest specifications for 2019 and 2020 for
yelloweye rockfish.
Table 2--2018 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL (mt) ABC (mt) ACL (mt) HG (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors..................................... 58 48 20 14
Nontrawl.................................... .............. .............. .............. 12.9
Non-Nearshore........................... .............. .............. .............. 0.7
Nearshore............................... .............. .............. .............. 2.0
Washington Recreational................. .............. .............. .............. 3.3
Oregon Recreational..................... .............. .............. .............. 3
California Recreational................. .............. .............. .............. 3.9
Trawl....................................... .............. .............. .............. 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--2019 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL (mt) ABC (mt) ACL (mt) HG (mt) ACT (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors..................... 82 74 48 42 ..............
Nontrawl.................... .............. .............. .............. 38.6 ..............
Non-Nearshore........... .............. .............. .............. 2.0 1.6
Nearshore............... .............. .............. .............. 6.0 4.7
Washington Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 10.0 7.8
Oregon Recreational..... .............. .............. .............. 8.9 7.0
California Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 11.6 9.1
Trawl....................... .............. .............. .............. 3.4 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--2020 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL (mt) ABC (mt) ACL (mt) HG (mt) ACT (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors..................... 84 77 49 43 ..............
[[Page 47422]]
Nontrawl.................... .............. .............. .............. 39.5 ..............
Non-Nearshore........... .............. .............. .............. 2.1 1.7
Nearshore............... .............. .............. .............. 6.2 4.9
Washington Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 10.2 8.1
Oregon Recreational..... .............. .............. .............. 9.1 7.2
California Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 11.9 9.4
Trawl....................... .............. .............. .............. 3.4 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council recommended using ACTs for the nontrawl sector as a
precaution. As discussed in the Analysis, because yelloweye rockfish
catch has been restricted for many years, it is difficult to project
how encounter rates will change under the proposed higher catch limits
and the associated suite of management measures that should allow for
an overall expansion of groundfish fishery effort (see section 4.2.1.3
of the Analysis). This precautionary approach to higher catch limits
would allow more access to target fisheries for the nontrawl sector,
while also managing for the uncertainty and volatility in catch of this
overfished stock by this sector.
The Analysis demonstrates how the proposed changes to the
rebuilding plan select a TTARGET that is as short as
possible, while giving consideration to the status and biology of the
overfished species and the needs of the fishing communities, consistent
with Section 303(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see Appendix B of
the Analysis). The Council indicated that a new default harvest control
rule may more appropriately account for the needs of West Coast
communities by providing greater opportunity in both commercial and
recreational groundfish sectors and improving income stability for
dependent communities.
West Coast fishing communities depend on a portfolio of commercial
and recreational fisheries to support year-round operations. Recent
coastwide declines in commercial fisheries for Dungeness crab, salmon,
sardines, tuna, pink shrimp, halibut, and other non-groundfish stocks
due to changing environmental conditions and changes in management have
created considerable instability for many communities. Additionally,
many of these communities have experienced substantial declines in
recreational fishing activity, notably for salmon and for tuna (see
Section B.1.1. of Appendix B). Groundfish fishing activity has
traditionally helped communities weather cyclical changes in abundance
in other non-groundfish fisheries. However, the restrictions in catch
of target groundfish stocks necessary to support rebuilding of
overfished groundfish stocks over the past 15 years has limited both
commercial and recreational groundfish fishing opportunities. The loss
of groundfish fishing opportunities further affects fishing communities
through loss of processor activity and loss of business for support
services.
The proposed change to the yelloweye rockfish rebuilding plan is
intended to support continued yelloweye rebuilding progress while
providing more stability for coastal communities through increased
access to co-occurring target stocks. Yelloweye rockfish bycatch is
rare and unpredictable, but can occur in sporadic ``lightning strikes''
of large magnitude. Because yelloweye rockfish catch is difficult to
predict, the Council has constrained yelloweye rockfish catch below the
ACL set in the current rebuilding plan by conservatively managing co-
occurring target stocks. This proposed rebuilding plan would increase
the estimated TTARGET by two years, from 2027 to 2029, which
is still within the required 10-year rebuilding timeframe specified in
section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but which would more
than double the yelloweye rockfish ACL in 2019 compared to 2018.
The higher ACLs resulting from the revised rebuilding plan allow a
suite of management measures that could expand groundfish fishing
opportunities. For commercial trawl vessels, this proposed action would
facilitate more trading of yelloweye rockfish allocation, which should
allow for less risk-averse fishing strategies and as a result, an
increase in attainment of underutilized stocks, including lingcod,
chilipepper rockfish, and Pacific cod (see Section B.5.2.3 of Appendix
B of the Analysis). For commercial fixed gear vessels, the yelloweye
rockfish ACL increases could support future actions to consider
reopening the nontrawl Rockfish Conservation Area or to consider
increasing trip limits for target stocks such as lingcod (see Section
B.5.2.2 of Appendix B of the Analysis). In addition, the proposed
increases in the yelloweye rockfish ACL would allow for additional
research opportunities to collect much-needed data to better inform
stock assessments and management decisions (see Section B.1.3 of
Appendix B of the Analysis).
Recreational fishing opportunities would have the greatest
potential for expansion from this proposed action. For the recreational
sectors in communities off Washington, Oregon, and California, the
proposed change to the rebuilding plan and higher ACLs would allow
shorter periods of time with depth restrictions in place and access to
deeper depths during seasons with depth restrictions. Allowing
recreational fishermen to access additional fishing grounds should
allow them to target a broader suite of stocks, such as yellowtail
rockfish, lingcod, and chilipepper rockfish, while also reducing
pressure on sensitive nearshore stocks such as black rockfish (see
Section B.5.3 of Appendix B of the Analysis). This increase in
recreational effort would especially benefit the communities of Neah
Bay, WA; Winchester Bay, OR; and Fort Bragg, CA, which are highly
dependent on recreational opportunities (see Section B.5 of Appendix B
of the Analysis).
D. Summary of ACL Changes From 2018 to 2019-20
Table 5 compares the ACLs for major stocks for 2018, 2019, and
2020. Due to proposed changes in stock complex composition, not all
stocks are shown below. Many stocks would have higher ACLs in 2019 and
2020 than in 2018. The only stock that would have an ACL more than 10
percent below the 2018 ACL is starry flounder. The change in stock
abundance for starry flounder is largely driven by a change in the way
the stock is assessed, which better accounts for the uncertainty in the
stock status of this data poor stock. As a result, for 2019-20, starry
flounder has a more precautionary OFL, ABC, and ACL. Overall attainment
of starry flounder has been low in recent years, so this change is not
expected to have
[[Page 47423]]
a substantial impact on the fleet (see Section A.3.4 of Appendix A of
the Analysis).
Table 5--ACLs for Major Stocks for 2018, 2019, and 2020
[Overfished stocks are capitalized]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
Stock Area 2018 ACL (mt) 2019 ACL (mt) 2020 ACL (mt) 2018 to 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COWCOD........................ S of 40[deg]10' 10 10 10 0
N lat.
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH............ Coastwide....... 20 48 49 140
Arrowtooth Flounder........... Coastwide....... 13,743 15,574 12,750 13
Big Skate..................... Coastwide....... 494 494 494 0
Black Rockfish................ California (S of 332 329 326 -1
42[deg] N lat.).
Black Rockfish................ Washington (N of 301 298 297 -1
46[deg]16' N
lat.).
Bocaccio a.................... S of 40[deg]10' 741 2,097 2,011 183
N lat.
Cabezon....................... California (S of 149 147 146 -1
42[deg] N lat.).
California Scorpionfish....... S of 34[deg]27' 150 313 307 108
N lat.
Canary Rockfish............... Coastwide....... 1,526 1,450 1,368 -5
Chilipepper Rockfish.......... S of 40[deg]10' 2,507 2,536 2,410 1
N lat.
Darkblotched Rockfish a....... Coastwide....... 653 765 815 17
Dover Sole.................... Coastwide....... 50,000 50,000 50,000 0
English Sole.................. Coastwide....... 7,537 10,090 10,135 34
Lingcod....................... N of 40[deg]10' 3,110 4,871 4,541 57
N lat.
Lingcod....................... S of 40[deg]10' 1,144 1,039 869 -9
N lat.
Longnose skate................ Coastwide....... 2,000 2,000 2,000 0
Longspine Thornyhead.......... N of 34[deg]27' 2,747 2,603 2,470 -5
N lat.
Longspine Thornyhead.......... S of 34[deg]27' 867 822 780 -5
N lat.
Pacific Cod................... Coastwide....... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0
Pacific Ocean Perch a......... N of 40[deg]10' 281 4,340 4,229 1444
N lat.
Petrale Sole.................. Coastwide....... 3,013 2,908 2,845 -3
Sablefish..................... N of 36[deg] N 5,475 5,606 5,723 2
lat.
Sablefish..................... S of 36[deg] N 1,944 1,990 2,032 2
lat.
Shortbelly Rockfish........... Coastwide....... 500 500 500 0
Shortspine Thornyhead......... N of 34[deg]27' 1,698 1,683 1,669 -1
N lat.
Shortspine Thornyhead......... S of 34[deg]27' 898 890 883 -1
N lat.
Spiny Dogfish................. Coastwide....... 2,083 2,071 2,059 -1
Splitnose Rockfish............ S of 40[deg]10' 1,761 1,750 1,731 -1
N lat.
Starry Flounder............... Coastwide....... 1,282 452 452 -65
Widow Rockfish................ Coastwide....... 12,655 11,831 11,199 -7
Yellowtail Rockfish........... N of 40[deg]10' 6,002 5,997 5,716 0
N lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Stock was declared rebuilt in 2017.
III. Management Measures
This section describes biennial fishery harvest guidelines and set-
asides used to further allocate the ACLs to the various components on
the fishery, routine management measures to control fishing, and new
management measures proposed for 2019-20. Routine management measures
for the commercial fishery modify fishing behavior during the fishing
year to ensure that catch is constrained below the ACL, and include
trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size limits,
and gear restrictions. Routine management measures for the recreational
fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions, fish
dressing requirements, and time/area closures. New management measures
proposed for the 2019-20 biennial cycle would work in combination with
current management measures to control fishing effort/activity.
A. Deductions From the ACLs
Before making allocations to the primary commercial and
recreational components of groundfish fisheries, the Council recommends
``off-the-top deductions,'' or deductions from the ACLs to set aside
fish for certain types of activities. Off the top deductions account
for four distinct sources of groundfish mortality: Harvest in Pacific
Coast treaty Indian tribal fisheries; harvest in scientific research
activities; harvest in non-groundfish fisheries (incidental catch); and
harvest that occurs under exempted fishing permits (EFPs). These off-
the-top deductions are proposed for individual stocks or stock
complexes and can be found in the footnotes to Tables 1a and 2a to part
660, subpart C.
B. Stock Complex Composition Restructuring
The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, modifications to
the existing stock complexes used for harvest specifications and
management that would create three new stock complexes. Changes in the
composition of stock complexes do not affect the underlying harvest
specifications because the stock complex ACL is simply the sum of the
constituent stocks' specifications. The stocks in the proposed stock
complex restructuring are predominately shallow water nearshore stocks
that occur primarily within state waters. Nearly all the removals for
these stocks are attributed to the recreational and commercial
nearshore fisheries that are subject to joint state and Federal
management.
The first modification would remove Oregon blue/deacon rockfish
(BDR) from the Nearshore Rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N
latitude and pair it with Oregon black rockfish to form a new Oregon
black/BDR complex. The second modification would remove Oregon and
Washington kelp greenling and Washington cabezon from the Other Fish
complex to form two new stock complexes: An Oregon Kelp Greenling/
[[Page 47424]]
Cabezon Complex and a Washington Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex. The
objectives of the stock complex proposals are: (1) Better alignment of
stocks per the complex goals and definitions as defined in the PCGFMP
and National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; (2) reduced
management complexity; and 3) enhanced management flexibility (e.g.,
greater ability to take inseason actions). These proposed changes to
stock complex composition better comply with the National Standard 1
guidelines, which recommend stocks managed in a stock complex ``should
have a similar geographic distribution, life history characteristics,
and vulnerabilities to fishing pressure such that the impact of
management actions on the stocks is similar.'' These complex proposals
pertain primarily to the commercial nearshore and recreational
fisheries, as these are shallow water stocks infrequently encountered
by the trawl sectors or other fisheries.
Oregon Black/Blue/Deacon Rockfish Complex
The Council recommended removing Oregon BDR rockfish from the
Nearshore Rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N. latitude, and pairing
it with Oregon black rockfish, which is currently managed individually,
to form a new Oregon black/BDR complex. Note that blue and deacon
rockfish are separate stocks, but they are referred to collectively
since they were assessed together and therefore have joint harvest
specifications. Blue/deacon rockfish are more frequently found in the
middle of the water column, whereas the other stocks in the Nearshore
Rockfish complex are more strongly associated with benthic habitats.
Oregon black rockfish is an important target fishery, especially in the
recreational sector. As detailed in Section C.3 of Appendix C of the
Analysis, this proposed action would better align management of Oregon
BDR rockfish with black rockfish, a stock that is also a midwater stock
and often co-occurs with BDR rockfish. The proposed action would
provide more targeted management of Oregon BDR rockfish by moving
Oregon BDR from a larger stock complex to a much smaller one. However,
this action could have the potential to provide less targeted
management for black rockfish by moving it from individual management
into a complex. The risk of less targeted management would be that
catch could exceed the stock's ACL contribution while remaining under
the overall complex ACL.
As a measure to prevent negative effects on black rockfish as a
result of moving it into a complex, the Council recommended and NMFS is
proposing an HG for the stock at its ACL contribution level to the
complex. For 2019, the HG would be 515.8 mt, and for 2020, 512.2 mt.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.3.1.3 of the Analysis, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) intends to implement mitigation
measures to prevent any change in the risk of overfishing for Oregon
black rockfish. These measures include establishing and managing catch
against state harvest guidelines for the component stocks of the new
BDR complex, shortening the state catch reporting time lag from one
month to one week to allow for rapid state-level management response,
and revising ODFW inseason catch projection methods to better monitor
rapid periodic increases in recreational fishing effort. ODFW has also
proposed action within its state regulations to reduce its aggregate
state recreational bag limit from seven to five fish per day, which
could slow the overall catch rate during the recreational season.
Finally, NMFS's recent approval of longleader fishing gear for use in
waters off Oregon (83 FR 13428; March 29, 2018) could shift some
fishing effort away from black rockfish and towards underutilized
midwater stocks, primarily widow and yellowtail rockfish. If this
change to the stock complex structure is approved, these additional
measures would ensure a level of management scrutiny for black rockfish
similar to the level it would receive if it were managed individually.
Other Fish Complex
The Other Fish complex originated as a compilation of stocks that
did not match well with other complexes. Because the complex is
composed of biologically dissimilar stocks (e.g., ratfish, skates,
sharks, grenadier, greenling, cabezon, and codling), the grouping has
not supported practical management of its component stocks. Over time,
the Council has redesignated some stocks in the original complex as
ecosystem components, or has removed some stocks from the complex for
individual management (e.g., big skate, 82 FR 9634; February 7, 2017).
This proposed action would remove three stocks from the Other Fish
complex and incorporate them into two new complexes to allow for more
accurate management of these stocks. This action would also require the
addition of scientific sorting requirements for the limited entry
trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and open access fixed gear. These
sorting requirements would allow proper accounting of the catch of
component stock in these new complexes separate from the Other Fish
complex.
Oregon Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex
This proposed action would remove Oregon kelp greenling from the
Other Fish complex and pair it with Oregon cabezon, which is currently
managed individually, to create the Oregon Kelp Greenling/Cabezon
Complex. This proposed action was recommended because these stocks
share a greater similarity to each other (e.g., both are solitary
nearshore stocks that often co-occur) compared to the other stocks
within the Other Fish complex. As a measure to prevent any increase in
the risk of overfishing for cabezon as a result of moving it into a
complex, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing a HG for the
stock at its ACL contribution level to the complex. For 2019 and 2020,
the HG would be 46.8 mt. The mitigation measures ODFW intends to
implement for the Oregon black/BRD complex, described above, would
similarly help prevent adverse effects on cabezon from moving from
individual management into a stock complex.
Washington Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex
This proposed action would remove Washington kelp greenling and
Washington cabezon from the Other Fish complex to form a Washington
Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex. In Washington, kelp greenling and
cabezon are retained in recreational groundfish fisheries. They are
nearshore stocks that are generally not targeted and often co-occur. As
both of the stocks are currently managed within a larger complex,
moving them to their own complex would provide more targeted
management. As part of this proposed action, the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife would be better able to implement inseason
management actions for these stocks, if needed.
