Proposed Rule2022-20430
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 30; 2023-24 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 14, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
This proposed rule would establish the 2023-24 harvest specifications for groundfish caught in the U.S. exclusive economic zone seaward 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 management measures intended to keep the total annual catch of each groundfish stock or stock complex within the annual catch limits. These proposed measures are intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and ensure management measures are based on the best scientific information available. This proposed rule would also make minor corrections to the regulations. Additionally, this proposed rule announces the receipt of exempted fishing permit applications. NMFS has made a preliminary determination that these applications warrant further consideration. NMFS requests public comment on these applications. This action also would implement portions of Amendment 30 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, which would specify a shortbelly rockfish catch threshold to initiate Council review; extend the length of the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary season; change the use of Rockfish Conservation Area boundaries; expand the use of Block Area Closures to control catch of groundfish; and correct the definition of Block Area Closures. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, NMFS also announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment that analyzes the potential effects of the associated proposed rule.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62676-62720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20430]
[[Page 62675]]
Vol. 87
Friday,
No. 198
October 14, 2022
Part V
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; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Amendment 30; 2023-24 Biennial Specifications and
Management Measure; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62676]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 220915-0191]
RIN 0648-BL48
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Amendment 30; 2023-24 Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of a draft environmental
assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish the 2023-24 harvest
specifications for groundfish caught in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone seaward 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 management measures intended to keep the total annual
catch of each groundfish stock or stock complex within the annual catch
limits. These proposed measures are intended to help prevent
overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and
ensure management measures are based on the best scientific information
available. This proposed rule would also make minor corrections to the
regulations. Additionally, this proposed rule announces the receipt of
exempted fishing permit applications. NMFS has made a preliminary
determination that these applications warrant further consideration.
NMFS requests public comment on these applications. This action also
would implement portions of Amendment 30 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, which would specify a shortbelly
rockfish catch threshold to initiate Council review; extend the length
of the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary season; change the
use of Rockfish Conservation Area boundaries; expand the use of Block
Area Closures to control catch of groundfish; and correct the
definition of Block Area Closures. In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, NMFS also announces the
availability of a draft environmental assessment that analyzes the
potential effects of the associated proposed rule.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than November 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the proposed rule, draft
environmental assessment, and exempted fishing permit applications,
identified by NOAA-NMFS-2022-0080, by the following method:
<bullet> Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
and enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-0080 in the Search box. Click the ``Comment''
icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
The exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications will be available under
Supporting Documents through the same link.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by the above method to
ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by
NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and
NMFS will post for public viewing on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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). Please specify whether the
comments provided are associated with the proposed rule, draft
environmental assessment, or EFP applications.
Electronic Access
This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the
Federal Register website at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/">https://www.federalregister.gov/</a>. The draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) which addresses the National
Environmental Policy Act, Presidential Executive Order 12866, and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, is accessible via the internet at the NMFS
West Coast Region website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast</a>. Background information and documents including an analysis
for this action (Analysis), which addresses the statutory requirements
of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) are available from the Pacific Fishery
Management Council's website at <a href="https://www.pcouncil.org">https://www.pcouncil.org</a>. The final
2022 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
<a href="https://www.pcouncil.org">https://www.pcouncil.org</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hooper, Fishery Management
Specialist, at 206-526-6117 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bddfcfd4dcd393d5d2d2cdd8cffdd3d2dcdc93dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a1808131b14541215150a1f083a14151b1b541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Chapter 5 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(PCGFMP) requires the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to
assess the biological, social, and economic conditions of the Pacific
coast groundfish fishery and use this information to develop harvest
specifications and management measures at least biennially. This
proposed rule is based on the Council's final recommendations for
harvest specifications and management measures for the 2023-24 biennium
made at its April and June 2022 meetings.
The Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary and
appropriate to implement these actions in an August 29, 2022, letter
from Council Executive Director, Merrick Burden, to Acting Regional
Administrator Scott Rumsey. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is
required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily
determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. We are
seeking comment on the proposed regulations in this action and whether
they are consistent with the PCGFMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its
National Standards, and other applicable law.
Concurrent with this proposed rule, NMFS also published a Notice of
Availability (NOA) to announce the proposed Amendment 30 to the PCGFMP.
The NOA requests public review and comment on proposed changes to the
Council fishery management plan document (87 FR 54445; September 6,
2022). Public comments are being solicited on the amendment through
November 7, 2022, the end of the comment period for the NOA. Public
comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the
comment period on the Amendment, as published in the NOA, to be
considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the Amendment. All
comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendment,
whether specifically directed to the Amendment, or the proposed rule,
will be considered in the
[[Page 62677]]
approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will
not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the
amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of
business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean
postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
An action included in this proposed rule would affect the season
dates for the retention of incidentally caught halibut in the sablefish
primary fishery north of Point Chehalis. The Northern Pacific Halibut
Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), 16 U.S.C. 773-773k, gives the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) responsibility for implementing the provisions of
the Convention between Canada and the United States for the
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and
Bering Sea (Halibut Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2,
1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at
Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). The Halibut Act requires that the
Secretary adopt regulations to carry out the purposes and objectives of
the Halibut Convention and Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c). Additionally,
as provided in the Halibut Act, the Regional Fishery Management
Councils having authority for the geographic area concerned may
develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations
governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters
that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) regulations (16 U.S.C.
773c(c)).
A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process
In 2021, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted
full stock assessments for Dover sole, lingcod, vermilion rockfish/
sunset rockfish, and spiny dogfish. The NWFSC conducted data moderate
assessments for copper rockfish, quillback rockfish, and squarespot
rockfish off California. The NWFSC conducted an update assessment of
sablefish. Additionally, the NWFSC reviewed catch-only assessment
updates for a number of previously assessed stocks (arrowtooth
flounder, petrale sole, canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish), as
well as a new yelloweye rockfish catch report. The NWFSC did not update
assessments for the remaining stocks, so harvest specifications for
these stocks are based on assessments from previous years. The full
stock assessments used to set catch limits for this biennium are
available on the Council's website (<a href="https://www.pcouncil.org/">https://www.pcouncil.org/</a>).
The Council's stock assessment review panel (STAR panel) reviewed
the stock assessments, including assessments on stocks for which some
biological indicators are available, as described below, for technical
merit, and to determine that each stock assessment document was
sufficiently complete. Finally, the Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the stock assessments and STAR
panel reports and made its recommendations to the Council (Agenda Item
G.5, June 2021 Council meeting; Agenda Item C.6, September 2021 Council
Meeting; Agenda Item E.2, November 2021 Council Meeting).
The Council considered the new stock assessments, stock assessment
updates, catch-only updates, public comment, recommendations from the
SSC, and advice from its advisory bodies over the course of six Council
meetings during development of its recommendations for the 2023-24
harvest specifications and management measures. At each Council meeting
between June 2021 and June 2022, the Council made a series of decisions
and recommendations that were, in some cases, refined after further
analysis and discussion. Agenda Item G.6, Supplemental Revised
Attachment 1, June 2021 describes the Council's meeting schedule for
developing the 2023-24 biennial harvest specifications. Additionally,
detailed information, including the supporting documentation the
Council considered at each meeting, is available at the Council's
website, <a href="http://www.pcouncil.org">www.pcouncil.org</a>.
The 2023-24 biennial management cycle was the fourth cycle
following PCGFMP Amendment 24 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015), which
established default harvest control rules and was analyzed through an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and
Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter, and
Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP, published January 2015). The EIS described
the ongoing implementation of the PCGFMP and default harvest control
rules. Under Amendment 24, the default harvest control rules used to
determine the previous biennium's harvest specifications (i.e.,
overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and
annual catch limits (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 used in the previous biennium unless
the Council makes a recommendation to deviate from the default.
Therefore, this rule implements the default harvest control rules,
consistent with the last biennium (2021-22), for most stocks, and
discusses Council-recommended departures from the defaults. The draft
EA supporting this action identifies the preferred harvest control
rules, management measures, and other management changes that were not
described in the 2015 EIS, and will be posted on the NMFS West Coast
Region webpage (see Electronic Access).