C. Biennial Fishery Allocations
The Council recommends two-year trawl and nontrawl allocations
during the biennial specifications process for all stocks without long-
term allocations or stocks where the long-term allocation is suspended
because the stock is declared overfished. For all stocks, except
sablefish north of 36[deg] N lat., the Council recommends allocations
for the trawl and nontrawl sectors based on the fishery harvest
guideline. The fishery harvest guideline is the tonnage that remains
after subtracting the off-the-top deductions described in section III
[[Page 47425]]
(Management Measures), A, entitled ``Deductions from the ACLs,'' in
this preamble. The two-year allocations and recreational harvest
guidelines are designed to accommodate anticipated mortality in each
sector as well as variability and uncertainty in those mortality
estimates. Allocations described below are detailed in the harvest
specification tables appended to 50 CFR part 660, subpart C in the
regulatory text of this proposed rule.
Big Skate
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations shown
in Table 6 for big skate in 2019 and 2020. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of big skate, by
sector, in 2019-20.
Table 6--2019 and 2020 Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations of Big Skate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation
Percentage (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nontrawl................................ 5 22.6
Trawl................................... 95 429.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bocaccio
Bocaccio was declared rebuilt since last biennium. The Council
recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations shown in Table 7 for
bocaccio in 2019 and 2020. These allocations are anticipated to
accommodate estimates of mortality of bocaccio, by sector, in 2019-20
and address the stock's newly rebuilt status.
Table 7--2019 and 2020 Allocations of Bocaccio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 HG (mt) 2020 HG (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl................................... 800.7 767.1
Non-nearshore........................... 382.0 366.0
Nearshore............................... 4.8 4.6
California recreational................. 863.4 827.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canary Rockfish
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations in
Table 8 for canary rockfish in 2019 and 2020. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of canary rockfish,
by sector, in 2019-20, and maintain the same allocation scheme as in
2018.
Table 8--2019 and 2020 Allocations of Canary Rockfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 HG (mt) 2020 HG (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorebased IFQ Program.................. 953.6 894.3
At-sea Sectors.......................... 46 46
Catcher/processor................... 16 16
Mothership.......................... 30 30
Non-nearshore........................... 43.8 41.2
Nearshore............................... 94.3 88.7
Washington recreational................. 47.1 44.3
Oregon recreational..................... 70.7 66.5
California recreational................. 127.3 119.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowcod
For 2019-20, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing setting
a cowcod ACT at 6 mt, and having it function as a fishery harvest
guideline similar to the ACT in the 2017-18 biennium; it is the amount
that would be allocated across groundfish fisheries. Table 9 shows the
trawl/nontrawl allocations for cowcod for 2019 and 2020. NMFS
anticipates the proposed allocation structure will keep catch below the
2019-20 cowcod ACT, and NMFS maintains the same allocation scheme as in
2018.
Table 9--2019 and 2020 Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations of Cowcod
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation
Percentage (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nontrawl................................ 36 2.2
Trawl................................... 64 3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47426]]
Longnose Skate
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/nontrawl
allocations for longnose skate in Table 10. The allocation percentages
reflect historical catch of longnose skate in the two sectors, and NMFS
maintains the same allocation scheme that was in place for longnose
skate in 2018.
Table 10--2019 and 2020 Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations of Longnose Skate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation
Percentage (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nontrawl................................ 10 185.2
Trawl................................... 90 1,666.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Nearshore Rockfish
Harvest specifications for Minor Nearshore Rockfish north of
40[deg]10' N lat. are proposed to decrease from the 103.2 mt in 2017-18
to 81 mt in 2019 and 92 mt in 2020 due to the proposed removal of
Oregon black rockfish from the complex.
The states intend to manage catch using state-specific harvest
guidelines: 18.6 mt for Washington; 23.2 mt for Oregon, and 36.6 mt for
California for 2019. For 2020, 18.3 mt for Washington; 23.0 mt for
Oregon, and 37.9 mt for California. However, instead of implementing
state specific harvest guidelines in Federal regulations, the state
Council representatives from Oregon and Washington committed to
heightened inseason communication regarding catches of stocks managed
in the complex, relative to the harvest guidelines, consistent with the
current state coordinated management. Under state management, landed
component stocks within the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex must be
sorted by stock. Because the states may also take inseason action
independent of NMFS, the proposed action is not anticipated to result
in exceeding the complex ACL in 2019-20.
Minor Shelf Rockfish
Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish are recommended by the Council
and proposed by NMFS for each biennial cycle. The proposed allocations
for 2019 and 2020 are shown in Table 12. This maintains the same
allocation percentages as have been in place for the Minor Shelf
Rockfish complexes since 2011.
Table 12--Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish North and South of 40[deg]10' N lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage 2019 HG 2020 HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Shelf Rockfish north of Trawl................... 60.2 1,190 1,186.6
40[deg]10' N lat. Nontrawl................ 39.8 786.9 784.5
Minor Shelf Rockfish south of Trawl................... 12.2 188.6 188.6
40[deg]10' N lat. Nontrawl................ 87.8 1,357.3 1,357.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Slope Rockfish
Minor Slope Rockfish were allocated between the trawl and nontrawl
fisheries in PCGFMP Amendment 21. This action applies those Amendment
21 allocation percentages to the updated 2019-20 fishery harvest
guidelines. Blackgill rockfish in California was assessed in 2011 and
has continued to be managed within the Minor Slope Rockfish complex,
but with a stock-specific HG south of 40[deg]10' N lat. beginning in
2013. For 2019-20 the Council recommended a blackgill rockfish harvest
guideline equal to the ABC contribution for the portion of the stock
south of 40[deg]10' N lat.; this harvest guideline is 159 mt for 2019
and 2020.
D. Tribal Fisheries
Tribes implement management measures for Tribal fisheries both
independently as sovereign governments and cooperatively with the
management measures in the Federal regulations. The Tribes may adjust
their Tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the
Tribal harvest targets and estimated impacts to overfished stocks. The
only change to Tribal harvest targets and management measures proposed
for the 2019-20 biennium is an increase in the petrale sole harvest
target from 220 mt to 290 mt.
The Tribes proposed trip limit management in Tribal fisheries for
2019-20 for several stocks, including several rockfish stocks and stock
complexes. This rule proposes maintaining the same trip limits for
Tribal fisheries as those in place in 2018. For rockfish stocks, Tribal
regulations will continue to require full retention of all overfished
rockfish stocks and marketable non-overfished rockfish stocks. The
Tribes will continue to develop management measures, including depth,
area, and time restrictions, in the directed Tribal Pacific halibut
fishery in order to minimize incidental catch of yelloweye rockfish.
E. Routine Modifications to the Boundaries Defining Rockfish
Conservation Areas
Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large area closures intended
to reduce the catch of a stock or stock complex by restricting fishing
activity at specific depths. The boundaries for RCAs are defined by
straight lines connecting a series of latitude and longitude
coordinates that approximate depth contours. These sets of coordinates,
or lines, are not gear or fishery specific, but can be used in
combination to define an area. NMFS then implements fishing
restrictions for a specific gear and/or fishery within each defined
area.
For the 2019-20 biennium, the Council recommended minor adjustments
to the 75 fathom (fm) (137 m), 100 fm (183 m), 125 fm (229 m), and 150
fm (274 m) depth contours off of California to more accurately refine
the depth contours. These proposed modifications would adjust
boundaries for RCAs around Santa Cruz Island, Spanish Canyon, Delgada
Canyon, Cordell Bank, Point Ano Nuevo, San Miguel Island, and Anacapa
Island.
Additionally, this proposed rule would correct the coordinates for
the 125 fm (229 m) depth contour recommended by the Council in June
2017 around Usal Canyon and Noyo Canyon. The Council recommended
[[Page 47427]]
these modifications to fix errors that were discovered during a
previous change to the RCA line from 150 fm (274 m) to 125 fm (229 m)
as part of the 2017-18 harvest specifications and management measures
(82 FR 9634; February 7, 2017). When NMFS implemented changes to the
RCA line, it was determined that the latitude and longitude coordinates
for several areas were crossed over between 125 and 150 fathoms. These
proposed changes would provide access to canyons that were previously
open when the 150 fm (274 m) line was in effect, and which were
intended to be open after the previous changes to the RCA line.
F. Limited Entry Trawl
Incidental Trip Limits for IFQ Vessels
For vessels fishing in the Shorebased IFQ Program, with either
groundfish trawl gear or nontrawl gears, the following incidentally-
caught stocks are managed with trip limits: Minor Nearshore Rockfish
north and south, black rockfish, cabezon (46[deg]16' to 40[deg]10' N
lat. and south of 40[deg]10' N lat.), spiny dogfish, shortbelly
rockfish, big skate, Pacific whiting, and the Other Fish complex. For
all stocks except big skate, this rule proposes maintaining the same
IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the start of the 2019-20
biennium as those in place in 2018. For big skate, the Council proposes
reverting trip limits to those implemented at the start of the 2017-18
biennium. Trip limits for the IFQ fishery can be found in Table 1 North
and Table 1 South to part 660, subpart D in the regulatory text of this
proposed rule. Changes to trip limits are considered a routine measure
under Sec. 660.60(c), and may be implemented or adjusted, if
determined necessary, through inseason action.
G. Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Nontrawl Fishery
Management measures for the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and
open access (OA) nontrawl fisheries tend to be similar because the
majority of participants in both fisheries use hook-and-line gear.
Management measures, including area restrictions and trip limits in
these nontrawl fisheries, are generally designed to allow harvest of
target stocks while keeping catch of overfished stocks low. For the
2019-20 biennium, changes to management measures include: changes to
trip limits for sablefish, minor slope rockfish and darkblotched
rockfish, canary rockfish, lingcod, shortspine rockfish, and longspine
rockfish. Proposed 2019-20 trip limits for these changes are specified
in Table 2 (North), Table 2 (South) to subpart E for LEFG and in Table
3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to subpart F for OA in the regulatory
text of this proposed rule.
Sablefish Trip Limits
Sablefish are managed separately north and south of 36[deg] N lat.
For the portion of the stock north of 36[deg] N lat., the Council
recommended and NMFS is proposing raising the trip limits for the LEFG
fleet from those in 2018 between 75 to 100 lb (34 to 45 kg) a week
depending on the period of the year. For the OA fleet, the trip limits
would be the same as in 2018. For the portion south of 36[deg] N lat.,
the Council recommended the limited entry and open access trip limits
remain the same as those in 2018. The proposed sablefish trip limits
for 2019-20 are shown in Table 13.
Table 13--Sablefish Trip Limits for Limited Entry and Open Access Sectors North and South of 36[deg] N Lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Area Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................ north of 36[deg] 1,200 lb/week; not to exceed 3,600 lb bi-monthly.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
south of 36[deg] 2,000 lb/week.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access.................. north of 36[deg] 300 lb daily, or one landing per week up to 1,000 lb, not to exceed 2,000 lb bi-monthly.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
south of 36[deg] 300 lb daily, or 1 landing per week up to 1,600 lb, not to exceed 3,200 lb bimonthly.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Slope Rockfish and Darkblotched Rockfish Trip Limits
In the 2017-18 biennium, the trip limit for minor slope rockfish
and darkblotched rockfish for the OA sector was linked to the landed
weight of sablefish for the trip. The current trip limit for minor
slope rockfish and darkblotched rockfish north of 40[deg]10' N lat. is
no more than 25 percent of the landed weight of sablefish per trip,
which corresponds to a maximum of 500 lb (227 kg) bi-monthly (25
percent of the 2,000 lb (907 kg) bi-monthly limit of sablefish). This
is an aggregate limit for all stocks combined. For 2019-20, the Council
proposed and NMFS is recommending decoupling this limit from the landed
weight of sablefish and instead creating a stand-alone trip limit for
minor slope rockfish and darkblotched rockfish of 500 lb (227 kg) per
month (all stocks combined). The new limit would be double the current
limit. The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the new trip limit
structure because it would be simpler for OA participants to abide by
and would better allow them to retain more, and discard less, of their
incidental catches.
Canary Rockfish Trip Limits
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that canary rockfish
retention would be permitted in the LEFG sector between 40[deg]10' N
latitude and 34[deg]27' N latitude, with a trip limit of 300 pounds per
two months. For the area south of 34[deg]27' N latitude, the trip limit
would be the same, except for a closure during Period 2 (March-April).
For OA, the structure would be similar, with a 150 lb (68 kg) per two
months limit, and a closure during Period 2 (March-April) south of
40[deg]10' N latitude. These proposed closures for the canary rockfish
trip limits would align with the trip limit structure for the Minor
Shelf Rockfish, Deeper Nearshore Rockfish, Shallow Nearshore Rockfish,
California scorpionfish, and lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat.
Establishing a canary rockfish bi-monthly trip limit that matches the
Shelf Rockfish trip limit would provide a uniform approach for
monitoring, management, and law enforcement. Table 14 shows the
proposed trip limits for 2019 and 2020 for canary rockfish.
[[Page 47428]]
Table 14--Proposed Canary Rockfish Trip Limits for Limited Entry and Open Access Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Area Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................ N of 40[deg]10' 300 lb/2 months.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]10' N 300 lb/2 months.
lat.--34[deg]27
' N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S of 34[deg]27' 300 lb/2 months. CLOSED.......... 300 lb/2 months.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access.................. N of 40[deg]10' 150 lb/2 months.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S of 40[deg]10' 50 lb/2 months.. CLOSED.......... 150 lb/2 months.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod Trip Limits
Lingcod is managed north and south of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. The
Council recommends OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and HGs separately for each of
these stocks. Historically, the Council has also recommended trip
limits for LEFG and OA for each of these two stocks. For 2019-20, the
Council proposed and NMFS is recommending two separate LEFG and OA trip
limits for lingcod north of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat.: one set of trip
limits for the area north of 42[deg] N lat., and one set of trip limits
for the area between 42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. The new
latitude break would allow more flexibility for alternative management
strategies by state agencies to promote fishing opportunity while
staying within state-specific yelloweye rockfish shares. In addition,
this new latitude break aligns with the 42[deg] N lat. latitudinal
break used in the stock assessment (see Section A.2.6 of Appendix A of
the Analysis). This proposed rule would establish a trip limit for LEFG
of 2,000 lb (907 kg) per 2 months for the area north of 42[deg] N lat.
and a trip limit of 1,400 lb (635 kg) per 2 months for the area between
42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. For OA, this rule would
establish a trip limit of 900 lb (408 kg) per 2 months for the area
north of 42[deg] N lat., and a trip limit of 600 lb (272 kg) per 2
months for the area between 42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10[acute] N lat.
Overall, the lingcod trip limits proposed for 2019-20 are higher than
those in place in 2018, which is possible due to higher ACLs for co-
occurring yelloweye rockfish. Table 15 below shows proposed trip limits
for lingcod north of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat.
Table 15--Proposed Lingcod Trip Limits North of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Area Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................ North of 42[deg] 2,000 lb/2 months.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg] N Lat. 1,400 lb/2 months.
to
40[deg]10[acute
] N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open access.................. N of 42[deg] N 900 lb/month.
lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg] N Lat. 600 lb/month.
to
40[deg]10[acute
] N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For lingcod south of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat., ACLs for the 2019-20
biennium are lower compared to 2018. Therefore, this rule proposes
reductions to lingcod trip limits for both LEFG and OA. Table 16 below
shows proposed trip limits.
Table 16--Proposed Lingcod Trip Limits South of 40[deg]10[acute] N Lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Area Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................ 200 lb/2 months. CLOSED.......... 800 lb/2 months. 1,200 lb/2 months 600 lb/........ 300 lb/
month.......... month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access.................. 300 lb/month.... CLOSED.......... 300 lb/month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortspine and Longspine Rockfish Trip Limits
Retention of shortspine and longspine thornyheads is currently
prohibited year-round for the OA sector north of 34[deg]27[acute] N
lat. This proposed rule would provide a 50 lb (23 kg) per month trip
limit for shortspine and longspine thornyheads north of
40[deg]10[acute] N lat. only. Retention would continue to be prohibited
for OA from 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. to 34[deg]27[acute] N lat. The
Council recommended and NMFS is proposing this trip limit based on an
industry recommendation to allow retention of incidental catches. The
current retention prohibition is likely a holdover from when there were
separate LEFG and OA allocations of thornyheads under the nontrawl
allocation. OA attainment of longspine and shortspine thornyheads north
of 34[deg]27[acute] N latitude would be expected to remain low under
this proposed rule, as they continue to be an incidental catch rather
than a targeted stock.
Primary Sablefish Tier Limits
Some limited entry fixed gear permits are endorsed to receive
annual sablefish quota, or tier limits. Vessels registered
[[Page 47429]]
with one, two, or up to three of these permits may participate in the
primary sablefish fishery. The proposed tier limits are as follows: in
2019, Tier 1 at 47,637 lb (21,608 kg), Tier 2 at 21,653 lb (9,822 kg),
and Tier 3 at 12,373 lb (5,612 kg). In 2020 and beyond, the following
annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 48,642 lb (22,064 kg), Tier 2 at
22,110 lb (10,029 kg), and Tier 3 at 12,634 lb (5,731 kg).