Information regarding the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs proposed for
groundfish stocks and stock complexes in 2023-24 is presented below,
followed by a discussion of the proposed management measures for
commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries.
II. Proposed Harvest Specifications
This proposed rule would set 2023-24 harvest specifications and
management measures for 127 of the 128 groundfish stocks or management
units which currently 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 stock categories for the purpose of setting maximum
sustainable yield (MSY),\1\ OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and rebuilding standards.
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
[[Page 62678]]
biological indicators are available, yet status is based on a ``data-
moderate'' quantitative stock 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, depletion corrected average
catch, and average catches) are used to determine the OFL for category
three stocks. A detailed description of each of these categories can be
found in Section 4.2 of the PCGFMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSY is the largest long-term average catch that can be taken
from a fish stock under prevailing environmental and fishery
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Proposed OFLs for 2023 and 2024
The OFL serves as the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in
a year without resulting in overfishing. Overfishing occurs when a
stock has a harvest rate, denoted as F<INF>x</INF><not-eq>, is set
higher than the rate that produces the stock's MSY. The SSC derives
OFLs for groundfish stocks with stock assessments by applying the
harvest rate to the current estimated biomass (B). Harvest rates
represent the rates of fishing mortality (F) that will reduce the
female spawning potential ratio (SPR) to X percent of its unfished
level. As an example, a harvest rate of F<INF>40</INF><not-eq> is more
aggressive than F<INF>45</INF><not-eq> or F<INF>50</INF><not-eq>
harvest rates because F<INF>40</INF><not-eq> 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). The OFL does not account
for scientific or management uncertainty, so the SSC typically
recommends an ABC that is lower than the OFL in order to account for
this uncertainty. Usually, the greater the amount of scientific
uncertainty, the lower the ABC is set compared to the OFL.
For 2023-24, the Council maintained its policy of using a default
harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected
to achieve F<INF>MSY</INF>. The Council also maintained the same
default harvest rate proxies as used in the 2021-22 biennium, based on
the SSC's recommendations: F<INF>30</INF><not-eq> for flatfish (meaning
an SPR harvest rate that would reduce the stock to 30 percent of its
unfished level), F<INF>50</INF><not-eq> for rockfish (including
longspine and shortspine thornyheads), F<INF>50</INF><not-eq> for
elasmobranchs, and F<INF>45</INF><not-eq> 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. See Tables 1a and 2a to Part 660, Subpart C
in the proposed regulatory text supporting this rule for the proposed
2023-24 OFLs.
The SAFE document for 2022, includes a detailed description of the
scientific basis for all of the SSC-recommended OFLs proposed in this
rule, and is available at the Council's website, <a href="http://www.pcouncil.org">www.pcouncil.org</a>.
B. Proposed ABCs for 2023 and 2024
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
account for this uncertainty. 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 and is usually related to the stock category. After the SSC
determines the appropriate [sigma] value, the Council chooses a P star
(P*) based on its chosen level of risk aversion to address the
consequences of the stock being elsewhere within the uncertainty
represented by sigma.
A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional reduction beyond the [sigma]
value reduction. The PCGFMP specifies the upper limit of P* will be
0.45. The P*-sigma approach 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 SSC quantified major sources of scientific uncertainty in the
estimates of OFLs and generally recommended a [sigma] value of 0.5 for
category one stocks, a [sigma] value of 1.0 for category two stocks,
and a [sigma] value of 2.0 for category three stocks. For category two
and three stocks, there is greater scientific uncertainty in the OFL
estimate because the assessments for these stocks 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 data-rich stock assessments. Assuming the
same P* is applied, a larger [sigma] value results in a larger
reduction from the OFL. For 2023-24, the Council continued the general
policy of using the SSC-recommended [sigma] values for each stock
category.
For 2023-24, the Council maintained the P* policies it established
for the previous biennium for most stocks, except when calculating the
contribution of black rockfish to the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish
complex. The Council considered alternative P* values for lingcod south
of 40[deg]0' N lat., lingcod north of 40[deg]10' N lat., sablefish,
spiny dogfish, vermilion and sunset rockfishes south of 4010' N lat.,
and vermilion and sunset rockfishes north of 40[deg]0' N lat., but
ultimately decided to maintain the default P* value used in the
previous biennium. The Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for
all individually managed category one stocks, except yelloweye
rockfish. Combining the category one [sigma] value of 0.5 with the P*
value of 0.45 results in a reduction of 6.1 percent from the OFL when
deriving the ABC. For category two stocks, the Council's general policy
was to apply a P* of 0.4, with a few exceptions. The Council
recommended applying a P* of 0.45 for big skate, English sole, lingcod
south of 40[deg]10' N lat., lingcod north of 40[deg]10' N lat.,
longnose skate, Pacific ocean perch, and all of the stocks managed in
the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex, Nearshore Rockfish
complexes, Shelf Rockfish Complexes, Slope Rockfish complexes, and the
Other Fish complex. When combined with the [sigma] values of 1.00 for
category two, a P* value of 0.45 corresponds to an 11.8 percent
reduction and a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to a 22.4 percent
reduction. For category three stocks, the Council's general policy was
to apply a P* value of 0.45 for these stocks, except the Council
recommended a P* value of 0.40 for cowcod between 40[deg]10' N lat. and
34[deg]27' N lat., Pacific cod, starry flounder, and all stocks in the
Other Flatfish complex. When combined with the [sigma] values of 2.00
for category three, a P* value of 0.45 corresponds to 22.2 percent
reduction and a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to a 39.8 percent
reduction. See Table 1-3 of Agenda F.3, Supplemental Revised Attachment
1, April 2022 Council meeting for the full description of [sigma] and
P* values by stock. See Tables 1a and 2a to Part 660, Subpart C in the
in the proposed regulatory text of this proposed rule for the proposed
2023-24 ABCs.
C. Proposed ACLs for 2023 and 2024
The Council recommends ACLs for each groundfish stock or management
unit as defined in the PCGFMP. To determine the ACL for each stock, the
Council will determine the best estimate of current stock abundance and
its relation to the precautionary and overfished/rebuilding thresholds.
Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level that produces MSY, or
B<INF>MSY</INF>, is defined as the precautionary threshold. When the
biomass for an assessed category one or
[[Page 62679]]
two stock falls below B<INF>MSY</INF>, the ACL is set below the ABC
using a harvest rate reduction to help the stock return to the
B<INF>MSY</INF> level, which is the management target for groundfish
stocks. If a stock biomass is larger than B<INF>MSY</INF>, the ACL may
be set equal to the ABC, or the ACL may be set below the ABC to address
conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management
uncertainty, or other factors necessary to meet management objectives.
The overfished/rebuilding threshold is 25 percent of the estimated
unfished biomass level for non-flatfish stocks or 50 percent of
B<INF>MSY</INF>, if known. The overfishing/rebuilding threshold for
flatfish stocks is 12.5 percent of the estimated unfished biomass
level. When a stock is below B<INF>MSY</INF> (the precautionary
threshold) but above the overfishing/rebuilding threshold, it is
considered to be in the precautionary zone.
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).
The PCGFMP defines the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with a
B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of B<INF>40</INF><not-eq> 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 for flatfish stocks with a
B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of B<INF>25</INF><not-eq>. The further the stock
biomass is below the precautionary threshold, the greater the reduction
in ACL relative to the ABC, until at B<INF>10</INF><not-eq> for a stock
with a B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of B<INF>40</INF><not-eq>, or
B<INF>5</INF><not-eq> for a stock with a B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of
B<INF>25</INF><not-eq>, the ACL would be set at zero.
Under the PCGFMP, harvest control rules are typically applied at
the component species level for stock complexes to calculate ACLs.
Resulting contribution values of each component species, or ACL
contributions, are summed to equal the stock complex ACLs. For example
the ACL contributions of black rockfish off of Oregon and quillback
rockfish contribute to the overall ACL for Oregon black/deacon/blue
rockfish stock complex and the Nearshore Rockfish complexes
respectively.