H. Recreational Fisheries
This section describes the recreational fisheries management
measures proposed for 2019-20. The Council primarily recommends depth
restrictions and groundfish conservation areas (GCAs) to constrain
catch within the recreational harvest guidelines for each stock. Most
of the changes to recreational management measures are modifications to
existing measures.
Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, and the Council
recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area
closures, and size limits for stocks targeted in recreational
fisheries. These measures are designed to limit catch of overfished
stocks found in the waters adjacent to each state while allowing target
fishing opportunities in their particular recreational fisheries. The
following sections describe the recreational management measures
proposed in each state.
Washington
The state of Washington manages its marine fisheries in four areas:
Marine Area 1 extends from the Oregon/Washington border to Leadbetter
Point; Marine Area 2 extends from Leadbetter Point to the mouth of the
Queets Rivers; Marine Area 3 extends from the Queets River to Cape
Alava; and Marine Area 4 extends from Cape Alava to the Sekiu River.
This proposed rule would align the lingcod season in Marine Area 4 with
the recreational groundfish season and the lingcod season in Marine
Areas 1-3. This adjustment would allow for an additional month of
fishing in Marine Area 4 compared to 2018. Additionally, the proposed
rule would allow retention of yellowtail and widow rockfish seaward of
20 fm (37 m) in July and August in Marine Areas 3 and 4. The aggregate
groundfish bag limits off Washington would continue to be nine fish in
all areas. However, the sub-bag limit for canary rockfish, previously 2
fish in all marine areas, would be removed, and the cabezon sub-bag
limit would be changed from two fish per day to one fish for all marine
areas. Additionally, this rule proposes removing the 18-in (45.7-cm)
minimum size limit for cabezon in Marine Area 4. The Council
recommended these changes, which allow more access to target stocks
with fewer restrictions, supported by the proposed increases to the
yelloweye rockfish ACL described in Section C of this rule.
Consistent with the 2017-18 biennium, the Council proposed
continuing to prohibit recreational fishing for groundfish and Pacific
halibut inside the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish
Conservation Area (YRCA), a C-shaped closed area off the northern
Washington coast, the South Coast Recreational YRCA, and the Westport
Offshore YRCA. Coordinates for YRCAs are defined at Sec. 660.70.
Oregon
The Council proposed that Oregon recreational fisheries in 2019-20
would operate under the same season structures and GCAs as provided for
2017-18. This rule also proposes to allow all-depth fishing in April,
May, and September. The Council's proposed expansions to fishing-depth
access during these months is supported by the proposed increased
yelloweye rockfish ACL, described in section II (Harvest
Specifications) C, entitled, ``Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020,'' of
this preamble. The Council proposed maintaining the 2017-18 aggregate
bag limits and size limits in Oregon recreational fisheries. The
proposed limits are: three lingcod per day, with a minimum size of 22
in (56 cm); 25 flatfish per day, excluding Pacific halibut; and a
marine fish aggregate bag limit of 10 fish per day, where cabezon have
a minimum size of 16 in (41 cm).
California
The Council manages recreational fisheries off of California in
five separate management areas. Season and area closures differ between
California management areas to limit incidental catch of overfished
stocks while providing as much recreational fishing opportunity as
possible. The Council's proposed California season structure includes
additional time and depth opportunities, which are supported by the
proposed increase to the yelloweye rockfish ACL described in Section C.
Table 17 shows the proposed season structure and depth limits by
management area for 2019 and 2020.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.000
The Council recommended that size, bag, and sub-bag limits would
remain the same as for 2018 for all stocks except for lingcod. To keep
within allowable limits, the lingcod bag limit would be split into
separate limits for north (42[deg] N lat. (California/Oregon border) to
40[deg]10' N lat. (Northern Management Area)) and south (40[deg]10' N
lat. to the U.S. border with Mexico (Mendocino Management Area, San
Francisco Management Area, Central Management Area, and Southern
Management Area)). The Council proposed maintaining the limit in the
north area at 2 lingcod per day, but recommended reducing the limit in
the south area to 1 lingcod per day (down from 2 in 2018).
Additionally, this rule proposes to allow year-round retention of
California scorpionfish in all management areas, which is supported by
the proposed increase in the ACL for this stock in 2019-20 described in
section II (Harvest Specifications), C, entitled ``Proposed ACLs for
2019 and 2020,'' in this preamble.
[[Page 47430]]
I. Salmon Bycatch Mitigation Measures
In December 2017, NMFS completed an Endangered Species Act (ESA)
consultation on the continued implementation of the PCGFMP and
published a Biological Opinion (available at http://www.pcouncil.org).
As part of its proposed action for the consultation, the Council
estimated Chinook and coho catch in the whiting and non-whiting
groundfish fisheries. The Council estimated that the whiting sector
(including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the mothership, catcher/
processor (C/P), and Shoreside whiting fleets) would take 11,000
Chinook salmon and 474 coho salmon, and the non-whiting sector
(including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the Shoreside trawl, fixed
gear, and recreational fleets) would take 5,500 Chinook salmon and 560
coho salmon.
Additionally, the Council included in its proposed action a reserve
amount of Chinook, 3,500 fish, in the event that bycatch increases
unexpectedly. The reserve is a safeguard against catch exceeding the
total Chinook take estimate, which is an immediate trigger for
reinitiation under section 7 of the ESA. Either the whiting or non-
whiting sector, or both sectors, may access the reserve in a given
year, but the reserve is limited to 3,500 Chinook total. Access to the
reserve is not guaranteed for either sector. Accessing the reserve in
three out of any five consecutive years will also trigger reinitiation
of the ESA consultation.
The incidental take statement (ITS) includes six reasonable and
prudent measures (RPMs) that require the Council and NMFS to take
certain actions to minimize take of endangered and threatened Chinook
and coho salmon in Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. These RPMs are
non-discretionary, and were developed based on the Biological Opinion's
analysis of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery's interactions with
salmon. The ITS provides terms and conditions (T&C) under each RPM that
are also non-discretionary, and are required to implement each specific
RPM. Actions performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of
the ITS are not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA.
The Biological Opinion required that specific T&Cs from the ITS
must be considered within the 2019-20 biennial harvest specifications
and management measures process. These include: (1) Review existing
mechanisms in the PCGFMP and regulations for avoiding and reducing
salmon bycatch to determine if these measures are adequate to allow for
timely inseason management to keep the sectors from exceeding their
bycatch guidelines (T&C 2.a); (2) develop and implement initial
regulations governing the reserve of 3,500 Chinook salmon (T&C 3.a);
and (3) develop automatic closure mechanisms if sectors exceed their
bycatch guideline and/or the reserve (T&C 3.c).
At its March 2018 meeting, the Council's Groundfish Management Team
(GMT) reviewed current monitoring provisions in the PCGFMP, existing
mitigation measures, and historical industry bycatch avoidance tactics
(see Section C.2 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Additionally, the GMT
investigated salmon bycatch data by area, depth, and time for the
whiting and non-whiting midwater trawl sectors to determine if depth
restrictions would be effective for reducing salmon bycatch (see
Section C.3 of Appendix C of the Analysis). As a result of that review,
the Council recommended modifications to existing depth-based
management tools for salmon bycatch mitigation and the creation of new
depth-based management tools to meet T&C 2.a. The Council proposed: (1)
Eliminating the Ocean Salmon Conservation Zone (OSCZ); (2) adding a new
bycatch reduction area (BRA) at the 200 fm (366 m) depth contour for
vessels using midwater trawl gear; (3) prohibiting the use of midwater
trawls and require the use of selective flatfish trawls for any bottom
trawl vessels in the Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone (CRSCZ)
and the Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone (KRSCZ); and (4)
implementing automatic closure mechanisms for the Chinook salmon
bycatch guidelines and reserve. The Council and NMFS will continue to
implement other terms and conditions in future rulemakings.
The proposed salmon bycatch mitigation measures would protect ESA-
listed salmon species, and help maintain bycatch below the bycatch
guideline limits described in the proposed action of the Biological
Opinion. Three of the four proposed measures would benefit salmon by
managing bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. The Council proposed
removing the OSCZ because the Analysis suggested that this existing
provision is ineffective for reducing salmon bycatch.
Ocean Salmon Conservation Zone
The OSCZ consists of all waters shoreward of a boundary line
approximating the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour. When NMFS projects that
the Pacific whiting fishery (tribal and non-tribal) may take in excess
of 11,000 Chinook salmon within a calendar year, NMFS implements a
coastwide closure in the OSCZ for all sectors (Pacific whiting IFQ
fishery, the catcher/processor (C/P) sector, and the mothership sector)
through automatic action. The OSCZ was first implemented as an
emergency rule, effective from August 26, 2005, to February 27, 2006
(70 FR 51682; August 31, 2005) as a means to reduce Chinook salmon
bycatch rates in nearshore areas. NMFS later permanently added the OSCZ
as mechanism to limit Chinook salmon interactions in the whiting
fishery during periods of high bycatch (71 FR 78657; December 29,
2006). NMFS has used this depth-based management tool only once since
implementation. On October 20, 2014, NMFS closed the OSCZ to Pacific
whiting vessels after determining the Pacific whiting fishery took over
11,000 Chinook salmon.
The GMT concluded through its review that the OSCZ provision is not
an effective tool for salmon bycatch mitigation. Catch data from 2004
to 2017 demonstrates that, even in high bycatch years, Chinook salmon
catch in the Pacific whiting fishery is not likely to reach the 11,000
fish threshold until the fall, around October. The C/P sector and the
mothership sector have not fished in the depths within the OSCZ after
October since 2011, and the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery has had minimal
activity within the depths of the OCSZ after the fall (see section
C.1.4 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Therefore, by the time the OSCZ
would be triggered by Chinook bycatch in the groundfish fishery, none
of the sectors would be fishing in the area that would be closed. For
these reasons, NMFS proposes to remove the OCSZ provision from the
regulations. Because this provision has limited utility as a bycatch
management tool, NMFS does not expect any discernable effects from
removing this provision from the regulations.
Bycatch Reduction Areas (BRAs)
BRAs are depth-based management provisions used to close waters
shallower than a specified depth contour to fishing in order to
minimize impacts to groundfish or any prohibited or protected species,
such as salmon. Under current regulations, NMFS, in consultation with
the Council and through the routine management process, can implement
BRAs to close areas shoreward of the 75-, 100-, and 150-fm (137-, 183-,
and 274-m) depth contours for a specific sector (i.e., C/P, mothership,
whiting IFQ, and Shoreside IFQ Program non-whiting midwater).
[[Page 47431]]
BRAs are also available through automatic action if a whiting sector is
projected to reach or exceed a sector-specific groundfish allocation
prior to attaining the whiting allocation. However, the 75-, 100-, and
150-fm (137-, 183-, and 274-m) BRAs are not currently available for
salmon bycatch mitigation for any of the sectors and are not proposed
to be modified through this action.
The Council recommended adding the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour as
a BRA available for implementation through routine inseason action to
mitigate salmon bycatch in any of the groundfish midwater trawl
sectors. The groundfish midwater trawl sectors subject to this area
closure would be the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, the C/P sector, and
the mothership sector, as well as the non-whiting midwater trawl
sector, which primarily targets widow rockfish and yellowtail rockfish.
If the Council and NMFS implemented the 200-fm (366-m) BRA during a
fishing season, vessels using midwater trawl gear to target either
whiting or non-whiting groundfish would be excluded from waters
shoreward of the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour, but would still be
allowed to fish in waters seaward of 200-fm (366-m). This action would
only apply to non-tribal midwater trawl vessels. NMFS expects that the
Tribes would implement area management measures to mitigate salmon
bycatch, if necessary.
The Council and NMFS monitor the salmon bycatch rates of the fleet
inseason. If any sector's bycatch rates exceed those considered in the
Biological Opinion, the Council and NMFS could take inseason action to
implement the BRA for any of the midwater trawl sectors. The effects of
this proposed action would depend on these sectors' ability to fish in
areas deeper than 200 fm (366 m). Section C.1.4 of Appendix C of the
Analysis contains a description of the recent catch data by depth. The
shoreside whiting trawl sector, and especially the non-whiting midwater
trawl sector, would likely have limited or no ability to fish seaward
of 200 fm (366 m) due to horsepower restrictions and because the catch
targets (canary rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish) are
primarily found in shallower depths. The sectors that would be unable
to effectively operate if the proposed BRA were put into place would
experience negative economic effects from this action. The level of
economic impacts would depend on when the BRA was implemented. The non-
whiting midwater trawl fishery typically lands a significant portion of
its catch later in the year. Thus, if NMFS were to implement a BRA
after October, a prohibition on fishing shoreward of 200 fm (366 m)
could significantly reduce this fleet's landings of canary, yellowtail,
and widow rockfish. As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1 of the Analysis, on
average, the non-whiting midwater trawl fleet lands 25.8 percent of its
target stocks from October to December.
The at-sea sectors have historically been able to fish seaward of
200 fm (366 m), but in limited capacity. The MS sector's capacity to
fish seaward of 200 fm (366 m) is particularly limited. Additionally,
data from the C/P and MS sector from 2011 to 2017 has shown higher
amounts of incidental catch of spiny dogfish, yellowtail rockfish, and
widow rockfish seaward of 200 fm (366 m), compared to shoreward of 200
fm (Section C.1.4 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Therefore, if NMFS
implements the 200-fm (366-m) BRA and sectors choose to fish seaward of
200 fm (366 m) due to salmon bycatch concerns, there could be increased
incidental catch of these stocks.
Incidental catch of widow rockfish by the at-sea sector is managed
under an allocation, while catch of yellowtail rockfish is managed
under a set-aside for the sector. Allocations are managed more closely
than set-asides. If an allocation is exceeded, the fishery is closed.
Set-asides are generally managed on an annual basis unless there is a
risk of overall catch exceeding an ACL for the stock, unforeseen
impacts on another fishery, or conservation concerns, in which case
inseason action may be taken. The at-sea sector's catch of both of
these stocks has been at or below allowable amounts in recent years.
For yellowtail rockfish, the overall attainment of the ACL was around
50 percent, so even if at-sea catch increased, NMFS does not expect the
risk of exceeding the ACL to change. Catch of spiny dogfish is managed
under an HG for the entire Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, which
ensures catch will remain below the ACL for this stock.
This proposed action, if approved, would use the existing
regulations for inseason actions, which allow a single meeting process.
If the Council and NMFS determine that any of the midwater trawl
sectors is encountering Chinook salmon at a bycatch rate above that
analyzed in the Biological Opinion, NMFS could issue a single Federal
Register notice to implement the BRA, provided that waiver of notice
and comment meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone and the Klamath River Salmon
Conservation Zone
This proposed action would also close the CRSCZ and the KRSCZ to
all midwater trawling and to bottom trawling, unless vessels are using
a selective flatfish trawl (SFFT). This action is a term and condition
of the Biological Opinion. Under current regulations, vessels using
midwater trawl gear in the Pacific whiting primary season are
prohibited from fishing in the CRSCZ and the KRSCZ. This proposed
action would extend the area prohibition to vessels using midwater
trawl gear to target rockfish, including widow rockfish and yellowtail
rockfish, a reemerging fishery following the rebuilding of widow
rockfish in 2012.
Additionally, this proposed action would maintain protection for
these areas that is currently included under a blanket requirement that
groundfish trawl vessels use SFFT gear shoreward of the trawl RCA north
of 40[deg]10' N lat. Both the CRSCZ and KRSCZ are located inside this
area. NMFS proposed removing this blanket requirement in a separate
proposed rule. This proposed action would reestablish the SFFT
requirement inside the CRSCZ and KRSCZ.
Bycatch Guideline and Reserve Management
This proposed action would create a provision in the regulations to
give NMFS automatic authority to close either or both of the whiting
and non-whiting sector fisheries if: (1) Either sector catches its
guideline limit and the reserve amount; or (2) either sector reaches
its guideline limit when the other sector has already taken the reserve
amount. The closure would be effective until the end of the fishing
year on December 31. This proposed measure is a term and condition of
the Biological Opinion. However, the Council and NMFS intend to use
other available tools, including area management tools, to help manage
salmon bycatch prior to guideline limits being taken, with the result
of sectors being closed for the remainder of the fishing year.