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 (see the Analysis for
information on the Magnuson-Stevens Act). For most of the stocks and
stock complexes managed with harvest specifications for 2023-24, the
Council chose to maintain the default harvest control rules from the
previous biennial cycle. For the Oregon black/deacon/blue rockfish
stock complex and the Nearshore Rockfish complexes, the Council
recommended deviating from the default harvest control rule by changing
how the contribution of black rockfish off of Oregon and quillback
rockfish off of California are calculated. Table 1 presents a summary
table of the proposed changes to default harvest control rules for
certain stocks for 2023-24. Each of these changes is discussed further
below.
Table 1--Proposed Changes to Harvest Control Rules for 2023-24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACL contribution to stock
Stock complex component Alternative Harvest control rule complex \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Rockfish off of Oregon...... Default.............. ACL contribution = ABC (P* 477 mt (2023), 471 mt
= 0.45). (2024).
Proposed change...... ACL contribution = 2020 512 mt (2023), 512 mt
ABC. (2024).
Quillback Rockfish off of Default.............. ACL contribution < ABC 2023 statewide ACL
California. with the 40-10 adjustment contribution = 0.11 mt;
\c\ off California only 2024 statewide ACL
(P* = 0.45). contribution = 0.42 mt.
Proposed change...... ACL contribution < ABC 2023 statewide ACL
(SPR 0.55; P* 0.45). contribution = 1.76 mt;
2024 statewide ACL
contribution = 1.93 mt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Default ACL is for 2023 and 2024 under the default harvest control rule, Proposed change ACL is for 2023 and
2024 under the alternative harvest specifications.
\b\ The ACL contribution for quillback rockfish off of California are apportioned to create the ACL
contributions to the nearshore rockfish complexes north and south of 40[deg] 10' N lat. The apportionment was
determined by the proportion of catch between 2005 and 2020 north and south of 40[deg]10' N lat. in California
where 49.6 percent of the statewide ACL is apportioned to the area between 42[deg] and 40[deg]10' N lat. for
the California contribution to the northern complex, and 50.4 percent to the area south of 40[deg]10' N lat.
for the contribution to the southern complex.
\c\ The 40-10 adjustment is applied to only some component species when calculating the complex ACL, where a
precautionary reduction is warranted, per the PCGFMP at section 4.6.1. The 40-10 adjustment reduces the
harvest rate to help the stock return to the maximum sustainable yield level.
Oregon Black Rockfish
Oregon black rockfish is a category two stock, managed as part of
the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex. Oregon black rockfish
was first assessed as a single stock in 2015. In 2019, the Oregon black
rockfish stock was estimated to be at 56 percent of its unfished
spawning output. For 2021-22, the NWFSC conducted a catch-only update
to the 2015 assessment by adding realized catch data from 2015-2018 and
estimates of catch for 2019 and 2020. For 2021-2022, the Council
recommended and NMFS approved a departure from the default harvest
control rule on a case-specific basis to adopt an ABC for both years
equal to the 2020 value (512 metric tons). The intent of the departure
was to provide fishery stability, without significantly affecting stock
status.
Black rockfish is the primary target stock for nearshore
recreational and commercial fisheries in Oregon and attainment of the
ACL contribution is high. In 2017, Oregon recreational fisheries were
shut down early because of black rockfish concerns, and the Council
received public testimony as to the severe negative consequences for
charter business operators and tourist-revenue dependent coastal
communities resulting from this closure. Due to the constraining nature
of black rockfish in Oregon and the biomass level being above the
precautionary threshold, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) recommended an alternative harvest control rule where the 2020
ABC of 512 mt is specified in 2023 and 2024, and the ACL contributions
are set equal to ABCs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the PCGFMP allow
the SSC to recommend an ABC that differs from the
[[Page 62680]]
ABC control rule on a case by case basis, provided the SSC offers
justification for its recommended deviation. In 2025, the current
default harvest control rule (ABC=ACL, P* of 0.45) would once again
apply to Oregon black rockfish.
Catch-only projections for black rockfish (Agenda Item E.3,
Attachment 3, November 2021) were completed for two scenarios that
differed according to the timeframe for which ABCs/ACL contributions of
512 mt were assumed (2021-2022 vs 2021-2024). For both scenarios,
previously assumed catch projections for 2019 and 2020 were replaced
with the lower observed catches for those years. Under both scenarios,
the long-term projections result in a projected stock biomass at 54
percent of its unfished spawning output in 2032. Stocks with biomass
estimates greater than 40 percent depletion are above the precautionary
thresholds in the PCGFMP. Because the biomass is the same under either
scenario, the SSC endorsed this alternative harvest control rule for
use in 2023-24.
Therefore based on the Analysis, the Council has recommended and
NMFS is proposing alternative harvest specifications for black rockfish
off of Oregon as part of the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex.
The alternative harvest control rule would implement an ACL for the
2023 and 2024 biennium of 512 mt in each year. This ACL contributes to
the overall stock complex ACL.
Quillback Rockfish Off California
Quillback rockfish is managed as part of the Nearshore Rockfish
complexes north and south of 40[deg]10' N lat. Quillback rockfish was
assessed in 2021 (Agenda Item E.2, Attachment 4, November 2021). Due to
differences in data availability and fishery exploitation, the
quillback rockfish assessment split the species into three separate
assessment areas by state boundary line. For purposes of stock status
determination (i.e., whether the stock or stock complex is subject to
overfishing or overfished), the assessments were combined to reflect
(1) the status of quillback rockfish as a part of the nearshore
rockfish complexes and (2) that quillback rockfish off California are
not a stock defined separately from quillback rockfish off Oregon and
Washington. However, the individual assessment areas suggested
differences in abundance and potential localized depletion, which are
addressed through this action as described below. The assessment for
the portion of quillback rockfish off California indicated that portion
is depleted.
The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, applying the default
harvest control rule, P* 0.45, for quillback rockfish off of Washington
and Oregon. Under the default harvest control rule for the portion
quillback rockfish off of California, a precautionary adjustment (i.e.,
the 40-10 adjustment) would be applied. However, the Council
anticipated scientific information about the population dynamics of the
various stocks would improve over time. This information would result
in improved estimates of appropriate harvest rates and the default
values from the 40-10 adjustment could be replaced. In response to the
best available scientific information related to the depletion specific
to the portion of quillback rockfish off California estimated in the
assessment, the Council recommended additional steps to reduce
mortality in that assessment area. The Council considered a range of
alternative harvest control rules for the portion of quillback rockfish
off California based on the January 2022 draft rebuilding analysis
which is available at <a href="https://www.pcouncil.org/stock-assessments-star-reports-stat-reports-rebuilding-analyses-terms-of-reference/groundfish-stock-assessment-documents/">https://www.pcouncil.org/stock-assessments-star-reports-stat-reports-rebuilding-analyses-terms-of-reference/groundfish-stock-assessment-documents/</a>. The Council's SSC endorsed the rebuilding
analysis for use in management, with which the alternative harvest
control rules are consistent. However, as noted above, because for
status determination purposes in the 2023-2024 biennium, quillback
rockfish off California are not a stock defined separately from
quillback rockfish off Oregon and Washington and are part of a stock
complex. NMFS has not determined that any stock or stock complex is
overfished and development of a rebuilding plan is not required.
The Council recommended setting the California statewide ACL
contribution of quillback rockfish to the complexes below the statewide
ABC contribution of quillback rockfish to the complexes to allow the
spawning output of quillback rockfish in this assessment area to
increase toward the management target. The statewide harvest
specifications were then apportioned to create the ACL contributions to
the nearshore rockfish complexes north and south of 40[deg]10' N lat.
The apportionment was determined by the proportion of catch between
2005 and 2020 north and south of 40[deg]10' N lat. in California where
49.6 percent of the statewide ACL is apportioned to the area between
42[deg] and 40[deg]10' N lat. for the California contribution to the
northern complex, and 50.4 percent to the area south of 40[deg]10' N
lat. for the contribution to the southern complex. The California
statewide ACL was used to inform the Council's recommendation on
harvest specifications for the nearshore rockfish complexes, and
precautionary management measures for quillback rockfish (see Sections
III.G, III.M, and III.N).
Therefore, based on the best scientific information available as
detailed in the Analysis and Agenda Item F.6.a Supplemental Groundfish
Management Team Report 2, June 2022, the Council has recommended, and
NMFS is proposing, alternative harvest specifications for quillback
rockfish as part of the Nearshore Rockfish complexes north and south of
40[deg]10' N lat. The alternative harvest control rule would implement
a statewide ACL contribution of 1.76 mt in 2023 and 1.93 mt in 2024.