The proposed action organizes the various sectors of the Pacific
Coast groundfish fishery into one of two groupings: The whiting sector
and the non-whiting sector. The whiting sector includes the tribal and
non-tribal Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, the C/P sector, and the
mothership sector. The non-whiting sector includes the tribal and non-
tribal Shoreside IFQ Program, the LEFG fishery, the OA fishery, and the
recreational fisheries off of Washington,
[[Page 47432]]
Oregon, and California. The proposed action includes only select
recreational fisheries that are not accounted for in pre-season salmon
modeling. The recreational fisheries not accounted for in preseason
salmon modeling are those occurring outside of the open salmon seasons
and the Oregon longleader fishery. Any Chinook salmon bycatch in these
fisheries must be attributed to the non-whiting threshold, and these
fisheries are subject to potential closures. Chinook salmon bycatch
from each fishery accrues to the larger sector (i.e., whiting or non-
whiting) level. As described in the Biological Opinion, access to the
reserve for additional Chinook salmon bycatch above the sector's
guideline limit is not guaranteed. However, if one sector surpasses its
guideline limit, it may be allowed to continue fishing, with additional
salmon bycatch accounted for within the reserve. Under such a scenario,
if the sector's bycatch reached the reserve limit, all fisheries within
that sector would be subject to an automatic closure. If one sector is
allowed to access the reserve in a given calendar year, then the other
sector, upon reaching its guideline limit, would be subject to an
automatic closure rather than potentially being able to access the
reserve.
Under the existing regulations for automatic actions at Sec.
660.60(d), a closure notice would be published in the Federal Register
and be effective immediately for all fisheries within either or both of
the whiting or non-whiting sectors. NMFS waives notice and comment
under the Administrative Procedure Act if good cause exists. Section
C.1.4 of Appendix C of the Analysis describes the effects of this
proposed action on the whiting and non-whiting sectors under different
scenarios, based on potential closures lasting from either October or
December through the remainder of the fishing year. Under any of the
closure scenarios, the effect on groundfish would be reduced landings
and underattainment of the ACL for target stocks. The economic effects
of this action are greatest under an October closure scenario, and are
least under a December closure scenario.
The Analysis discusses that both the bottom trawl and non-whiting
midwater trawl sectors typically have high catch after October. Section
4.3.1.1 estimates that an October closure would have the greatest
effect on the C/P fleet because, on average, this fleet catches 45
percent of its whiting catch between October and the end of the year.
Under the December closure scenario, the average percentage of target
catch that could potentially be left unharvested ranges from 0.5
percent for the Shoreside whiting fleet to 13 percent for the
nonwhiting midwater trawl fleet. Overall, Section C.4 of Appendix C of
the Analysis estimates that a closure starting in October could have an
economic impact of $138.6 million in income and 2,083 jobs for the
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery as a whole, assuming no fishery effort
substitutions to offset losses. For the low impact (December only
closure) scenario, the Analysis estimates the impact to be losses of
$24.6 million in income and 349 jobs.
Whether or not there will be an economic impact of a closure
depends upon the likelihood that a closure would occur. Since 2002,
when the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) first began
monitoring the groundfish fishery, the whiting sector (including the
at-sea, shorebased, and tribal components) has taken more than 11,000
Chinook in two years, in 2005 and in 2014. In the non-whiting sector,
the bottom trawl fleet takes the majority of the salmon bycatch. Since
2002, the bottom trawl fleet has taken more than 5,500 Chinook twice,
in 2002 and 2003. Overall, over the last 15 years, there has never been
a situation where both sectors exceeded their guideline levels at the
same time. Therefore, NMFS believes that it is unlikely that a closure
would be triggered. However, the closure mechanisms are a term and
condition of the Biological Opinion and are, therefore, included in
this proposed rule. Such a mechanism would serve to limit impact on
listed salmon in extraordinary circumstances.
J. Modifications to Depth Restrictions Within the Western CCA
This proposed action would modify the allowed fishing depths from
20-fm (37-m) to 40-fm (73-m) for the commercial fixed gear fishery and
the recreational fishery inside the Western Cowcod Conservation Area
(CCA). This action would also add new waypoints approximating the 30-fm
(55-m) and 40-fm (73-m) depth contours around Santa Barbara Island, San
Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank, because waypoints
approximating these contours do not exist at these depths currently.
Fisheries are allowed to operate in areas shallower than the depth
limit. This proposed action is intended to allow additional
opportunities for commercial fixed gear and recreational vessels to
target healthy stocks (nearshore rockfish, shelf rockfish, cabezon,
kelp greenling, California scorpionfish, and lingcod), while still
closing the depths where the overall density of cowcod is the greatest
to provide protections as the stock continues to rebuild.
The Council originally established two CCAs (Western and Eastern)
in 2001 as area closures to promote cowcod rebuilding. These area
closures prohibited fishing in the main portion of cowcod's depth range
(overall distribution 22 to 270-fm (40 to 494-m), with the highest
density from 100 to 130-fm (183 to 238-m)) to reduce encounters and
mortality to allow the stock to rebuild more quickly. The Western CCA
encompasses 5,126-mi\2\ (13,276-km\2\) and is located in the Southern
California Bight south of Point Conception. The CCA is also expected to
provide protections for bronzespotted rockfish, a stock with similar
life history characteristics, habitat associations, and vulnerability
to fishing as cowcod. Commercial landings of bronzespotted dropped in
the late 1980s and have remained at low levels from 1990 to present.
Under the current regulations, 40.4-mi\2\ (104.6 km\2\) (or less
than 1 percent of the entire CCA) is open to fishing due to the 20-fm
(37-m) depth restriction. By increasing the depth to a 40-fm (73-m)
depth restriction, this proposed rule would increase the fishable area
to 150.4- mi\2\ (389.5-km\2\).
In the 2009-10 biennial specifications and management measures, the
Council recommended modifying the recreational depth restrictions
inside the CCA to 30-fm (55-m). NMFS disapproved this recommendation in
the final rule (76 FR 27508; May 11, 2011), because there was limited
information on the impacts of the proposed action on cowcod, especially
juvenile cowcod, which could delay rebuilding. NMFS also indicated
that, because the ACL for cowcod was low (4 mt at that time), any
measures that potentially increased cowcod mortality required better
information on potential biological and economic effects. At the time
of NMFS' disapproval, cowcod was at 4.5 percent of unfished biomass
with a projected time to rebuild of 2071.
Since the 2009-10 disapproval, the NWFSC conducted a new stock
assessment for cowcod (assessed in 2013). The 2013 assessment concluded
that the stock is rebuilding much more quickly than anticipated under
its rebuilding plan. Cowcod is expected to be rebuilt by 2020, assuming
full removal of the ACL, which is 48 years ahead of the target end date
for the rebuilding plan. Over the past several years, cowcod harvest
has consistently been far below the ACL (see Section C.6 of Appendix C
of the Analysis). As
[[Page 47433]]
discussed in section III (Management Measures), C, entitled ``Biennial
Fishery Allocations,'' of this preamble, NMFS is proposing to set the
cowcod ACT at 6 mt for 2019-20.
The 2013 cowcod assessment explored ecosystem interactions and
updated habitat preferences of juvenile cowcod based on research
published since the previous full assessment in 2007. The stock
assessment identified young of the year fish as being distributed
between 52 and 277-m (28-151-fm), with juveniles found slightly deeper.
NMFS survey data and recent catch data from observed trips inside the
Western CCA encountered no cowcod (juvenile or adult) within the
proposed depth openings (see Section C.6 of Appendix C of the
Analysis). Overall, the proposed measure is not expected to result in
increased cowcod encounters, because the highest densities of cowcod
are found outside of the depths in which this measure would allow
commercial fixed gear and recreational fishing. Additionally, the
proposed measure is not expected to increase mortality for
bronzespotted rockfish, because this stock is found between 41-fm (75-
m) and 205-fm (375-m), which is outside the depth range of the proposed
action.
The Council recommended this measure because the additional data on
habitat usage from the 2013 stock assessment, the improved cowcod stock
trajectory, and the higher ACT for cowcod demonstrate that there would
be no adverse impacts expected for cowcod from this action. The
expected benefits of this action for the commercial and recreational
fleets are described separately below.
Commercial
This proposed action would allow greater access to valuable and
underattained stocks in this remote area. Recent commercial fixed gear
fishing effort has been very low within the Western CCA due to limited
opportunities within the current depth restrictions. The proposed depth
changes within the CCA would allow greater access to deeper stocks and
would create an economic incentive for vessels to make trips to the
area. NMFS expects that a modest increase in the number of fixed gear
vessels fishing in this area may occur as a result of this proposed
action; however the magnitude of increase is difficult to quantify. A
redistribution of depth of catch is also expected as a result of the
increased depths available for fishing. The effects on groundfish of
any increase in effort would be limited through the existing 2-month
trip limits delineated in Table 2 (South) to part 660.330.
Recreational
This proposed action would allow recreational fishing within the
Western CCA out to 40 fathoms (73 m). NMFS expects this measure would
increase the catch of target stocks, including shelf rockfish,
bocaccio, deeper nearshore rockfish, and lingcod. The proposed action
would also be expected to reduce pressure on shallower nearshore
rockfish stocks by allowing access to currently inaccessible desirable
nearshore (i.e., copper rockfish) and shelf rockfish (i.e., vermilion
rockfish) found in deeper waters.
NMFS expects that this action would result in an increase in the
number of angler trips, and an increase in the amount of recreational
catch, and result in a redistribution of depth of catch. Allowing
access to deeper depths inside the Western CCA is expected to increase
the number of groundfish trips between 10 percent and 20 percent,
particularly out of Ventura and Los Angeles, given the proximity of
these ports to the Western CCA (see Section C.7 of Appendix C of the
Analysis). This would provide additional revenues to charter boat crews
in the form of fish processing and tips.
K. Modification of Lingcod and Sablefish Discard Mortality Rates
This rule proposes to modify the discard mortality rates (DMRs) for
lingcod and sablefish used to debit IFQ accounts in the Shorebased IFQ
Program. Currently, NMFS debits IFQ accounts for 100 percent of all
catch of these stocks, regardless of survival after discarding. The
Council recommended implementing lower discard mortality rates for
lingcod and sablefish to match those endorsed by the SSC and used for
year-end groundfish catch accounting. For many other stocks, the best
scientific information available does not indicate discard survival
rates high enough to warrant consideration of a survival credit. The
DMRs in Table 18 reflect the best scientific information available.
Table 18--Proposed Discard Mortality Rates for Lingcod and Sablefish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed DMR
Stock Gear (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod........................... Bottom trawl........ 50
Fixed gear \a\...... 7
Sablefish......................... Bottom trawl........ 50
Fixed gear \a\...... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Applies to both pot and hook and line gear.
By providing IFQ participants with discard survival credits for
lingcod and sablefish, this action better meets some of the objectives
of the IFQ program, such as increased attainments of and increased
value of IFQ stocks, such as Dover sole and thornyheads. In addition,
this action aligns DMRs with those used in year-end catch accounting,
which creates consistency in mortality estimates. This proposed action
would allow modest increases in attainment of co-occurring target
stocks, and increase marketability and value of retained catch by
eliminating the need to retain small fish that are not economically
marketable or desirable. Landings and mortality would be expected to
increase proportionally by the amount of QP savings/gains the credit
would provide, which for sablefish could be a gain of one-half the
bottom trawl discards (9-21 mt per year) and four-fifths the fixed gear
discards (11-20 mt per year), which could be converted into additional
landings. Therefore, the resulting gains in landings of sablefish could
be an extra 5-11 mt for bottom trawl and 9-16 mt for fixed gear, which
would only be about a 1 percent increase in total coastwide IFQ
mortality of this stock (see Section C.5 of Appendix C of the
Analysis).
As described in Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis, overall,
this proposed action would not be expected to result in substantial
changes to discarding behavior because there are operational costs for
discarding in terms of labor time for sorting catch, extra fishing time
necessary to replace the
[[Page 47434]]
discarded fish, as well as the potential risk that further fishing will
not result in catching larger fish. However, the resulting ``savings''
of trawl sablefish, due to a decreased deduction for discarded fish,
could possibly increase landings of co-occurring, underattained stocks,
such as Dover sole, shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads
(see Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Although this measure
could increase attainment, IFQ participants' total fishing mortality
would continue to be managed to individual and sector allocations, and
catch would be constrained by the total ACL for each stock.
L. Removal of IFQ Daily Vessel Limits
Under the Shorebased IFQ Program, a quota share (QS) permit
authorizes a person or group to own QS. A QS account is an account that
contains QS allocations registered to the QS permit for IFQ and
individual bycatch quota (IBQ) stocks. At the beginning of each
calendar year, NMFS issues quota pounds (QPs) to each QS account based
on the IFQ or IBQ sector allocation. For QPs to cover catch (landings
and discards) by a vessel in the shorebased IFQ program, the QS permit
owner must transfer QPs from the QS account to a vessel account. Vessel
limits in vessel accounts restrict the amount of QPs that any vessel
can catch or hold. NMFS calculates annual QP vessel limits, which are a
set percentage of the total IFQ sector allocation based on formulas set
through Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP. The annual vessel QP limit
restricts the amount of used and unused QP in a vessel account during a
fishing year.
NMFS also sets daily vessel limits for overfished stocks, which cap
the amount of overfished stock QPs any vessel account can have
available in their account on a given day. The Council and NMFS
established daily vessel limits to prevent a person from acquiring
additional QP from others before those QP are needed. IFQ sector
allocations of some overfished stocks are low, which creates a strong
incentive for hoarding of QP for these stocks to cover unexpected high
catch events. This daily limit keeps QP of overfished stocks on the
market and available for trading. The daily limits are set equal to the
control limits for each stock, which limit the amount of QS and IBQ
that a person, individually or collectively, may own or control.
Because daily limits are set at the level of the QS control limits,
they have no effect on those who only use QP from their own QS account.
Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP intended for daily limits to apply for
overfished stocks. This means that when stocks are declared rebuilt,
the daily limit for that stock must be removed through rulemaking. In
the 2017-18 biennium, bocaccio (south), darkblotched rockfish, and
Pacific ocean perch were declared rebuilt, so this action proposes to
remove the daily limits for these stocks. However, because the daily
vessel limit has been ineffective for keeping catch available for
trading, this rule proposes to eliminate the daily limits for all
stocks. Thus, in addition to bocaccio (south), darkblotched rockfish,
and Pacific ocean perch, this rule also proposed to remove daily
vessels limits for cowcod (south), yelloweye rockfish, and Pacific
halibut.
As explained in in Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis, there
may be strategies to circumvent the daily vessel limit. First, vessel
owners can sign sales contracts in advance, but delay transferring QP
for a stock until a vessel account's unused QP drops below the daily
limit. Second, entities can temporarily acquire trawl permits and use
them to establish a second vessel account in which they can store QP.
There is also evidence that the daily limit is not constraining for
several stocks. Table C-65 in the Analysis indicates that for the
remaining overfished stocks and Pacific halibut, from 2011 through
2017, there has been only one instance of a vessel landing more than
the daily limit. For the recently rebuilt stocks, there has generally
been at least one vessel landing more than the daily limit each year
for Pacific ocean perch, but this has rarely occurred for bocaccio and
darkblotched rockfish since the start of the Shorebased IFQ Program.
Because the daily limits for the remaining overfished stocks and for
Pacific halibut have not been constraining, NMFS expects that
eliminating this provision would not have a measurable effect on the
fishery.
M. Removal of Automatic Authority for Darkblotched Rockfish and Pacific
Ocean Perch Set-Asides for At-Sea Sector
Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP (75 FR 60867; October 1, 2010)
established allocations for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean
perch catch in the at-sea sector (C/P and mothership sectors). At that
time, darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch were overfished,
and the ACLs and fishery allocations for these stocks were low. NMFS
has authority to take automatic action to close the at-sea sector, if
necessary, to ensure that darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch
stays below the allocation. In recent years, both of the at-sea sectors
have exceeded their allocations of darkblotched rockfish (the C/P
sector in 2011, and the mothership sector in 2014). The latter resulted
in an emergency Council meeting, and NMFS took emergency action to
reopen the fisheries (79 FR 67095; November 12, 2014). However, because
the overall attainment of the darkblotched rockfish ACL had been low,
the Council recommended and NMFS approved Amendment 21-3 to the PCGFMP
(83 FR 757; January 8, 2018). Amendment 21-3 replaced the at-sea sector
Pacific ocean perch and darkblotched rockfish allocations with sector-
specific set-asides with a reserve for the C/P and mothership sectors.
The allocation for the at-sea sectors is a percentage of the trawl
allocation of each stock.
Set-asides are managed on an annual basis unless there is a risk of
catch exceeding a harvest specification (ACL, ACT, or HG) inseason,
unforeseen impact on another fishery, or conservation concerns, in
which case inseason action may be taken. Amendment 21-3 also included a
reserve, or buffer, for set-asides. The buffer is an amount deducted
from the ACL as part of the process of determining the fishery HG
(which serves as the basis of allocating between trawl and nontrawl
fisheries), and is intended to account for higher than expected
incidental catch. The buffer for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific
ocean perch was established under Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP (82 FR
9634; February 7, 2017). NMFS has the authority to close either at-sea
sector if it is projected to exceed its set-aside value, taking into
account the buffer, for either darkblotched rockfish or Pacific ocean
perch.
Darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch have both been
declared rebuilt. The proposed 2019-20 ACLs for both stocks are higher,
reflecting the change in stock status. In addition, because of the
change in stock status, there is currently no buffer proposed for 2019-
20. Because of these changes, darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean
perch would be managed as de facto allocations for the at-sea sectors.
This proposed rule would remove NMFS's automatic authority to close
either sector if they exceed their set-aside value for these stocks, so
that they are managed like all other at-sea set-asides in the PCGFMP.
The Analysis demonstrates that the expected risk of the at-sea sectors
exceeding their set-aside values for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific
ocean perch is low, due to low overall attainment in the trawl
[[Page 47435]]
sector in recent years. In addition, because this proposed adjustment
would remove the risk of shutting down the fishery after reaching the
set aside, it increases the likelihood that the at-sea sectors could
attain their Pacific whiting allocation (see Section C.4 of Appendix C
of the Analysis).
N. Continuation of Adaptive Management Pass Through
Under the Amendment 20 Trawl Rationalization Program, NMFS reserves
10 percent of the QS for each of the non-whiting stocks (including
halibut individual bycatch quota) each year for an adaptive management
program. While the Council has never used the allocation for this
purpose, conceptually, an adaptive management program could distribute
the reserved QP to fishery participants to address adverse effects of
the Shoreside IFQ program, including impacts to community or processor
stability, conservation concerns, or other effects. NMFS could also
distribute the reserved QPs to facilitate new entrants to participate
in the groundfish fishery. To date, the Council has not recommended
establishing an adaptive management program. Therefore, NMFS has
distributed (passed through) these QP to quota shareholders each
fishing year in proportion to their QS for each stock. This rule
proposes that NMFS will continue to pass through the QP reserved for
the adaptive management program until the Council recommends an
alternative use of adaptive management program QP. This is an
administrative measure that would not affect fishing opportunity and
related catch.
O. Modification of the Incidental Lingcod Retention Ratio in the Salmon
Troll Fishery
This proposed action would adjust the existing incidental retention
ratio for landing lingcod based on the number of Chinook landed in the
ocean salmon troll fishery in the area north of 40[deg] 10' N.
latitude. The purpose of the ratio is to allow salmon trollers to
retain incidentally caught lingcod, but to discourage lingcod
targeting. Currently, participants are allowed to retain 1 lingcod per
15 Chinook salmon plus 1 lingcod per trip, up to a trip limit of 10
lingcod, on a trip where any fishing occurs within the nontrawl RCA.
This limit only applies when lingcod retention is allowed. Vessels
participating in the ocean salmon troll fishery must be equipped with a
vessel monitoring system (VMS) to retain incidentally caught
groundfish. This proposed action would allow retention of 1 lingcod per
5 Chinook salmon plus 1 lingcod per trip, up to a trip limit of 10
lingcod, on a trip where any fishing occurs within the RCA. For 2019-
20, the lingcod fishery is proposed to be open year-round for the open
access groundfish fishery. The Council can adjust the ratio of lingcod
retention per Chinook landed through inseason adjustments, if
necessary.
As Section C.9 of Appendix C of the Analysis notes, this action
would be the first modification of the ratio since it was implemented
in 2009 (74 FR 9874; March 6, 2009). The Council recommended this
measure because there has been an increased rate of lingcod encounters
as Chinook harvest opportunities have declined. This increased
encounter rate has resulted in an increase in regulatory discards of
lingcod. This proposed action would align the lingcod retention limit
with the true lingcod encounter rate in the salmon troll fishery while
continuing to discourage lingcod targeting. Salmon trollers would still
to be subject to the existing overall limit of 10 lingcod per trip and
the existing requirement to have VMS in order to retain any
incidentally caught groundfish. NMFS does not expect this proposed
action will create an incentive for salmon trollers to target lingcod
because these vessels would still be restricted to an overall limit of
10 lingcod per trip.
P. Administrative Actions
NMFS also proposes four minor changes to the regulatory text to
clarify regulatory intent. NMFS proposes to add big skate to the LEFG
and OA fixed gear fisheries trip limit tables, Table 2 North and Table
2 South to Part 660 Subpart E, and Table 3 North and Table 3 South to
Part 660 Subpart F. Big skate is not currently listed in the trip limit
table for either the LEFG or OA fisheries, and as such is unlimited.
Adding it to the trip limit tables would provide clarity on this
existing management measure.
This proposed rule would remove an obsolete reference to halibut
weight provisions at Sec. 660.333(c)(3). The obsolete reference
originally mirrored a provision in California state regulations, but
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife removed this provision
from state regulations in 2004.
This proposed rule would clarify the application of Amendment 21-3
set-aside management of darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch
for the at-sea sector for both years of the biennium in Tables 1b, 2b,
1d, and 2d to part 660, subpart C.
Finally, this action would remove the WCGOP priority sampling
requirement for canary rockfish and bocaccio, formerly overfished
stocks that were declared rebuilt, as requested by the Council at their
March 2017 meeting. Under this requirement, observers are required to
count and weigh these fish on a docked vessel prior to offloading. This
requirement was implemented to prevent vessels from discarding
overfished stocks for which they may have low QP at port prior to
offload. Under 50 CFR 660.60(c)(1), the Council can modify the list of
stocks subject to this catch monitoring requirement as a routine
management measure. In March 2017, the Council recommended that the
priority sampling requirement be removed for canary rockfish and
bocaccio because these stocks are now rebuilt.
IV. Classification
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the PCGFMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after
public comment. In making its final determination, NMFS will take into
account the complete record, including the data, views, and comments
received during the comment period.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials
from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at
16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In
addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by
which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the
PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes,
in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council
considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR
660.324(d) further state, ``the Secretary will develop tribal
allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with
the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal
consensus.'' The tribal management measures in this proposed rule have
been developed following these procedures. The tribal representative on
the Council made a motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management
measures, which was passed by the Council. Those management measures,
which were
[[Page 47436]]
developed and proposed by the tribes, are included in this proposed
rule.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an integrated Analysis for this action, which
addresses the statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, Presidential Executive Order 12866,
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The full suite of alternatives
analyzed by the Council can be found on the Council's website at
www.pcouncil.org. This Analysis does not contain all the alternatives,
because an EIS was prepared for the 2015-16 biennial harvest
specifications and management measures and is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). This EIS examined the harvest specifications and management
measures for 2015-16 and ten year projections for routinely adjusted
harvest specifications and management measures. The ten year
projections were produced to evaluate the impacts of the ongoing
implementation of harvest specifications and management measures and to
evaluate the impacts of the routine adjustments that are the main
component of each biennial cycle. Therefore, the EA for the 2019-20
cycle tiers from the 2015-16 EIS and focuses on the harvest
specifications and management measures that were not within the scope
of the ten year projections in the 2015-16 EIS. A copy of the EA is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This action also announces a
public comment period on the EA.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared for
this action, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603). The IRFA describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this
action is contained in the SUMMARY section and at the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. A summary of the
IRFA follows. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
When an agency proposes regulations, the RFA requires the agency to
prepare and make available for public comment an IRFA that describes
the impact on small businesses, non-profit enterprises, local
governments, and other small entities. The IRFA is to aid the agency in
considering all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would minimize
the economic impact on affected small entities.
The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires government agencies to
assess the effects that regulatory alternatives would have on small
entities, defined as any business/organization independently owned and
operated, not dominant in its field of operation (including its
affiliates). A small harvesting business has combined annual receipts
of $11 million \2\ or less for all affiliated operations worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On December 29, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) issued a final rule establishing a small business size
standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses
primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411)
for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR
81194, December 29, 2015; 50 CFR part 200). The $11 million standard
became effective on July 1, 2016, and after that date it is to be
used in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA. Id. at 81194. This NMFS
rule is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business
Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5
million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish
(NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of
the U.S. commercial fishing industry, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A small fish-processing business is one that employs 750 or fewer
persons for all affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS is applying this
standard to catcher/processors (C/Ps) for the purposes of this
rulemaking, because these vessels earn the majority of their revenue
from selling processed fish.
For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one that
has annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. A wholesale business
servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or
fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at
all its affiliated operations worldwide.
For the purposes of this rulemaking, a nonprofit organization is
determined to be ``not dominant in its field of operation'' if it is
considered small under one of the following Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards: environmental, conservation, or
professional organizations are considered small if they have combined
annual receipts of $15 million or less, and other organizations are
considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $7.5 million
or less. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000.
Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the
rule applies, and estimate of economic impacts by entity size and
industry
This proposed rule would regulate businesses that participate in
the groundfish fishery. This rule would directly affect commercial
vessels in the groundfish fisheries, trawl QS holders and Pacific
whiting catch history endorsed permit holders (which include shorebased
whiting processors), tribal vessels, and charterboat vessels.
Additionally, a provision of this proposed rule would regulate
commercial vessels in the salmon troll fleet.
To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by
this rule, NMFS reviewed analyses of fish ticket data and limited entry
permit data, information on charterboat, tribal, and open access
fleets, available cost-earnings data developed by NWFSC, and responses
associated with the permitting process for the Trawl Rationalization
Program where applicants were asked if they considered themselves a
small business based on SBA definitions. This rule would primarily
regulate businesses that harvest groundfish.
Charter Operations
There were an estimated 287 active Commercial Passenger Fishing
Vessels (charter boats) engaged in groundfish fishing in California in
2017. In 2017, an estimated 49 charter boats targeted groundfish in
Oregon. There is no Oregon license or tracking of party fishing (or
``six pack'') vessel businesses that will also be impacted, however in
one week in August 2017, there were 285 boat trips targeting
recreational groundfish in Oregon; this number includes the 49 charter
vessels and is the upper bound of the number of such entities likely to
be impacted in Oregon. Similarly in Washington, the number of party/
charter vessels likely to be impacted by the proposed rule was 182 in
2017. All 705 of these vessels are likely to be impacted by changes in
recreational catch guidelines for groundfish in their respective
states.
Commercial Vessels
Groundfish
Entities that are not registered as trusts, estates, governments,
or non-profits are assumed to earn the majority of their revenue from
commercial fishing. There are 124 QS permit owners, who collectively
received 76.5 percent of the QP issued in 2018. Limited entry
groundfish vessels are required to self-report size across all
affiliated entities; of the business who earn the majority of their
revenue from commercial fishing, one self-reported as large. This
entity owns four groundfish permits and one QS permit. 264 entities
owning 376 permits self-reported as small. The average small entity
owns 1.4 permits, with 30 small entities owning between 3-6 permits
each. Open access groundfish vessel owners are assumed
[[Page 47437]]
to earn the majority of their revenue from fishing and would thus fall
into this Small Business Administration definition. 186 non-limited
entry vessels harvested at least $10,000 worth of groundfish in 2017;
these are likely to be impacted by the proposed rule. This number is
likely an upper bound, as some entities may own more than one vessel.
However, these generally small operations are assumed to be independent
entities; with the top three vessels having coastwide (including non-
groundfish) revenues averaging $585,000. Median revenues were $37,000
per vessel.
In addition to benefits from increasing ACLs in the harvest
specifications, several of the new management measures contained in the
proposed rule are likely to benefit vessels. Clarifications resulting
from the stock complex restructuring and updates to Rockfish
Conservation Area coordinates may streamline management burden for
vessels. IFQ vessels are expected to benefit from the removal of daily
vessel quota pounds, which did not appear to constrain operations, but
which did account for some level of administrative burden for quota
pound account managers. With the elimination of these limits, managers
will have greater flexibility in moving and holding quota pounds for
the remaining overfished species and halibut IBQ. These vessels and
vessel account operators may also benefit somewhat from changes to the
discard mortality rates in the IFQ program. Some of the non-trawl fixed
gear vessels are expected to benefit by the modifications to the
commercial depths inside the Western Cowcod Conservation area in
California.
Salmon Trollers
The proposed rule primarily impacts entities in the groundfish
fishery. However, one new management measure included the proposed rule
will likely benefit vessels primarily involved in the salmon troll
fishery, through a modification in the incidental lingcod retention
ratio in that fishery. This modification reflects the increased rate of
lingcod encounters during declining Chinook salmon harvest seasons.
This modification would allow salmon trollers to retain and sell a
larger number of lingcod caught incidentally when targeting salmon. The
level of activity varies substantially, with trips ranging from 500 to
over 5,500 in a year. The subsector of the fleet expected to benefit
from the proposed rule is much smaller, as historically a small
proportion has elected to land lingcod within the previously allowed
limits. In order to land lingcod, the vessel would have to install VMS,
which (among other factors) likely deters salmon trollers. Thus, this
provision of the proposed rule is likely to impact 3 of 220 vessels
operating in California. In Oregon, between 7 and 85 trollers have
landed lingcod, and in Washington between 10 and 17 trollers have
landed lingcod. The proposed rule would confer a small benefit to these
105 vessels, which landed lingcod on a median of 1-2 trips, with
vessels in the 90th percentile landing lingcod on 5 trips annually.
This small positive benefit is not expected to be a substantial impact.
A substantial number of small entities in the overall salmon troll
fishery are not likely to be impacted by the proposed rule.
QS Owners
Because the harvest specifications process determines the amount of
QP available in the catch share (Shorebased IFQ Program) sector, this
proposed rule will impact QS. Twenty-two non-whiting QS permit owners
are estimated to be primarily engaged in seafood product preparation
and packaging, based on holdings of first receiver permit affiliation
in the non-public West Coast Region permits database. According to the
size standard described above, three of the entities that own three of
these permits are considered small. These small processing entities
were issued 1.7 percent of the non-whiting QP issued in 2018. Some of
these small processing entities also own groundfish permits, which are
required on both catcher vessels and catcher processors, and which
would be regulated by the proposed rule; three small entities primarily
engaged in seafood processing own two groundfish permits. Thirty
groundfish vessel permits are owned by seven entities that are
considered large, as estimated by NMFS using the standard described
above, and as estimated by information regarding ownership affiliation
and self-reported size on groundfish permits and first receiver site
license permits (self-reported using the standard described above). Six
of these seven large processing entities were issued 10.2 percent of
the non-whiting QP issued in 2018 across sixteen QS permits.
Governmental Jurisdictions
According to the public IFQ Account database as of June 19, 2018,
the City of Monterey owns QS of ten stocks. The U.S. Census estimates
the population to be 28,454 as of July 1, 2017, so would be considered
a small governmental jurisdiction by the RFA standard noted above. The
City of Monterey received 0.5 percent of the QP issued for 2018,
according to the public IFQ Account database.
Not-for-Profits
According to the public IFQ Account database, six not-for-profit
organizations own QS in the catch share program and would thus be
impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this proposed rule. Five
of these would be considered small by the definition noted above (with
2016 annual receipts as reported on IRS form 990 of $120-500 thousand
dollars), and one would be considered large (with self-reported fiscal
year 2017 receipts of $1.1 billion). Collectively, the five small not-
for-profit organizations received 7.2 percent of the non-whiting \3\ QP
issued in 2018, and the large not-for-profit organization received 0.5
percent. The large not-for-profit organization also owned four limited
entry trawl permits which would be impacted by the management measures
of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Whiting is issued annually through a separate rulemaking
process resulting from international treaty negotiations. (See 83 FR
22401 for more information and 2018 allocations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Trusts
Eleven personal or family trusts/estates owned QS permits and would
thus potentially be impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this
proposed rule. All of these are assumed to be smaller than the size
standard noted above. Collectively, these eight small entities received
4.2 percent of the non-whiting QP issued for 2018.
A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities
In the event of a fishery closure under the Biological Opinion
provisions included in this rule (50 CFR 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi) of
this proposed rule), the loss of revenue in groundfish fisheries would
likely have a substantial negative impact on a significant number of
small entities, and an equal impact on all large entities in the
fishery. However, such a closure is not anticipated by NMFS and the
Council, given historic catch levels and the existence of cooperative
management structures with extensive inseason monitoring. Because these
provisions are non-discretionary under the ESA, there are no
significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would minimize
adverse economic impacts on small entities.
The Council considered alternatives to the actions in this proposed
rule that
[[Page 47438]]
would have a lower level of benefits to small entities. The Council did
not consider alternatives that would have greater benefits to small
entities, as these would not have met several primary objectives of the
rule (the prevention of overfishing, the rebuilding of overfished
stocks, and ensuring conservation).
Under the No Action alternative, the default harvest specifications
and associated routine management measures would be implemented using
best scientific information available to establish default harvest
control rules for all groundfish stocks. The Council considered
alternative specifications for California scorpionfish, lingcod north
of 40[deg]10' N lat, and yelloweye rockfish. In each case, the Council
selected the harvest control rule that resulted in the maximum benefits
to both large and small directly regulated entities. Routine management
measures are adjusted according to harvest specifications, which also
impact the new management measures available for implementation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Determination of No Significant Impact
The RFA requires Federal agencies to conduct an analysis of the
impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The proposed rule would
impact a significant number of small entities, but that these impacts
are expected to range from neutral to positive, depending on individual
response to increased harvest guidelines and updated management
measures. Because there are no anticipated compliance costs or other
adverse effects, NMFS concludes (subject to review of any pertinent
public comments) that the rule will not have a substantial adverse
impact on the significant number of directly regulated entities.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 4, 2018.
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
proposed to be 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.
0
2. In Sec. 660.11:
0
a. In the definition of ``Conservation area(s)'', revise paragraph (1);
and
0
b. In the definition of ``Groundfish'':
0
i. Revise paragraphs (6) and (7)(i) introductory text;
0
ii. Redesignate paragraph (7)(i)(B) as (7)(i)(C);
0
iii. Add new paragraph (7)(i)(B); and
0
iv. Revise paragraph (9).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 660.11 General definitions.
* * * * *
Conservation Area(s) * * *
(1) Groundfish Conservation Area or GCA means a geographic area
defined by coordinates expressed in degrees latitude and longitude,
wherein fishing by a particular gear type or types may be prohibited.
Regulations at Sec. 660.60(c)(3) describe the various purposes for
which these GCAs may be implemented. Regulations at Sec. 660.70 define
coordinates for these polygonal GCAs: Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation
Areas, Cowcod Conservation Areas, waters encircling the Farallon
Islands, and waters encircling the Cordell Bank. GCAs also include
Bycatch Reduction Areas (BRAs), and Rockfish Conservation Areas or
RCAs, which are areas closed to fishing by particular gear types,
bounded by lines approximating particular depth contours. RCA
boundaries may and do change seasonally according to conservation
needs. Regulations at Sec. Sec. 660.70 through 660.74 define boundary
lines with latitude/longitude coordinates; regulations at Tables 1
(North) and 1 (South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) of
subpart E, and Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) of subpart F set seasonal
boundaries. Fishing prohibitions associated with GCAs are in addition
to those associated with EFH Conservation Areas.
* * * * *
Groundfish * * *
* * * * *
(6) Roundfish: Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus; kelp greenling,
Hexagrammos decagrammus; lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus; Pacific cod,
Gadus macrocephalus; Pacific whiting, Merluccius productus; sablefish,
Anoplopoma fimbria. Species listed below with an area-specific listing
are managed within a complex in that area-specific listing.
(i) Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and the U.S. Canada border
(Washington): Cabezon, S. marmoratus and kelp greenling, H.
decagrammus.
(ii) Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and 42[deg] N lat. (Oregon):
Cabezon, S. marmoratus and kelp greenling, H. decagrammus.
(7) * * *
(i) Nearshore rockfish includes black rockfish, Sebastes melanops
(off Washington) and the following nearshore rockfish species managed
in ``minor rockfish'' complexes:
* * * * *
(B) Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and 42[deg] N lat. (Oregon): black
rockfish, S. melanops, blue rockfish, S. mystinus, deacon rockfish, S.
diaconus.
* * * * *
(9) ``Other Fish'': kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) off
California and leopard shark (Trakis semifasciata).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 660.40 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a), (c), and (d);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and paragraph (e) as
paragraph (b); and
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 660.40 Overfished species rebuilding plans.
* * * * *
(b) Yelloweye rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished
in 2002. The target year for rebuilding the yelloweye rockfish stock to
BMSY is 2029. The harvest control rule to be used to rebuild
the yelloweye rockfish stock is an annual SPR harvest rate of 65.0
percent.
0
4. In Sec. 660.50, revise paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(6) and add
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The Tribal allocation is 561 mt in 2019 and 572 mt in 2020 per
year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey
through Vancouver area (North of 36' N lat.) ACL. The Tribal allocation
is reduced by 1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality.
* * * * *
(6) Petrale sole. For petrale sole, treaty fishing vessels are
restricted to a fleetwide harvest target of 290 mt each year.
* * * * *
(h) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic
action at 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi).
0
5. In Sec. 660.55, revise paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) to read as
follows:
[[Page 47439]]
Sec. 660.55 Allocations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Darkblotched rockfish. Distribute 9 percent or 25 mt, whichever
is greater, of the total trawl allocation of darkblotched rockfish to
the Pacific whiting fishery (MS sector, C/P sector, and Shorebased IFQ
sectors). The distribution of darkblotched rockfish to each sector will
be done pro rata relative to the sector's allocation of the commercial
harvest guideline for Pacific whiting. Darkblotched rockfish
distributed to the MS sector and C/P sector are managed as set-asides
at Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C. The allocation of darkblotched
rockfish to the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the
Shorebased IFQ allocation. After deducting allocations for the Pacific
whiting fishery, the remaining trawl allocation is allocated to the
Shorebased IFQ Program.
(B) Pacific Ocean Perch (POP). Distribute 17 percent or 30 mt,
whichever is greater, of the total trawl allocation of POP to the
Pacific whiting fishery (MS sector, C/P sector, and Shorebased IFQ
sector). The distribution of POP to each sector will be done pro rata
relative to the sector's allocation of the commercial harvest guideline
for Pacific whiting. POP distributed to the MS sector and C/P sector
are managed as set-asides at Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C. The
allocation of POP to the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the
Shorebased IFQ allocation. After deducting allocations for the Pacific
whiting fishery, the remaining trawl allocation is allocated to the
Shorebased IFQ Program.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 660.60 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(v);
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(1)(vii);
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(1)(vi) as paragraph (d)(1)(vii); and
0
d. Add new paragraph (d)(1)(vi).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 660.60 Specifications and management measures.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Close one or both of the whiting or non-whiting sectors of the
groundfish fishery upon that sector having exceeded its annual Chinook
salmon bycatch guideline and the reserve. The whiting sector includes
the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS, and C/P sectors. The non-whiting
sector includes the midwater trawl, bottom trawl, and fixed gear
fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ Program, limited entry fixed gear
fisheries, open access fisheries, and recreational fisheries subject to
this provision as set out in Sec. 660.360(d).
(A) The whiting sector Chinook salmon bycatch guideline is 11,000
fish.
(B) The non-whiting sector Chinook salmon bycatch guideline is
5,500 fish.
(C) The reserve is 3,500 fish.
(vi) Close the whiting or non-whiting sector of the groundfish
fishery upon that sector having exceeded its annual Chinook salmon
bycatch guideline if the other sector has already been closed after
exceeding its Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and the reserve. The
whiting sector includes the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS, and C/P
sectors. The non-whiting sector includes the midwater trawl, bottom
trawl, and fixed gear fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ Program,
limited entry fixed gear fisheries, open access fisheries, and
recreational fisheries subject to this provision as set out in Sec.
660.360(d).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 660.71 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (k) through (n) as paragraphs (o) through
(r); and
0
b. Add new paragraphs (k) through (n) and paragraphs (s) through (v).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 660.71 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 10-fm (18-m)
through 40-fm (73-m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(k) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]30.38' N lat., 119[deg]03.15' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]29.64' N lat., 119[deg]00.58' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]27.24' N lat., 119[deg]01.73' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]27.76' N lat., 119[deg]03.48' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]29.50' N lat., 119[deg]04.20' W long.; and
(6) 33[deg]30.38' N lat., 119[deg]03.15' W long.
(l) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around San Nicholas Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]18.39' N lat., 119[deg]38.87' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]18.63' N lat., 119[deg]27.52' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]15.24' N lat., 119[deg]20.10' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]13.27' N lat., 119[deg]20.10' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]12.16' N lat., 119[deg]26.82' W long.;
(6) 33[deg]13.20' N lat., 119[deg]31.87' W long.;
(7) 33[deg]15.70' N lat., 119[deg]38.87' W long.;
(8) 33[deg]17.52' N lat., 119[deg]40.15' W long.; and
(9) 33[deg]18.39' N lat., 119[deg]38.87' W long.
(m) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]43.02' N lat., 119[deg]08.52' W long.;
(2) 32[deg]41.81' N lat., 119[deg]06.20' W long.;
(3) 32[deg]40.67' N lat., 119[deg]06.82' W long.;
(4) 32[deg]41.62' N lat., 119[deg]09.46' W long.; and
(5) 32[deg]43.02' N lat., 119[deg]08.52' W long.
(n) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]29.73' N lat., 119[deg]12.95' W long.;
(2) 32[deg]28.17' N lat., 119[deg]07.04' W long.;
(3) 32[deg]26.27' N lat., 119[deg]04.14' W long.;
(4) 32[deg]25.22' N lat., 119[deg]04.77' W long.;
(5) 32[deg]28.60' N lat., 119[deg]14.15' W long.; and
(6) 32[deg]29.73' N lat., 119[deg]12.95' W long.
* * * * *
(s) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]30.87' N lat., 119[deg]02.43' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]29.87' N lat., 119[deg]00.34' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]27.08' N lat., 119[deg]01.65' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]27.64' N lat., 119[deg]03.45' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]29.12' N lat., 119[deg]04.55' W long.;
(6) 33[deg]29.66' N lat., 119[deg]05.49' W long.; and
(7) 33[deg]30.87' N lat., 119[deg]02.43' W long.
(t) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]43.40' N lat., 119[deg]08.56' W long.;
[[Page 47440]]
(2) 32[deg]41.36' N lat., 119[deg]05.02' W long.;
(3) 32[deg]40.07' N lat., 119[deg]05.59' W long.;
(4) 32[deg]41.51' N lat., 119[deg]09.76' W long.; and
(5) 32[deg]43.40' N lat., 119[deg]08.56' W long.
(u) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around San Nicholas Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]19.30' N lat., 119[deg]41.05' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]19.42' N lat., 119[deg]27.88' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]14.31' N lat., 119[deg]17.48' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]12.90' N lat., 119[deg]17.64' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]11.89' N lat., 119[deg]27.26' W long.;
(6) 33[deg]12.19' N lat., 119[deg]29.96' W long.;
(7) 33[deg]15.42' N lat., 119[deg]39.14' W long.;
(8) 33[deg]17.58' N lat., 119[deg]41.38' W long.; and
(9) 33[deg]19.30' N lat., 119[deg]41.05' W long.
(v) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 32[deg]30.00' N lat., 119[deg]12.98' W long.;
(2) 32[deg]28.33' N lat., 119[deg]06.81' W long.;
(3) 32[deg]25.69' N lat., 119[deg]03.21' W long.;
(4) 32[deg]24.66' N lat., 119[deg]03.83' W long.;
(5) 32[deg]28.48' N lat., 119[deg]14.66' W long.; and
(6) 32[deg]30.00' N lat., 119[deg]12.98' W long.
0
8. Amend Sec. 660.72 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (k)(15) through (31) as (k)(17) through (33),
respectively; and
0
b. Add new paragraphs (k)(15) and (16).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 660.72 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 50 fm (91 m)
through 75 fm (137 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(15) 33[deg]57.77' N lat., 119[deg]33.49' W long.;
(16) 33[deg]57.64' N lat., 119[deg]35.78' W long.;
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 660.73 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(178), (a)(181), (a)(190) through (192), and
(d)(205) through (354);
0
b. Add paragraphs (d)(355) through (363);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (h)(281) through (313); and
0
d. Add paragraphs (h)(314) through (316).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 660.73 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183
m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(178) 40[deg]10.13' N lat., 124[deg]21.92' W long.;
* * * * *
(181) 40[deg]06.39' N lat., 124[deg]17.26' W long.;
* * * * *
(190) 40[deg]01.00' N lat., 124[deg]09.96' W long.;
(191) 39[deg]58.07' N lat., 124[deg]11.81' W long.;
(192) 39[deg]56.39' N lat., 124[deg]08.69' W long.;
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(205) 40[deg]02.67' N lat., 124[deg]11.83' W long.;
(206) 40[deg]02.70' N lat., 124[deg]10.57' W long.;
(207) 40[deg]04.08' N lat., 124[deg]10.09' W long.;
(208) 40[deg]04.08' N lat., 124[deg]09.10' W long.;
(209) 40[deg]01.23' N lat., 124[deg]08.91' W long.;
(210) 40[deg]01.18' N lat., 124[deg]09.92' W long.;
(211) 39[deg]58.05' N lat., 124[deg]11.87' W long.;
(212) 39[deg]56.39' N lat., 124[deg]08.70' W long.;
(213) 39[deg]54.64' N lat., 124[deg]07.31' W long.;
(214) 39[deg]53.87' N lat., 124[deg]07.95' W long.;
(215) 39[deg]52.42' N lat., 124[deg]08.18' W long.;
(216) 39[deg]49.64' N lat., 124[deg]06.05' W long.;
(217) 39[deg]49.30' N lat., 124[deg]04.60' W long.;
(218) 39[deg]48.49' N lat., 124[deg]03.86' W long.;
(219) 39[deg]47.73' N lat., 124[deg]04.59' W long.;
(220) 39[deg]42.50' N lat., 124[deg]00.60' W long.;
(221) 39[deg]34.23' N lat., 123[deg]56.82' W long.;
(222) 39[deg]33.00' N lat., 123[deg]56.44' W long.;
(223) 39[deg]30.96' N lat., 123[deg]56.00' W long.;
(224) 39[deg]31.34' N lat., 123[deg]56.71' W long.;
(225) 39[deg]32.03' N lat., 123[deg]57.44' W long.;
(226) 39[deg]31.43' N lat., 123[deg]58.16' W long.;
(227) 39[deg]05.56' N lat., 123[deg]57.24' W long.;
(228) 39[deg]01.75' N lat., 123[deg]56.83' W long.;
(229) 38[deg]59.52' N lat., 123[deg]55.95' W long.;
(230) 38[deg]58.98' N lat., 123[deg]56.57' W long.;
(231) 38[deg]57.50' N lat., 123[deg]56.57' W long.;
(232) 38[deg]53.91' N lat., 123[deg]56.00' W long.;
(233) 38[deg]42.57' N lat., 123[deg]46.60' W long.;
(234) 38[deg]28.72' N lat., 123[deg]35.61' W long.;
(235) 38[deg]28.01' N lat., 123[deg]36.47' W long.;
(236) 38[deg]20.94' N lat., 123[deg]31.26' W long.;
(237) 38[deg]15.94' N lat., 123[deg]25.33' W long.;
(238) 38[deg]10.95' N lat., 123[deg]23.19' W long.;
(239) 38[deg]05.52' N lat., 123[deg]22.90' W long.;
(240) 38[deg]08.46' N lat., 123[deg]26.23' W long.;
(241) 38[deg]06.95' N lat., 123[deg]28.03' W long.;
(242) 38[deg]06.25' N lat., 123[deg]29.70' W long.;
(243) 38[deg]04.57' N lat., 123[deg]31.37' W long.;
(244) 38[deg]02.32' N lat., 123[deg]31.09' W long.;
(245) 37[deg]59.97' N lat., 123[deg]28.43' W long.;
(246) 37[deg]58.10' N lat., 123[deg]26.69' W long.;
(247) 37[deg]55.46' N lat., 123[deg]27.05' W long.;
(248) 37[deg]51.51' N lat., 123[deg]24.86' W long.;
(249) 37[deg]45.01' N lat., 123[deg]12.09' W long.;
(250) 37[deg]35.67' N lat., 123[deg]01.56' W long.;
(251) 37[deg]26.62' N lat., 122[deg]56.21' W long.;
(252) 37[deg]14.41' N lat., 122[deg]49.07' W long.;
(253) 37[deg]11.00' N lat., 122[deg]45.87' W long.;
(254) 37[deg]07.00' N lat., 122[deg]41.97' W long.;
(255) 37[deg]03.19' N lat., 122[deg]38.31' W long.;
(256) 37[deg]00.99' N lat., 122[deg]35.51' W long.;
(257) 36[deg]58.31' N lat., 122[deg]27.56' W long.;
(258) 37[deg]00.54' N lat., 122[deg]24.74' W long.;
(259) 36[deg]57.81' N lat., 122[deg]24.65' W long.;
[[Page 47441]]
(260) 36[deg]58.54' N lat., 122[deg]21.67' W long.;
(261) 36[deg]56.52' N lat., 122[deg]21.70' W long.;
(262) 36[deg]55.37' N lat., 122[deg]18.45' W long.;
(263) 36[deg]52.16' N lat., 122[deg]12.17' W long.;
(264) 36[deg]51.53' N lat., 122[deg]10.67' W long.;
(265) 36[deg]48.05' N lat., 122[deg]07.59' W long.;
(266) 36[deg]47.35' N lat., 122[deg]03.27' W long.;
(267) 36[deg]50.71' N lat., 121[deg]58.17' W long.;
(268) 36[deg]48.89' N lat., 121[deg]58.90' W long.;
(269) 36[deg]47.70' N lat., 121[deg]58.76' W long.;
(270) 36[deg]48.37' N lat., 121[deg]51.15' W long.;
(271) 36[deg]45.74' N lat., 121[deg]54.18' W long.;
(272) 36[deg]45.50' N lat., 121[deg]57.73' W long.;
(273) 36[deg]44.02' N lat., 121[deg]58.55' W long.;
(274) 36[deg]38.84' N lat., 122[deg]01.32' W long.;
(275) 36[deg]35.63' N lat., 122[deg]00.98' W long.;
(276) 36[deg]32.47' N lat., 121[deg]59.17' W long.;
(277) 36[deg]32.52' N lat., 121[deg]57.62' W long.;
(278) 36[deg]30.16' N lat., 122[deg]00.55' W long.;
(279) 36[deg]24.56' N lat., 121[deg]59.19' W long.;
(280) 36[deg]22.19' N lat., 122[deg]00.30' W long.;
(281) 36[deg]20.62' N lat., 122[deg]02.93' W long.;
(282) 36[deg]18.89' N lat., 122[deg]05.18' W long.;
(283) 36[deg]14.45' N lat., 121[deg]59.44' W long.;