Based on the apportionment described above, the ACL contribution for
the portion of quillback rockfish off of California to the Nearshore
Rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N lat. would be 0.87 mt in 2023
and 0.89 mt in 2024. The ACL contribution for the portion of quillback
rockfish off of California to the Nearshore Rockfish complex south of
40[deg]10' N lat. would be 0.96 mt in 2023 and 0.97 mt in 2024.
Stocks in Rebuilding Plans
When NMFS declares a stock 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 <a href="https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/">https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/</a> contains a detailed
description of each overfished stock, its status and management, as
well as the SSC's approach for rebuilding analyses. This document
provides information on yelloweye rockfish, which is the only remaining
rebuilding stock in the PCGFMP. NMFS declared yelloweye rockfish
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, and again during the 2019-20 biennium (83 FR 63970,
December 12, 2018). The Council proposed yelloweye rockfish ACLs for
2023 and 2024 are
[[Page 62681]]
based on the current yelloweye rockfish 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 <a href="https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fisherymanagement-plan/">https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fisherymanagement-plan/</a>.
Additionally, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to
establish annual catch targets (ACTs) within the non-trawl allocation
harvest guideline (HG). The non-trawl sector includes the limited entry
fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) fisheries as well as the
recreational fisheries for Washington, Oregon, and Californ ia. The
nearshore fisheries occur seaward 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. Tables 2 and 3 outline
the proposed harvest specifications for 2023 and 2024 for yelloweye
rockfish.
Table 2--2023 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL (mt) ABC (mt) ACL (mt) HG (mt) ACT (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors..................... 123 103 66 55.3 ..............
Non-trawl................... .............. .............. .............. 50.9 39.9
Non-Nearshore........... .............. .............. .............. 10.7 8.4
Nearshore
Washington Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 13.2 10.4
Oregon Recreational..... .............. .............. .............. 11.7 9.2
California Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 15.3 12.0
Trawl....................... .............. .............. .............. 4.4 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--2024 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL (mt) ABC (mt) ACL (mt) HG (mt) ACT (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors..................... 123 103 66 55.3 ..............
Non-trawl................... .............. .............. .............. 50.9 39.9
Non-Nearshore........... .............. .............. .............. 10.7 8.4
Nearshore
Washington Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 13.2 10.4
Oregon Recreational..... .............. .............. .............. 11.7 9.2
California Recreational. .............. .............. .............. 15.3 12.0
Trawl....................... .............. .............. .............. 4.4 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council recommended using ACTs for the non-trawl sector as a
precaution. As discussed in the Analysis, because yelloweye rockfish
catch has been restricted for many years, it is difficult to project
encounter rates. This precautionary approach to higher catch limits
would allow more access to target fisheries for the non-trawl sector,
while also managing for the uncertainty and volatility in catch of this
rebuilding stock by this sector.
D. Summary of ACL Changes From 2022 to 2023-24
Table 4 compares the ACLs for major stocks and stock complexes for
2022 and 2023-24. Under this proposed rule, of the 42 stocks and stock
complexes managed with ACLs in 2022, 8 stocks would have higher ACLs in
2023 and 2024 than in 2022, 23 would have ACLs that would decrease in
2023 from 2022, and 7 would have ACLs that would be close to the amount
in place in 2022. Three stocks (Dover sole, Pacific cod, and starry
flounder), and one stock complex (Other fish), would have the same ACLs
in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Under this proposed rule, the ACL for
yelloweye rockfish would increase by 29.4 percent. This is based on the
projections from the 2017 rebuilding analysis and the default harvest
control rule specifying ACLs based on the SPR harvest rate of 65
percent. This predicted slow rate of rebuilding is anticipated for this
slow growing species. One stock (arrowtooth flounder) has an ACL that
would increase more than 100 percent. This increase is due to new
information provided in the 2021 catch-only assessment update. The 37.5
percent increase in sablefish north of 36[deg] N lat. is due to new
information from the update assessment of sablefish. The 31.1 percent
decrease in lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. is due to new
information provided in the 2021 stock assessment.
Table 4--ACLs for Major Stocks and Management Units for 2022, and 2023-24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACL (mt)
Stock/complex Area ------------------------------------------------ Percent change
2022 2023 2024 2022 to 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH............ Coastwide....... 51 66 66 29.4
Arrowtooth Flounder........... Coastwide....... 8,458 18,632 14,178 120.3
Big Skate..................... Coastwide....... 1,389 1,320 1,267 -5.0
Black Rockfish................ WA.............. 291 290 289 -0.3
Black Rockfish................ CA.............. 341 334 329 -2.1
Bocaccio...................... S of 40[deg]10'. 1,724 1,842 1,828 6.8
Cabezon....................... CA.............. 195 182 171 -6.7
[[Page 62682]]
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling........ WA.............. 17 20 17 17.6
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling........ OR.............. 190 185 180 -2.6
California Scorpionfish....... Coastwide....... 275 262 252 -4.7
Canary Rockfish............... Coastwide....... 1,307 1,284 1,267 -1.8
Chilipepper................... S of 40[deg]10'. 2,259 2,183 2,121 -3.4
Cowcod........................ S of 40[deg]10'. 82 80 79 -2.4
Darkblotched Rockfish......... Coastwide....... 831 785 750 -5.5
Dover Sole.................... Coastwide....... 50,000 50,000 50,000 0.0
English Sole.................. Coastwide....... 9,101 9,018 8,960 -0.9
Lingcod....................... N of 40[deg]10'. 4,958 4,378 3,854 -11.7
Lingcod....................... S of 40[deg]10'. 1,172 726 722 -38.1
Longnose Skate................ Coastwide....... 1,761 1,708 1,660 -3.0
Longspine Thornyhead.......... N of 34[deg]27'. 2,452 2,295 2,162 -6.4
Longspine Thornyhead.......... S of 34[deg]27'. 774 725 683 -6.3
Pacific Cod................... Coastwide....... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0.0
Pacific Ocean Perch........... N of 40[deg]10'. 3,711 3,573 3,443 -3.7
Petrale Sole.................. Coastwide....... 3,660 3,485 3,285 -4.8
Sablefish..................... N of 36[deg].... 6,172 8,486 7,780 37.5
Sablefish..................... S of 36[deg].... 2,203 2,338 2,143 6.1
Shortspine Thornyhead......... N of 34[deg]27'. 1,393 1,359 1,328 -2.4
Shortspine Thornyhead......... S of 34[deg]27'. 737 719 702 -2.4
Spiny Dogfish................. Coastwide....... 1,585 1,456 1,407 -8.1
Splitnose..................... S of 40[deg]10'. 1,630 1,592 1,553 -2.3
Starry Flounder............... Coastwide....... 392 392 392 0.0
Widow Rockfish................ Coastwide....... 13,788 12,624 11,482 -8.4
Yellowtail Rockfish........... N of 40[deg]10'. 5,831 5,666 5,560 -2.8
Blue/Deacon/Black Rockfish.... OR.............. 600 597 594 -0.5
Nearshore Rockfish North...... N of 40[deg]10'. 77 93 91 20.8
Nearshore Rockfish South...... S of 40[deg]10'. 1,010 887 891 -11.2
Other Fish.................... Coastwide....... 223 223 223 0.0
Other Flatfish................ Coastwide....... 4,838 4,862 4,874 0.5
Shelf Rockfish North.......... N of 40[deg]10'. 1,450 1,283 1,278 -11.5
Shelf Rockfish South.......... S of 40[deg]10'. 1,428 1,469 1,469 2.9
Slope Rockfish North.......... N of 40[deg]10'. 1,568 1,540 1,516 -1.8
Slope Rockfish South.......... S of 40[deg]10'. 705 701 697 -0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Rebuilding stocks are capitalized.
III. Proposed Management Measures
This section describes proposed management measures used to further
allocate the ACLs to the various components of the fishery (i.e.,
biennial fishery harvest guidelines and set-asides) and management
measures to control fishing. Management measures for the commercial
fishery modify fishing behavior during the fishing year to ensure catch
does not exceed the ACL, and include trip and cumulative landing
limits, time/area closures, size limits, and gear restrictions.