(284) 36[deg]13.73' N lat., 121[deg]57.38' W long.;
(285) 36[deg]14.41' N lat., 121[deg]55.45' W long.;
(286) 36[deg]10.25' N lat., 121[deg]43.08' W long.;
(287) 36[deg]07.67' N lat., 121[deg]40.92' W long.;
(288) 36[deg]02.51' N lat., 121[deg]36.76' W long.;
(289) 36[deg]01.04' N lat., 121[deg]36.68' W long.;
(290) 36[deg]00.00' N lat., 121[deg]35.15' W long.;
(291) 35[deg]57.84' N lat., 121[deg]33.10' W long.;
(292) 35[deg]45.57' N lat., 121[deg]27.26' W long.;
(293) 35[deg]39.02' N lat., 121[deg]22.86' W long.;
(294) 35[deg]25.92' N lat., 121[deg]05.52' W long.;
(295) 35[deg]16.26' N lat., 121[deg]01.50' W long.;
(296) 35[deg]07.60' N lat., 120[deg]56.49' W long.;
(297) 34[deg]57.77' N lat., 120[deg]53.87' W long.;
(298) 34[deg]42.30' N lat., 120[deg]53.42' W long.;
(299) 34[deg]37.69' N lat., 120[deg]50.04' W long.;
(300) 34[deg]30.13' N lat., 120[deg]44.45' W long.;
(301) 34[deg]27.00' N lat., 120[deg]39.24' W long.;
(302) 34[deg]24.71' N lat., 120[deg]35.37' W long.;
(303) 34[deg]21.63' N lat., 120[deg]24.86' W long.;
(304) 34[deg]24.39' N lat., 120[deg]16.65' W long.;
(305) 34[deg]22.48' N lat., 119[deg]56.42' W long.;
(306) 34[deg]18.54' N lat., 119[deg]46.26' W long.;
(307) 34[deg]16.37' N lat., 119[deg]45.12' W long.;
(308) 34[deg]15.91' N lat., 119[deg]47.29' W long.;
(309) 34[deg]13.80' N lat., 119[deg]45.40' W long.;
(310) 34[deg]11.69' N lat., 119[deg]41.80' W long.;
(311) 34[deg]09.98' N lat., 119[deg]31.87' W long.;
(312) 34[deg]08.12' N lat., 119[deg]27.71' W long.;
(313) 34[deg]06.35' N lat., 119[deg]32.65' W long.;
(314) 34[deg]06.80' N lat., 119[deg]40.08' W long.;
(315) 34[deg]07.48' N lat., 119[deg]47.54' W long.;
(316) 34[deg]08.21' N lat., 119[deg]54.90' W long.;
(317) 34[deg]06.85' N lat., 120[deg]05.60' W long.;
(318) 34[deg]07.03' N lat., 120[deg]10.47' W long.;
(319) 34[deg]08.77' N lat., 120[deg]18.46' W long.;
(320) 34[deg]11.89' N lat., 120[deg]28.09' W long.;
(321) 34[deg]12.53' N lat., 120[deg]29.82' W long.;
(322) 34[deg]09.02' N lat., 120[deg]37.47' W long.;
(323) 34[deg]01.01' N lat., 120[deg]31.17' W long.;
(324) 33[deg]58.07' N lat., 120[deg]28.33' W long.;
(325) 33[deg]53.37' N lat., 120[deg]14.43' W long.;
(326) 33[deg]50.53' N lat., 120[deg]07.20' W long.;
(327) 33[deg]45.88' N lat., 120[deg]04.26' W long.;
(328) 33[deg]38.19' N lat., 119[deg]57.85' W long.;
(329) 33[deg]38.19' N lat., 119[deg]50.42' W long.;
(330) 33[deg]42.36' N lat., 119[deg]49.60' W long.;
(331) 33[deg]53.95' N lat., 119[deg]53.81' W long.;
(332) 33[deg]55.99' N lat., 119[deg]41.40' W long.;
(333) 33[deg]58.48' N lat., 119[deg]27.90' W long.;
(334) 33[deg]59.24' N lat., 119[deg]23.61' W long.;
(335) 33[deg]59.35' N lat., 119[deg]21.71' W long.;
(336) 33[deg]59.94' N lat., 119[deg]19.57' W long.;
(337) 34[deg]04.48' N lat., 119[deg]15.32' W long.;
(338) 34[deg]02.80' N lat., 119[deg]12.95' W long.;
(339) 34[deg]02.39' N lat., 119[deg]07.17' W long.;
(340) 34[deg]03.75' N lat., 119[deg]04.72' W long.;
(341) 34[deg]01.82' N lat., 119[deg]03.24' W long.;
(342) 33[deg]59.33' N lat., 119[deg]03.49' W long.;
(343) 33[deg]59.01' N lat., 118[deg]59.56' W long.;
(344) 33[deg]59.51' N lat., 118[deg]57.25' W long.;
(345) 33[deg]58.83' N lat., 118[deg]52.50' W long.;
(346) 33[deg]58.55' N lat., 118[deg]41.86' W long.;
(347) 33[deg]55.10' N lat., 118[deg]34.25' W long.;
(348) 33[deg]54.30' N lat., 118[deg]38.71' W long.;
(349) 33[deg]50.88' N lat., 118[deg]37.02' W long.;
(350) 33[deg]39.78' N lat., 118[deg]18.40' W long.;
(351) 33[deg]35.50' N lat., 118[deg]16.85' W long.;
(352) 33[deg]32.46' N lat., 118[deg]10.90' W long.;
(353) 33[deg]34.11' N lat., 117[deg]54.07' W long.;
(354) 33[deg]31.61' N lat., 117[deg]49.30' W long.;
(355) 33[deg]16.36' N lat., 117[deg]35.48' W long.;
(356) 33[deg]06.81' N lat., 117[deg]22.93' W long.;
(357) 32[deg]59.28' N lat., 117[deg]19.69' W long.;
(358) 32[deg]55.37' N lat., 117[deg]19.55' W long.;
(359) 32[deg]53.35' N lat., 117[deg]17.05' W long.;
(360) 32[deg]53.36' N lat., 117[deg]19.12' W long.;
(361) 32[deg]46.42' N lat., 117[deg]23.45' W long.;
(362) 32[deg]42.71' N lat., 117[deg]21.45' W long.; and
(363) 32[deg]34.54' N lat., 117[deg]23.04' W long.
* * * * *
[[Page 47442]]
(h) * * *
(281) 34[deg]07.10' N lat., 120[deg]10.37' W long.;
(282) 34[deg]11.07' N lat., 120[deg]25.03' W long.;
(283) 34[deg]09.00' N lat., 120[deg]18.40' W long.;
(284) 34[deg]13.16' N lat., 120[deg]29.40' W long.;
(285) 34[deg]09.41' N lat., 120[deg]37.75' W long.;
(286) 34[deg]03.15' N lat., 120[deg]34.71' W long.;
(287) 33[deg]57.09' N lat., 120[deg]27.76' W long.;
(288) 33[deg]51.00' N lat., 120[deg]09.00' W long.;
(289) 33[deg]38.16' N lat., 119[deg]59.23' W long.;
(290) 33[deg]37.04' N lat., 119[deg]50.17' W long.;
(291) 33[deg]42.28' N lat., 119[deg]48.85' W long.;
(292) 33[deg]53.96' N lat., 119[deg]53.77' W long.;
(293) 33[deg]55.88' N lat., 119[deg]41.05' W long.;
(294) 33[deg]59.18' N lat., 119[deg]23.64' W long.;
(295) 33[deg]59.26' N lat., 119[deg]21.92' W long.;
(296) 33[deg]59.94' N lat., 119[deg]19.57' W long.;
(297) 34[deg]03.12' N lat., 119[deg]15.51' W long.;
(298) 34[deg]01.97' N lat., 119[deg]07.28' W long.;
(299) 34[deg]03.60' N lat., 119[deg]04.71' W long.;
(300) 33[deg]59.30' N lat., 119[deg]03.73' W long.;
(301) 33[deg]58.87' N lat., 118[deg]59.37' W long.;
(302) 33[deg]58.08' N lat., 118[deg]41.14' W long.;
(303) 33[deg]50.93' N lat., 118[deg]37.65' W long.;
(304) 33[deg]39.54' N lat., 118[deg]18.70' W long.;
(305) 33[deg]35.42' N lat., 118[deg]17.14' W long.;
(306) 33[deg]32.15' N lat., 118[deg]10.84' W long.;
(307) 33[deg]33.71' N lat., 117[deg]53.72' W long.;
(308) 33[deg]31.17' N lat., 117[deg]49.11' W long.;
(309) 33[deg]16.53' N lat., 117[deg]36.13' W long.;
(310) 33[deg]06.77' N lat., 117[deg]22.92' W long.;
(311) 32[deg]58.94' N lat., 117[deg]20.05' W long.;
(312) 32[deg]55.83' N lat., 117[deg]20.15' W long.;
(313) 32[deg]46.29' N lat., 117[deg]23.89' W long.;
(314) 32[deg]42.00' N lat., 117[deg]22.16' W long.;
(315) 32[deg]39.47' N lat., 117[deg]27.78' W long.; and
(316) 32[deg]34.83' N lat., 117[deg]24.69' W long.
* * * * *
0
10. Tables 1a to part 660, subpart C through 1d to part 660, subpart C
are revised to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
Table 1a to Part 660, Subpart C--2019, Specifications of OFL, ABC,
ACL, ACT and Fishery HG (Weights in Metric Tons)
Table 1b. to Part 660, Subpart C--2019, Allocations by Species or
Species Group (Weight in Metric Tons)
Table 1c. to Part 660, Subpart C--Sablefish North of 36[deg] N lat.
Allocations, 2019
Table 1d. to Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
Asides, 2019
* * * * *
[[Page 47443]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.001
[[Page 47444]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.002
[[Page 47445]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.003
[[Page 47446]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.004
[[Page 47447]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.005
[[Page 47448]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.006
[[Page 47449]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.007
[[Page 47450]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.008
[[Page 47451]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.009
[[Page 47452]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.010
[[Page 47453]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.011
[[Page 47454]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.012
[[Page 47455]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.013
[[Page 47456]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.014
0
11. Tables 2a to part 660, subpart C through 2d to part 660, supbart C
are revised to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
Table 2a. to Part 660, Subpart C--2020, and Beyond, Specifications
of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT and Fishery Harvest Guidelines (Weights in
Metric Tons)
Table 2b. to Part 660, Subpart C--2020, and Beyond, Allocations by
Species or Species Group [Weight in Metric Tons]
Table 2c. to Part 660, Subpart C--Sablefish North of 36[deg] N lat.
Allocations, 2020 and Beyond
Table 2d. to Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
Asides, 2020 and Beyond
* * * * *
[[Page 47457]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.015
[[Page 47458]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.016
[[Page 47459]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.017
[[Page 47460]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.018
[[Page 47461]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.019
[[Page 47462]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.020
[[Page 47463]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.021
[[Page 47464]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.022
[[Page 47465]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.023
[[Page 47466]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.024
[[Page 47467]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.025
[[Page 47468]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.026
[[Page 47469]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.027
[[Page 47470]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.028
0
12. In Sec. 660.130, add paragraph (c)(2)(ii), revise paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii) and (e)(6), and add paragraph (e)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.130 Trawl fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The use of selective flatfish trawl gear is required inside
the Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone (defined at Sec.
660.131(c)(1)) and the Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone (defined
at Sec. 660.131(c)(2)).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) North of 40[deg]10' N lat. POP, yellowtail rockfish,
Washington cabezon/kelp greenling complex, Oregon cabezon/kelp
greenling complex, cabezon off California;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) Bycatch reduction areas (BRAs). Vessels using midwater
groundfish trawl gear during the applicable Pacific whiting primary
season may be prohibited from fishing shoreward of a boundary line
approximating the 75 fm (137 m), 100 fm (183 m), 150 fm (274 m), or 200
fm (366 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(8) Salmon conservation zones. Fishing with midwater trawl gear and
bottom trawl gear, other than selective flatfish trawl gear, is
prohibited in the following areas:
(i) Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone. The ocean area
surrounding the Klamath River mouth bounded on the north by
41[deg]38.80' N lat. (approximately 6 nm north of the Klamath River
mouth), on the west by 124[deg]23' W long. (approximately 12 nm from
shore), and on the south by 41[deg]26.80' N lat. (approximately 6 nm
south of the Klamath River mouth).
(ii) Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone. The ocean area
surrounding the Columbia River mouth bounded by a line extending for 6
nm due west from North Head along 46[deg]18' N lat. to 124[deg]13.30' W
long., then southerly along a line of 167 True to 46[deg]11.10' N lat.
and 124[deg]11' W long. (Columbia River Buoy), then northeast along Red
Buoy Line to the tip of the south jetty.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec. 660.131, remove and reserve paragraph (c)(3) and add
paragraph (i).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 660.131 Pacific whiting fishery management measures.
* * * * *
(i) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic
action at Sec. 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi).
0
14. In Sec. 660.140, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(D), (e)(4)(i),
(g)(1), (h)(1)(i)(A)(3), and (l)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.140 Shorebased IFQ Program.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the
following shorebased trawl allocations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020
Shorebased Shorebased
IFQ species Area trawl trawl
allocation allocation
(mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder........................... Coastwide....................... 12,735.1 10,052.3
Bocaccio...................................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 800.7 767.1
Canary rockfish............................... Coastwide....................... 946.9 887.8
Chilipepper................................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,838.3 1,743.8
COWCOD........................................ South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 2.2 2.2
Darkblotched rockfish......................... Coastwide....................... 658.4 703.4
Dover sole.................................... Coastwide....................... 45,979.2 45,979.2
English sole.................................. Coastwide....................... 9,375.1 9,417.9
Lingcod....................................... North of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 2,051.9 1,903.4
Lingcod....................................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 462.5 386.0
Longspine thornyhead.......................... North of 34[deg]27' N lat....... 2,420.0 2,293.6
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex.................. North of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,155.2 1,151.6
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex.................. South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 188.6 188.6
Minor Slope Rockfish complex.................. North of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,248.8 1,237.5
Minor Slope Rockfish complex.................. South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,049.1 455.4
Other Flatfish complex........................ Coastwide....................... 5,603.7 5,192.4
Pacific cod................................... Coastwide....................... 1,034.1 1,034.1
Pacific ocean perch........................... North of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 3,697.3 3,602.2
Pacific whiting............................... Coastwide....................... TBD TBD
Petrale sole.................................. Coastwide....................... 2,453.0 2,393.2
Sablefish..................................... North of 36[deg] N lat.......... 2,581.3 2,636.8
Sablefish..................................... South of 36[deg] N lat.......... 834.0 851.7
Shortspine thornyhead......................... North of 34[deg]27' N lat....... 1,511.8 1,498.5
Shortspine thornyhead......................... South of 34[deg]27' N lat....... 50.0 50.0
Splitnose rockfish............................ South of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,646.7 1,628.7
[[Page 47471]]
Starry flounder............................... Coastwide....................... 211.6 211.6
Widow rockfish................................ Coastwide....................... 9,928.8 9,387.1
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH............................ Coastwide....................... 3.4 3.4
Yellowtail rockfish........................... North of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 4,057.7 3,810.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Vessel limits. For each IFQ species or species group specified
in this paragraph, vessel accounts may not have QP or IBQ pounds in
excess of the annual QP vessel limit in any year. The annual QP vessel
limit is calculated as all QPs transferred in minus all QPs transferred
out of the vessel account.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual QP
Species category vessel limit
(in percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder..................................... 20
Bocaccio S of 40[deg]10' N lat.......................... 15.4
Canary rockfish......................................... 10
Chilipepper S of 40[deg]10' N lat....................... 15
Cowcod S of 40[deg]10' N lat............................ 17.7
Darkblotched rockfish................................... 6.8
Dover sole.............................................. 3.9
English sole............................................ 7.5
Lingcod:
N of 40[deg]10' N lat................................. 5.3
S of 40[deg]10' N lat................................. 13.3
Longspine thornyhead:
N of 34[deg]27' N lat................................. 9
Minor rockfish complex N of 40[deg]10' N lat:
Shelf species......................................... 7.5
Slope species......................................... 7.5
Minor rockfish complex S of 40[deg]10' N lat:
Shelf species......................................... 13.5
Slope species......................................... 9
Other Flatfish complex.................................. 15
Pacific cod............................................. 20
Pacific halibut (IBQ) N of 40[deg]10' N lat............. 14.4
Pacific ocean perch N of 40[deg]10' N lat............... 6
Pacific whiting (shoreside)............................. 15
Petrale sole............................................ 4.5
Sablefish:
N of 36[deg] N lat (Monterey north)................... 4.5
S of 36[deg] N lat (Conception area).................. 15
Shortspine thornyhead:
N of 34[deg]27' N lat................................. 9
S of 34[deg]27' N lat................................. 9
Splitnose rockfish S of 40[deg]10' N lat................ 15
Starry flounder......................................... 20
Widow rockfish.......................................... 8.5
Yelloweye rockfish...................................... 11.4
Yellowtail rockfish N of 40[deg]10' N lat............... 7.5
Non-whiting groundfish species.......................... 3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) General. Shorebased IFQ Program vessels may discard IFQ
species/species groups, and the discard mortality must be accounted for
and deducted from QP in the vessel account. With the exception of
vessels on Pacific whiting IFQ trips engaged in maximized retention,
prohibited and protected species must be discarded at sea; Pacific
halibut must be discarded as soon as practicable and the discard
mortality must be accounted for and deducted from IBQ pounds in the
vessel account. Non-IFQ species and non-groundfish species may be
discarded at sea. The sorting of catch, the weighing and discarding of
any IBQ and IFQ species, and the retention of IFQ species must be
monitored by the observer.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Is exempt from the requirement to maintain observer coverage as
specified in this paragraph while remaining docked in port when the
observer makes available to the catch monitor an Observer Program
reporting form documenting the weight and number of any overfished
species listed under a rebuilding plan at Sec. 660.40 retained during
that trip and which documents any discrepancy the vessel operator and
observer may have in the weights and number of the overfished species,
unless modified inseason under routine management measures at Sec.