Management measures for the recreational fisheries include bag limits,
size limits, gear restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/
area closures.
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 account for
anticipated mortality for certain types of activities: 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 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 in the regulatory text of this proposed rule. The details of the EFPs
are discussed below in Section III.H.
B. Tribal Fisheries
The Quileute Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Makah Indian Tribe, and
Hoh Indian Tribe (collectively, ``the Pacific Coast Tribes'') implement
management measures for Tribal fisheries both independently as
sovereign governments and cooperatively with the management measures in
the Federal regulations. The Pacific Coast Tribes work through the
Pacific Fishery Management Council process to maintain groundfish set-
asides, harvest guidelines, and allocations pursuant to treaty fishing
rights and as co-managers of the resource. The Pacific Coast Tribes may
adjust their Tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within
the Tribal set-asides and allocations and within the estimated impacts
to overfished stocks. Table 5 provides the proposed Tribal harvest set-
asides and allocations proposed for the 2023-24 biennium for groundfish
species other than Pacific whiting, which is allocated through a
separate annual specifications process. These targets are consistent
with the 2022 targets, with the exception of Pacific ocean perch
(increased to 130 mt) and darkblotched rockfish (increased to 5 mt).
[[Page 62683]]
Table 5--Proposed Tribal Harvest Set-Asides and Allocations for the 2023-
24 Biennium Compared to Those in Place in 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off the top deduction
Stock -------------------------------
2022 (mt) 2023-2024 (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth Flounder..................... 2,041 2,041
Big Skate............................... 15 15
WA Black Rockfish....................... 18 18
Canary Rockfish......................... 50 50
Darkblotched Rockfish................... 0.2 5
Dover Sole.............................. 1,497 1,497
English Sole............................ 200 200
Lingcod N of 40[deg]10' N lat........... 250 250
Longnose Skate.......................... 220 220
Longspine Thornyhead N of 34[deg]27' N 30 30
lat....................................
Pacific cod............................. 500 500
Pacific Ocean Perch..................... 9.2 130
Petrale Sole............................ 350 350
Sablefish N of 36[deg] N lat.\a\........ 656.6 849 (2023)
778 (2024)
Shortspine Thornyhead S of 34[deg]27' N 50 50
lat....................................
Spiny Dogfish........................... 275 275
Widow rockfish.......................... 200 200
Yellowtail Rockfish..................... 1,000 1,000
WA Cabezon/Kelp Greenling............... 2 2
Nearshore Rockfish North................ 1.5 1.5
Other Flatfish.......................... 60 60
Shelf Rockfish North.................... 30 30
Slope Rockfish North.................... 36 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sablefish is allocated according to Amendment 6 of the PCGFMP and 50
CFR 660.50(f)(2).
The Pacific Coast Tribes proposed trip limit management in Tribal
fisheries for 2023-24--for several stocks, including several rockfish
stocks and stock complexes. This rule proposes the trip limits for
Tribal fisheries as provided to the Council at its June 2022 meeting in
Supplemental Tribal Report 1, Agenda Item F.6.a. For rockfish stocks,
Tribal regulations will continue to require full retention of all
overfished rockfish stocks and marketable non-overfished rockfish
stocks. The Pacific Coast 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.
C. Biennial Fishery Allocations
The Council routinely recommends 2-year trawl and non-trawl
allocations during the biennial specifications process for stocks
without formal allocations (as defined in Section 6.3.2 of the PCGFMP)
or stocks where the long-term allocation is suspended because the stock
is declared overfished.
The trawl and non-trawl allocations, with the exception of
sablefish north of 36[deg] N lat., are 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.,
A, entitled ``Deductions from the ACLs,'' in this preamble. The trawl
and non-trawl allocations and recreational harvest guidelines are
designed to accommodate anticipated mortality in each sector as well as
variability and uncertainty in those mortality estimates. Additional
information on the Council's allocation framework and formal
allocations can be found in Section 6.3 of the PCGFMP and Sec. 660.55
of the Federal regulations. 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 2023 and 2024. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of big skate, by
sector, in 2023-24. Allocations of big skate are determined on a
biennial basis. For 2023-24, the Council elected to maintain the
current big skate split of 95 percent to the trawl fishery and 5
percent to the non-trawl fishery. This results in a trawl allocation of
1,197.2 mt and a non-trawl allocation of 63 mt in 2023, as well as a
trawl allocation of 1,146.8 mt and a non-trawl allocation of 60.4 mt in
2024. No further allocations or deductions are made.
Table 6--2023 and 2024 Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations of Big Skate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... 95 1,197.2 1,146.8
Non-trawl................................................. 5 63 60.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62684]]
Bocaccio South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
Specifications for bocaccio are determined through the biennial
specifications process. For 2023-24, the Council recommended and NMFS
is proposing the allocations shown in Table 7 for bocaccio in 2023 and
2024, which maintain the allocation structure from the previous
biennium. These allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of
mortality of bocaccio, by sector, in 2023-24. In each year, the fishery
harvest guideline is split with 39 percent going to the trawl sectors
and 61 percent to the non-trawl sectors. For the trawl sector this
results in an allocation of 700.3 mt in 2023 and 694.9 mt in 2024. The
non-trawl sectors would receive 1,093.5 mt in 2023 and 1,085 mt in
2024. The non-trawl allocation is then distributed between the
commercial (nearshore and non-nearshore fisheries) and California
recreational fisheries. In 2023, the commercial sector would receive
30.9 percent of the non-trawl allocation or 337.9 mt, and the
California recreational sector would receive 755.6 mt. In 2024, the
same percentage would remain in place with the commercial sector
receiving 335.3 mt and the California recreational sector receiving
749.7 mt.
Table 7--2023 and 2024 Allocations of Bocaccio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... 39 700.3 694.9
Non-trawl \a\............................................. 61 1,093.5 1,085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The California recreational sector share of the non-trawl allocation is 755.6 mt in 2023 and 749.7 mt in
2024.
Canary Rockfish
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations in
Table 8 for canary rockfish in 2023 and 2024, which maintain the status
quo proportions from the 2021-22 biennium. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of canary rockfish,
by sector, in 2023-24. For canary rockfish, the fishery harvest
guideline is distributed to the trawl and non-trawl sectors with trawl
receiving 72.3 percent and non-trawl sectors receiving 27.7 percent
each year. In 2023, the trawl sector would receive 880.7 mt of canary
rockfish, of which 36 mt would be deducted to account for bycatch in
the at-sea sectors, and the remaining 844.7 mt would be distributed to
the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) sector. In 2023, the non-
trawl sector would receive 337.4 mt which is distributed to the
commercial non-trawl (121.5 mt), WA recreational (41.5 mt), OR
recreational (62.4 mt), and CA recreational (112.0 mt) fisheries. In
2024, the trawl sector would receive 868.4 mt of canary rockfish, of
which 36 mt would be deducted to account for bycatch in the at-sea
sectors, and the remaining 832.4 mt would be distributed to the
shorebased IFQ sector. The non-trawl sector would receive 332.7 mt,
which is distributed to the commercial non-trawl sector (119.8 mt), WA
recreational (40.9 mt), OR recreational (61.5 mt), and CA recreational
(110.5 mt) fisheries.