660.60(c)(1).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) AMP QP pass through. The 10 percent of non-whiting QS will be
reserved for the AMP, but the resulting AMP QP will be issued to all QS
permit owners in proportion to their non-whiting QS until an
alternative use of AMP QP is implemented.
0
15. In Sec. 660.150, revise paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.150 Mothership (MS) Coop Program.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Species with set-asides for the MS and C/P Coop Programs, as
described in Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec. 660.160, revise paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.160 Catcher/processor (C/P) Coop Program.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Species with set-asides for the MS and C/P Programs, as
described in Table 1d and 2d, subpart C.
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Tables 1 (North) and 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D to
read as follows:
Table 1 (North) to Part 660, Subpart D--Limited Entry Trawl
Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for non-IFQ Species
and Pacific Whiting North of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
[[Page 47472]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.029
Table 1 (South) to Part 660, Subpart D--Limited Entry Trawl
Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for non-IFQ Species
and Pacific Whiting South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
[[Page 47473]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.030
0
18. In Sec. 660.230, revise paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(10)(ii) and
add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.230 Fixed gear fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) North of 40[deg]10' N lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, cabezon
(California), Washington cabezon/kelp greenling complex, Oregon
cabezon/kelp greenling complex;
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of the
40 fm (73 m) depth contour within the CCAs when trip limits authorize
such fishing, and provided a valid declaration report as required at
Sec. 660.13(d), subpart C, has been filed with NMFS OLE.
* * * * *
[[Page 47474]]
(f) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic
action at Sec. 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi).
0
19. In Sec. 660.231, revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.231 Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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. In 2019, the
following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 47,637 lb (21,608 kg),
Tier 2 at 21,653 lb (9,822 kg), and Tier 3 at 12,373 lb (5,612 kg). In
2020 and beyond, the following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at
48,642 lb (22,064 kg), Tier 2 at 22,110 lb (10,029 kg), and Tier 3 at
12,634 lb (5,731 kg).
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, to
read as follows:
Table 2 (North) to Part 660, Subpart E--Non-Trawl Rockfish
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear North
of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
[[Page 47475]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.031
Table 2 (South) to Part 660, Subpart E--Non-Trawl Rockfish
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear South
of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
[[Page 47476]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.032
[[Page 47477]]
0
21. In Sec. 660.330, revise paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(11)(ii) and
add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.330 Open access fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) North of 40[deg]10' N lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, cabezon
(California), Washington cabezon/kelp greenling complex, Oregon
cabezon/kelp greenling complex;
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(11) * * *
(ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of the
40 fm (73 m) depth contour within the CCAs when trip limits authorize
such fishing, and provided a valid declaration report as required at
Sec. 660.13(d), has been filed with NMFS OLE.
* * * * *
(f) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic
action at Sec. 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi).
0
22. In Sec. 660.333, revise paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.333 Open access non-groundfish trawl fishery--management
measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) The landing includes California halibut of a size required by
California Fish and Game Code section 8392, which states: ``No
California halibut may be taken, possessed or sold which measures less
than 22 in (56 cm) in total length. Total length means the shortest
distance between the tip of the jaw or snout, whichever extends
farthest while the mouth is closed, and the tip of the longest lobe of
the tail, measured while the halibut is lying flat in natural repose,
without resort to any force other than the swinging or fanning of the
tail.''
* * * * *
0
23. Revise Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) in part 660, subpart F, to
read as follows:
Table 3 (North) to Part 660, Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears North of
40[deg]10' N Lat.
[[Page 47478]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.033
[[Page 47479]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.034
Table 3 (South) to Part 660, Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears South of
40[deg]10' N Lat.
[[Page 47480]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.035
[[Page 47481]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.036
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
0
24. Amend Sec. 660.360 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) through
(3), (c)(1)(ii) through (iv), (c)(2)(i)(B), (c)(3)(i)(A) through (C),
(c)(3)(ii)(D), (c)(3)(iii)(B), (c)(3)(iii)(D), (c)(3)(iv), and
(c)(3)(v)(A) and (B); and
0
b. Add paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
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 9 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. In addition to the
groundfish bag limit of 9, there will be a flatfish limit of 3 fish,
not to be counted towards the groundfish bag limit but in addition to
it. The recreational groundfish fishery will open the second Saturday
in March through the third Saturday in October for all species. 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) * * *
(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
Labor Day, except on days when the Pacific halibut fishery is open in
this area it is lawful to retain lingcod, Pacific cod, and sablefish
seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) boundary. Yellowtail and widow rockfish can
be retained seaward of 20 fm (37 m) in the months of July and August on
days open to the recreational salmon fishery. Days open to Pacific
halibut recreational fishing off Washington and days open to
recreational fishing for salmon 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 lingcod is prohibited seaward of a boundary
line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour from the second
[[Page 47482]]
Saturday in March through May 31 with the following exceptions:
Recreational fishing for lingcod is permitted within the RCA on days
that the primary halibut fishery is open; recreational fishing for
lingcod is allowed on Sundays in May, but only if the Pacific halibut
recreational fishery in this area is scheduled to be open for less than
four days. In addition to the RCA described above, 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
lingcod is prohibited January 1 through May 31, June 16 through August
31, and September 16 through December 31 seaward of a straight line
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
47[deg]31.70' N lat., 124[deg]45.00' W long.; 46[deg]38.17' N lat.,
124[deg]30.00' W long. with the following exceptions: On days that the
primary halibut fishery is open lingcod may be taken, retained and
possessed within the lingcod area closure; if the Pacific halibut
recreational fishery is scheduled to be open less than four days,
lingcod may be taken, retained, and possessed within the lingcod area
closure on Sundays in May. Days open to Pacific halibut recreational
fishing off Washington are announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-
6667 or (800) 662-9825. 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
Columbia River (46[deg]16.00' N lat.) (Marine Area 1), when Pacific
halibut are onboard the vessel, no groundfish may be taken and
retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish, flatfish species
(except halibut), Pacific cod, and lingcod from May 1 through September
30. Except that taking, retaining, possessing or landing incidental
halibut with groundfish on board is allowed in the nearshore area on
days not open to all-depth Pacific halibut fisheries in the area
shoreward of the boundary line approximating the 30 fathom (55 m) depth
contour extending from Leadbetter Point, WA (46[deg]38.17' N lat.,
124[deg]15.88' W long.) to the Columbia River (46[deg]16.00' N lat.,
124[deg]15.88' W long.) and from there, connecting to the boundary line
approximating the 40 fathom (73 m) depth contour in Oregon. Nearshore
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. Between
Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' N lat. 124[deg]21.00' W long.) and
46[deg]33.00' N lat. 124[deg]21.00' W long., recreational fishing for
lingcod is prohibited year round seaward of a straight line connecting
all of the following points in the order stated: 46[deg]38.17' N lat.,
124[deg]21.00' W long.; and 46[deg]33.00' N lat., 124[deg]21.00' W
long.
(ii) Rockfish. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington
(Washington Marine Areas 1-4) that are open to recreational groundfish
fishing, there is a 7 rockfish per day bag limit. Taking and retaining
yelloweye rockfish is prohibited in all Marine areas.
(iii) Cabezon. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington
(Washington Marine Areas 1-4) that are open to recreational groundfish
fishing, there is a 1 cabezon per day bag limit.
(iv) Lingcod. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington (Washington
Marine Areas 1-4) 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 season for lingcod is
open from the second Saturday in March through the third Saturday in
October.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Recreational rockfish conservation area (RCA). Fishing for
groundfish with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational
RCA, a type of closed area or groundfish conservation area, except with
long-leader gear (as defined at Sec. 660.351). It is unlawful to take
and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with recreational gear
within the recreational RCA, except with long-leader gear (as defined
at Sec. 660.351). A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA may not be
in possession of any groundfish. [For example, if a vessel fishes in
the recreational salmon fishery within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in
possession of groundfish while within 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.] Off Oregon, from June 1 through August 31,
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a
recreational RCA boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth
contour, except that fishing for flatfish (other than Pacific halibut)
is allowed seaward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour when recreational
fishing for groundfish is permitted. Coordinates for the boundary line
approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour are listed at Sec.
660.71.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Recreational rockfish conservation areas. The recreational RCAs
are areas that are closed to recreational fishing for groundfish.
Fishing for groundfish with recreational gear is prohibited within the
recreational RCA, except that recreational fishing for ``Other
Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry flounder is permitted within the
recreational RCA as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section.
It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken
with recreational gear within the recreational RCA, unless otherwise
authorized in this section. A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA
may not be in possession of any species prohibited by the restrictions
that apply within the recreational RCA. [For example, if a vessel
fishes in the recreational salmon fishery within the RCA, the vessel
cannot be in possession of rockfish while in the RCA. The vessel may,
however, on the same trip fish for and retain rockfish shoreward of the
RCA on the return trip to port.] If the season is closed for a species
or species group, fishing for that species or species group is
prohibited both within the recreational RCA and shoreward of the
recreational RCA, unless otherwise authorized in this section.
(1) Between 42[deg] N lat. (California/Oregon border) and
40[deg]10' N lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing for
all groundfish (except petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other
Flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is
closed from January 1 through April 30; is prohibited seaward of the 30
fm (55 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and
offshore seamounts from May 1 through October 31 (shoreward of 30 fm is
open); and is open at all depths from November 1 through December 31.
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth
contour are listed in Sec. 660.71.
(2) Between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N lat. (Mendocino
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except
petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' as specified in
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is closed from January 1 through
April 30; prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 1
through October 31 (shoreward of 20 fm is open), and is open at all
depths from November 1 through December 31.
(3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N lat. and 37[deg]11' N lat. (San
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing
[[Page 47483]]
for all groundfish (except petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other
Flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is
closed from January 1 through April 1; is prohibited seaward of the
boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour along the
mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from April 1
through December 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 40 fm (73 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
petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' as specified in
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is closed from January 1 through
March 31; and is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating
the 50 fm (91 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along
islands and offshore seamounts from April 1 through December 31.
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth
contour are specified in Sec. 660.72.
(5) South of 34[deg]27' N lat. (Southern Management Area),
recreational fishing for all groundfish (except California
scorpionfish, ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry flounder) is
closed entirely from January 1 through February 28. Recreational
fishing for all groundfish (except ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole,
and starry flounder, as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this
section) is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating the 75
fm (137 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 40 fm (73 m) depth
contour when the fishing season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of
this section). Coordinates for the boundary lines approximating the
depth contours are specified at Sec. Sec. 660.71 through 660.74.
(B) Cowcod conservation areas. The latitude and longitude
coordinates of the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs) boundaries are
specified at Sec. 660.70. In general, recreational fishing for all
groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, except that fishing for
petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``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 prohibited
seaward of the 40 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 shelf
rockfish. Retention of yelloweye rockfish, bronzespotted rockfish and
cowcod is prohibited within the CCA. [Note: California state
regulations also permit recreational fishing for California sheephead,
ocean whitefish, and all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos shoreward-
of the 40 fm (73 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 taken 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 petrale sole, starry
flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' is permitted around Cordell Banks as
specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) Dressing/filleting. Cabezon, kelp greenling, and rock greenling
taken in the recreational fishery may not be filleted at sea. Rockfish
skin may not be removed when filleting or otherwise dressing rockfish
taken in the recreational fishery.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Bag limits, hook limits. In times and areas when the
recreational season for lingcod is open, there is a limit of 2 hooks
and 1 line when fishing for lingcod. 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.
(1) The bag limit between 42[deg] N lat. (California/Oregon border)
and 40[deg]10' N lat. (Northern Management Area) is 2 lingcod per day.
(2) The bag limit between 40[deg]10' N lat. and the U.S. border
with Mexico (Mendocino Management Area, San Francisco Management Area,
Central Management Area, and Southern Management Area) is 1 lingcod per
day.
* * * * *
(D) Dressing/filleting. Lingcod filets may be no smaller than 14 in
(36 cm) in length. Each fillet shall bear an intact 1 in (2.6 cm)
square patch of skin.
(iv) ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry flounder.
Coastwide off California, recreational fishing for ``Other Flatfish,''
petrale sole, and starry flounder, is permitted both shoreward of and
within the closed areas described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this
section. ``Other Flatfish'' are defined at Sec. 660.11, subpart C, and
include butter sole, curlfin sole, flathead sole, Pacific sanddab, rex
sole, rock sole, and sand sole. ``Other Flatfish,'' are subject to the
overall 20-fish bag limit for all species of finfish, of which there
may be no more than 10 fish of any one species; there is no daily bag
limit for petrale sole, starry flounder and Pacific sanddab. There are
no size limits for ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry
flounder. ``Other Flatfish'', petrale sole, and starry flounder may be
filleted at sea. Fillets may be of any size, but must bear intact a
one-inch square patch of skin.
(v) * * *
(A) Seasons. When recreational fishing for California scorpionfish
is open, it is permitted only outside of the recreational RCAs
described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(1) Between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N lat. (Mendocino
Management Area), recreational fishing for California scorpionfish is
open from May 1 through December 31 (i.e., it's closed from January 1
through April 30).
(2) Between 38[deg]57.50' N lat. and 37[deg]11' N lat. (San
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for California
scorpionfish is open from April 15 through December 31 (i.e., it's
closed from January 1 through April 14).
(3) Between 37[deg]11' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat. (Central
Management Area), recreational fishing for California scorpionfish is
open from April 1 through December 31 (i.e., it's closed from January 1
through March 31).
(4) South of 34[deg]27' N lat. (Southern Management Area),
recreational fishing for California scorpionfish is open from January 1
through December 31.
(B) Bag limits, hook limits. South of 40[deg]10.00' N lat., in
times and areas where the recreational season for California
scorpionfish is open there is a limit of 2 hooks and 1 line, the bag
limit is 5 California scorpionfish per day. California scorpionfish do
not count against the 10 RCG Complex fish per day limit. Multi-day
limits are authorized by a valid permit issued by California and must
not exceed the daily limit multiplied by the number of days in the
fishing trip.
* * * * *
(d) Salmon bycatch. Recreational fisheries that are not accounted
for within pre-season salmon modeling may be closed through automatic
action at 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi).
[FR Doc. 2018-19460 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P