Table 8--2023 and 2024 Allocations of Canary Rockfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
(mt) (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorebased IFQ Program............ 844.7 832.4
At-sea Sectors.................... 36 36
Nearshore/Non-nearshore........... 121.5 119.8
Washington recreational........... 41.5 40.9
Oregon recreational............... 62.4 61.5
California recreational........... 112.0 110.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowcod
For 2023-24, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing to
remove the 50 mt ACT for cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. that was in
place during the 2021-22 biennium. The ACT was included in the 2021-22
biennium out of concern of the risk of exceeding the ACL and to account
for stock assessment uncertainty. Improved inseason monitoring tools
have been effective at monitoring cowcod mortality and reducing
management uncertainty. Therefore, the Council recommended removing the
50 mt ACT to provide additional flexibility and stability to the non-
trawl sector south of 40[deg]10' N lat. Table 9 shows the trawl/non-
trawl allocations for cowcod for 2023 and 2024. NMFS anticipates the
proposed allocation structure will accommodate estimates of mortality
of cowcod, by sector, in 2023-24. The fishery harvest guideline is
distributed to the trawl and non-trawl sectors, with the trawl sector
receiving 36 percent and the non-trawl sector receiving 64 percent each
year. The trawl sector would receive 24.8 mt of cowcod in 2023 and 24.4
mt in 2024. The non-trawl sector would receive 44.0 mt in 2023 and 43.4
mt in 2024, which is distributed to the commercial and recreational
sectors as a 50/50 split. The Council also recommended, and NMFS
proposes, sector-specific ACTs based on the 50/50 split. For 2023 the
commercial sector ACT would be 22 mt and the recreational sector ACT
would be 22 mt. For 2024 the commercial sector ACT would be 21.7 mt and
the recreational sector ACT would be 21.7 mt. Utilizing sector-specific
ACTs within the non-trawl sector, in addition to maintaining the
proposed zero retention requirement in the non-trawl sector, should
help to reduce management uncertainty with the proposed removal of the
50 mt ACT below the fishery harvest guideline.
[[Page 62685]]
Table 9--2023 and 2024 Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations of Cowcod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... 36 24.8 24.4
Non-trawl................................................. 64 44.1 43.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/non-trawl
allocations for lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. in Table 10. These
allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of
lingcod, by sector, in 2023-24.
Specifications for the lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. were
established through the biennial process with a trawl/non-trawl
allocation for the 2023-24 specifications of 40 percent of the harvest
guideline to trawl sector and 60 percent to non-trawl sector. In 2023,
the distribution results in 285.2 mt to the trawl sector and 427.8 mt
to the non-trawl sectors. In 2024, the distribution results in 285.2 mt
to the trawl sectors and 425.4 mt to the non-trawl sectors. No further
allocations or distributions are made.
Table 10--2023 and 2024 Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations of Lingcod South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... 40 285.2 283.6
Non-trawl................................................. 60 427.8 425.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longnose Skate
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/non-trawl
allocations for longnose skate in Table 11. The allocation percentages,
90 percent to trawl and 10 percent to non-trawl, reflect historical
catch of longnose skate in the two sectors. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of longnose skate, by
sector, in 2023-24. In 2023, the 90/10 distribution results in 1,311.0
mt to the trawl sectors and 145.7 mt to the non-trawl sectors. In 2024,
the distribution results in 1,267.8 mt to the trawl sectors and 140.9
mt to the non-trawl sectors.
Table 11--2023 and 2024 Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations of Longnose Skate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... 90 1,311.0 1,267.8
Non-trawl................................................. 10 145.7 140.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2023 and 2024 are shown in Table 12. Specifications for the shelf
rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N lat. were established through
the biennial process with a trawl/non-trawl allocation for the 2023-24
specifications of 60.2 percent to trawl sectors and 39.8 percent to
non-trawl sectors. In 2023, the distribution results in 729.7 mt to the
trawl sectors and 482.4 mt to the non-trawl sectors. In 2024, the
distribution results in 726.7 mt to the trawl sectors and 480.4 mt to
the non-trawl sectors. Of the amount going to the trawl sectors, 35 mt
is deducted each year from the trawl allocation to account for bycatch
in the at-sea whiting sectors, with the remaining 694.7 mt in 2023 and
691.7 mt in 2024 going to the shorebased IFQ fishery. No further
allocations or distributions are made.
Specifications for the shelf rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10' N
lat. were established through the biennial process with a trawl/non-
trawl allocation for the 2023-24 specifications of 12.2 percent to
trawl sectors and 87.8 percent to non-trawl sectors. In 2023 and 2024,
the distribution results in 163.9 mt to the trawl sectors and 1,173.2
mt to the non-trawl sectors. No further allocations or distributes are
made.
Table 12--Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish North and South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocations 2024 Allocations
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Shelf Rockfish north of 40[deg]10' N lat.:
Trawl................................................. 60.2 729.7 726.7
Non-trawl............................................. 39.8 482.4 480.4
Minor Shelf Rockfish south of 40[deg]10' N lat.:
Trawl................................................. 12.2 163.0 163.0
Non-trawl............................................. 87.8 1,173.2 1,173.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62686]]
Slope Rockfish Complex
Allocations for slope rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10' N lat.,
including custom shares for blackgill rockfish, are recommended by the
Council and proposed by NMFS for each biennial cycle. The proposed
allocations for 2023 and 2024 are shown in Table 13. The Council
recommended blackgill rockfish within the slope rockfish complex south
of 40[deg]10' N lat. be managed by setting an HG for blackgill rockfish
that was equal to the species specific ACL contribution to the slope
rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10' N lat. The blackgill rockfish HG
was then used to allocate 41 percent to the trawl sector and 59 percent
to the non-trawl sector. Then, trawl (63 percent) and non-trawl (37
percent) allocations were applied to the remaining species in the
complex. Finally, the off-the top set-asides are then deducted to
produce the final two-year allocations. In 2023, the distribution
results in 378.7 mt to the trawl sectors and 279.3 mt to the non-trawl
sectors. In 2024, the distribution results in 381.mt to the trawl
sectors and 280.2 mt to the non-trawl sectors.
Table 13--Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations for Minor Slope Rockfish South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocations (mt) 2024 Allocations (mt)
Category ---------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl Non-trawl Trawl Non-trawl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackgill rockfish share........................ 70.7 (41%) 101.7 (59%) 69.7 (41%) 100.2 (59%)
``Other slope rockfish'' share.................. 330.5 (63%) 194.1 (37%) 334.6 (63%) 196.5 (37%)
Share (mt)...................................... 401.2 295.8 404.3 296.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 697.0
701.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of total share....................... 57.56% 42.44% 57.67% 42.33%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total combined off-top...................... 39
39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportioned off-top............................. 22.4 16.6 22.5 16.5
Final two year allocation....................... 378.7 279.3 381.8 280.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petrale Sole
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/non-trawl
allocations for petrale sole in Table 14. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of petrale sole, by
sector, in 2023-24. For the 2023-24 biennium, 30 mt of petrale sole
would be allocated to the non-trawl sector and the remainder would go
to the trawl sector each year. In 2023, the distribution results in
3,068.8 mt to the trawl sector. In 2024, the trawl sector would receive
2,868.8 mt.
Table 14--2023 and 2024 Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations of Petrale Sole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... .............. 3,068.8 2,868.8
Non-trawl................................................. .............. 30 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widow Rockfish
The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/non-trawl
allocations for widow rockfish in Table 15. These allocations are
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of widow rockfish, by
sector, in 2023-24. For the 2023-24 biennium, 400 mt of widow rockfish
would be allocated to the non-trawl sector and the remainder would go
to the trawl sector each year. In 2023, the distribution results in
11,985.7 mt to the trawl sector. In 2024, the trawl sector would
receive 10,843.7 mt.
Table 15--2023 and 2024 Trawl/Non-Trawl Allocations of Widow Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Allocation 2024 Allocation
Percentage (mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl..................................................... .............. 11,985.7 10,843.7
Non-trawl................................................. .............. 400 400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Corrections and Additional Waypoints for 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 2023-24 biennium, the Council recommended and NMFS is
proposing line modifications seaward of California around Eel Canyon
(near Eureka), Mendocino Canyon, Mattole Canyon, the Farallon Islands
(near San Francisco), the Channel Islands (near Santa Barbara and east
of Anacapa Island), Redondo Canyon, Santa
[[Page 62687]]
Catalina Island, Lasuen Knoll, and Santa Clemente Island, as well as in
near Albion, Monterey Bay, Point Sur, Morro Bay, Port Hueneme, Santa
Monica Bay, Point Vincente, Huntington Beach, and San Diego. These
modifications would better align existing RCA coordinates with chart-
based depth contours, reduce boundary line crossovers, and address
enforcement concerns. See Section 2.1 of the Analysis for more details
on these changes.
The Council's recommendation would have deleted point (130) on the
boundary line approximating the 50 fathoms (fm) (91 m) depth contour.
This was the only point for this boundary line at 36[deg] N lat. Points
at each commonly used geographic coordinates (latitudes) defined in
paragraph (2) at Sec. 660.11 ``North-South management area'' should be
retained to maintain functionality and enforceability of these depth-
based lines when they are used to form closed areas such as Block Area
Closures or the Non-trawl Rockfish Conservation Area. Therefore, NMFS
is making an administrative change to modify the point instead of
deleting it. This will maintain the shape of the boundary line the
Council recommended, but will also maintain the functionality and
enforceability needed. This is an administrative change and does not
change the on-the-water location of the line that was recommended by
the Council at its June 2022 meeting.
NMFS is republishing Sec. 660.72(j)(220) through (222) to correct
the paragraph designation of paragraph (j)(221). The ``1'' was
mistakenly omitted during prior revisions so it was published as a
second paragraph (j)(22) in that section. This correction is not
substantive, and does not change the on-the-water effects of these
regulations, aside from reducing potential confusion about multiple
paragraphs (j)(22).
E. Limited Entry Trawl
The limited entry trawl fishery is made up of the shorebased IFQ
program, whiting and non-whiting, and the at-sea whiting sectors. For
some stocks and stock complexes with a trawl allocation, an amount is
first set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector with the remainder of the
trawl allocation going to the shorebased IFQ sector. Set-asides are not
managed by NMFS or the Council except in the case of a risk to the ACL.
At-Sea Set Asides
For several species, the trawl allocation is reduced by an amount
set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector. This amount is designed to
accommodate catch by the at-sea whiting sector when they are targeting
Pacific whiting. The Council is recommending and NMFS is proposing the
set-asides in Table 16 for the 2023-24 biennium. The Council considered
a set-aside for Pacific spiny dogfish but did not recommend
establishing one.
Table 16--2023-24 At-Sea Set-Asides for Vessels Targeting Pacific
Whiting While Fishing as Part of the At-Sea Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At-sea set-aside
Stock or stock complex Area amount (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth Flounder............. Coastwide.......... 70
Canary rockfish................. Coastwide.......... 36
Darkblotched rockfish........... Coastwide.......... 76.4
Dover sole...................... Coastwide.......... 10
Lingcod......................... N of 40[deg]10' N 15
lat.
Longnose skate.................. Coastwide.......... 5
Minor shelf rockfish............ N of 40[deg]10' N 35
lat.
Minor slope rockfish............ N of 40[deg]10' N 300
lat.
Other flatfish.................. Coastwide.......... 35
Pacific halibut................. Coastwide.......... 10
Pacific ocean perch............. N of 40[deg]10' N 300
lat.
Petrale sole.................... Coastwide.......... 5
Sablefish....................... N of 36[deg] N lat. 100
Shortspine thornyhead........... N of 34[deg]27' N 70
lat.
Widow rockfish.................. Coastwide.......... 476
Yellowtail rockfish............. N of 40[deg]10' N 320
lat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Trip Limits for IFQ Vessels
For vessels fishing in the Shorebased IFQ Program, with either
groundfish trawl gear or non-trawl gears, the following incidentally-
caught stocks are managed with trip limits:
Minor Nearshore Rockfish north and south, Washington black
rockfish, Oregon black/blue/deacon rockfish, cabezon (46[deg]16' to
40[deg]10' N lat. and south of 40[deg]10' N lat.), spiny dogfish,
longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg] N lat., big skate, California
scorpionfish, longnose skate, Pacific whiting, and the Other Fish
complex. For all these stocks, this rule proposes maintaining the same
IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the start of the 2023-24
biennium as those in place in 2022. Additionally, this rule proposes
maintaining the trip limit for blackgill rockfish within the southern
slope rockfish complex. The trip limit would be unlimited to start the
2023 fishing year. The purpose of the blackgill trip limit would be to
allow the Council to reduce targeting of blackgill rockfish inseason,
if needed. Trip limits for the IFQ fishery can be found in Table 1
North and Table 1 South to part 660, subpart D. Changes to trip limits
would be considered a routine measure under Sec. 660.60(c), and may be
implemented or adjusted, if determined necessary, through inseason
action.
F. LEFG and OA Non-Trawl Fishery
Management measures for the LEFG and OA non-trawl fisheries tend to
be similar because the majority of participants in both fisheries use
hook-and-line gear. Management measures, including area restrictions
(e.g., non-trawl RCA) and trip limits in these non-trawl fisheries, are
generally designed to allow harvest of target stocks while keeping
catch of overfished stocks low. LEFG trip limits are specified in Table
2 (North) and Table 2 (South) to subpart E. OA trip limits are
specified in Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to subpart F in the
regulatory text of this proposed rule.
[[Page 62688]]
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 proposes removing the daily trip limit for the OA
fishery and maintaining the same weekly and bimonthly trip limits as
were in place in the start of 2022. For the portion south of 36[deg] N
lat., the Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, the same weekly and
bimonthly trip limits as were in place in the start of 2022. The
proposed sablefish trip limits for 2023-24 are shown in Table 17.
Table 17--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] 2,400 lb (1089 kg)/week; not to exceed 4,800 lb (2,177 kg) bi-monthly.
N lat.
south of 36[deg] 2,500 lb (1,134 kg)/week.
N lat.
Open access.................. north of 36[deg] 2,000 lb (907 kg)/week; not to exceed 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) bi-monthly.
N lat.
south of 36[deg] 2,000 lb (907 kg)/week; not to exceed 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) bi-monthly.
N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEFG and OA Trip Limits
The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, status quo trip
limits for LEFG and OA fisheries in 2023. The Council considered
changes to the quillback rockfish and copper rockfish trip limits off
California but reaffirmed the limits set through inseason action for
2022 (86 FR 72863; December 23, 2021). That action intended to reduce
mortality of quillback and copper rockfish by implementing sub-trip
limits of 75 lbs (34 kg) per 2 months within the 2,000 lbs (907 kg) per
2 months Minor Nearshore Rockfish limit for the areas between 42[deg]-
40[deg]10' N lat., and south of 40[deg]10' N lat. The Council could
recommend further adjustment to the sub-trip limits through additional
inseason action once more data on the current limits is collected and
the effects on mortality, particularly discard mortality, are better
understood. NMFS notes that allowing the continuation of fishery-
dependent data collection through minimal retention would be very
beneficial for future stock assessments. Additionally, further
reductions on quillback rockfish, an important species in the live fish
market, in the commercial Nearshore Fishery could destabilize the niche
fishery. More information on these trip limits can be found in the
Analysis.
Primary Sablefish Tier Limits
Some limited entry fixed gear permits are endorsed to receive
annual sablefish quota, or tier limits. Vessels registered 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 2023,
Tier 1 at 72,904 lb (33,069 kg), Tier 2 at 33,138 lb (15,031 kg), and
Tier 3 at 18,936 lb (8,589 kg). For 2024, Tier 1 at 66,805 lb (30,302
kg), Tier 2 at 30,366 lb (13,774 kg), and Tier 3 at 17,352 lb (7,871
kg).
G. Recreational Fisheries
This section describes the recreational fisheries management
measures proposed for 2023-24. The Council primarily recommends depth
restrictions and groundfish conservation areas to constrain catch
within the recreational harvest guidelines for each stock. 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 adopt the following season structure in Table
18.
[[Page 62689]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.073
The Washington recreational fishery would be open from the second
Saturday in March through the third Saturday in October. The aggregate
groundfish bag limits in waters adjacent to Washington would continue
to be nine fish in all areas with a sub-bag limit for cabezon (one per
day), rockfish (seven per day), lingcod (two per day). The flatfish
limit would continue to be five fish, and is not counted towards the
groundfish bag limit of nine but is in addition to it.
The retention of copper rockfish, quillback rockfish, and vermilion
rockfish during the months of May, June, and July would be prohibited.
As stated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in
its analysis for this proposal, these prohibitions for copper rockfish
and quillback rockfish are projected to keep mortality below the
species specific ACL contributions. For vermilion, the prohibition is
expected to lower mortality while maintaining some data flow needed for
stock assessments (Agenda Item F.6.a, WDFW Report 1, June 2022).
Consistent with the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended and
NMFS is proposing to continue 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 would remain open to recreational fishing
for the 2023-24 biennium. Coordinates for YRCAs are defined at Sec.
660.70.
Oregon
The Council recommend that Oregon recreational fisheries in 2023-24
would operate under an all months all depths season structure to start
the 2023 fishing year. The Council recommended maintaining the 2021-22
aggregate bag limits and size limits in Oregon recreational fisheries
for 2023-24. 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). Oregon long-leader
gear fishing and ``all-depth'' Pacific halibut fishing would continue
to be allowed on the same trip. This rule proposes sablefish, Pacific
cod, and other flatfish species (sole, flounder, sanddab) may be
retained on ``all-depth'' halibut trips. This measure would provide
additional opportunity for anglers participating in the ``all depth''
halibut fishery and reduce potential regulatory discards. Based on the
Analysis, additional effort would not be expected (i.e., no new trips
occurring), because anglers would just have this additional opportunity
on trips they are already taking. Therefore, no additional impacts to
yelloweye rockfish, Chinook salmon, or coho salmon would be expected.
Oregon often adopts more restrictive measures in state rule. This
enables the ODFW to tighten or ease restrictions inseason based on
quota status and projected mortality. The Federal rules serve as a
backstop, while state rules can be adjusted more rapidly in response to
inseason circumstances, improving management responsiveness and the
ability to achieve conservation and opportunity objectives. For
example, ODFW anticipates continuing the prohibition on retaining
quillback rockfish in the recreational fishery (and all non-trawl
commercial fisheries) in 2023-24.
California
The Council manages recreational fisheries in waters seaward of
California in five separate management areas. Season and area closures
differ between California management areas to limit incidental catch of
overfished stocks and stocks of concern while providing as much
recreational fishing opportunity as possible. The Council's
[[Page 62690]]
recommended California season structure for 2023 and 2024 is a
substantial departure from 2021 and 2022. In order to reduce total
mortality of quillback rockfish and copper rockfish, each management
area would incur a reduction in fishing time in nearshore waters of 30
percent or more. This, in combination with the proposed novel
utilization of the RCA described in Section III.N, would create an
``offshore only fishery'' during certain months. Recreational fishing
for groundfish would continue to be prohibited in waters less than 100
fm (183 m) around Cordell Bank as described in Sec.
660.360(c)(3)(i)(C).
In the Northern Management Area (42[deg] N lat. to 40[deg]10' N
lat.), the fishery for California rockfish, cabezon, greenling complex
(RCG complex), as defined at Sec. 660.360(c)(3)(ii), and the fishery
for lingcod would be closed January 1 to May 14, open in all depths
from May 15 to October 15, and closed October 16 to December 31.
In the Mendocino Management Area (40[deg]10' N lat. to 38[deg]57.5'
N lat.), and the San Francisco Management Area (38[deg]57.5' N lat. to
37[deg]11' N lat.) the RCG complex fishery and the lingcod fishery
would be closed January 1 to May 14, open May 15 to July 15 seaward of
the 50 fm (91 m) RCA line, and open in all depths from July 16 to
December 31.
In the Central Management Area (37[deg]11' N lat. to 34[deg]27' N
lat.), the RCG complex fishery and the lingcod fishery would be closed
January 1 to April 30, open May 1 to September 30 in all depths, and
open October 1 to December 31 seaward of the 50 fm (91 m) RCA line.
In the Southern Management Area (34[deg]27' N lat. to U.S./Mexico
border), the RCG complex fishery and the lingcod fishery would be
closed January 1 to March 31, open April 1 to September 15 in all
depths, and open September 16 to December 31 seaward of the 50 fm (91
m) RCA line.
Table 19 shows the proposed season structure and depth limits by
management area in 2023 and 2024 for the RCG complex fishery and
lingcod fishery.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.074
In times and areas where an RCA is closed seaward of an RCA line
(i.e., when an ``off-shore only'' fishery is active in that management
area) the following would be prohibited: (1) possession or retention of
nearshore rockfish (defined as black rockfish, blue rockfish, black and
yellow rockfish, brown rockfish, China rockfish, copper rockfish,
calico rockfish, gopher rockfish, kelp rockfish, grass rockfish, olive
rockfish, quillback rockfish, and treefish), cabezon, and greenlings in
all depths of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) throughout the
management area; (2) possession and retention of all rockfish, cabezon,
greenlings, and lingcod would be prohibited shoreward of the RCA
boundary line within the EEZ, except that vessels may transit through
waters shoreward of the RCA line with no fishing gear in the water.
In all Management Areas, California scorpionfish, ``Other
Flatfish'' (as defined at Sec. 660.11), petrale sole and starry
flounder, leopard shark, and ``Other Federal Groundfish'' would be open
year-round at all depths. ``Other Federal groundfish'' as defined in
state regulations, (Section 28.49, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations) include soupfin shark, Dover sole, English sole,
arrowtooth flounder, spiny dogfish, skates, ratfish, grenadiers,
finescale codling, Pacific cod, Pacific whiting, sablefish and
thornyheads.
The Council recommended that size limits and bag limits would
remain the same as 2022 for all stocks. The Council also recommended
and NMFS is proposing to continue sub-bag limits of one quillback
rockfish, one copper rockfish, and four vermilion rockfish within the
10-fish RCG daily bag and possession limit.
Continuing the one-fish sub-bag limits for quillback and copper
rockfish would allow for fishery-dependent data
[[Page 62691]]
collection, specifically biological data. Maintaining the flow of this
data is very important for future stock assessments as data gaps would
add uncertainty in the results of future assessments. As described in
Section 11 of the Analysis, the Council analyzed quillback rockfish,
copper rockfish, and vermilion rockfish sub-bag limits ranging from 10
to 0 fish (i.e., no retention) within the 10-fish RCG bag limit.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks groundfish
mortality inseason on a weekly and/or monthly basis to ensure that
mortality remains within allowable limits. Further changes to the sub-
bag limit or to prohibit retention may be recommended by the Council
inseason, as necessary, to limit mortality and achieve specifications.
In addition to the regulatory management measures to reduce
mortality of copper and quillback rockfish in 2022 (86 FR 72863;
December 23, 2021), the fishery industry has undertaken several
voluntary measures including dissemination of enhanced species
identification information, avoidance procedures, and no retention when
a biological sampler is not aboard. Per public testimony at the June
2022 Council meeting, the industry plans to continue these voluntary
measures in 2023 and 2024. NMFS expects these mandatory and voluntary
measures would substantially reduce mortality of quillback and copper
rockfish.
H. Exempted Fishing Permits
Issuing EFPs is authorized by regulations implementing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act at 50 CFR 600.745, which state that EFPs may be
used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be
prohibited.
At its June 2022 meeting, the Council recommended NMFS approve five
EFP applications for the 2023 fishing year and preliminarily approve
the EFP applications for the 2024 fishing year. The Council considered
these EFP applications concurrently with the 2023-2024 biennial harvest
specifications and management process because expected catch under most
EFP projects is included in the catch limits for groundfish stocks. All
of the EFP applications are renewals. Two EFP applications request to
test the use of natural bait while fishing inside the non-trawl
Rockfish Conservation Area (NT-RCA), which is proposed to be prohibited
as part of measures allowing non-trawl vessels to use select hook and
line gear configurations within the NT-RCA (see part J of this
section). One EFP application requests to test whether removing certain
gear, time, and area restrictions may impact the nature and extent of
bycatch of protected and prohibited species. The final two EFP
applications request to retain certain prohibited species in order to
collect fishery-dependent data for potential use in upcoming stock
assessments. A summary of each EFP application is provided below:
<bullet> Groundfish EFP Proposal--Yellowtail Rockfish Jig Fishing
off California: Barbara Emley of the San Francisco Community Fishing
Association and private open access fisherman Daniel Platt submitted a
renewal application for research that has been conducted since 2013
(herein referred to as the ``Emley-Platt EFP''). From 2013-2022, this
EFP tested the efficacy of a commercial jig gear configured to target
underutilized, midwater yellowtail and shelf rockfish species while
avoiding the rebuilding, bottom-dwelling yelloweye rockfish inside the
NT-RCA. As part of this 2023-24 harvest specifications and management
measures action, the Council recommended, and NMFS proposed, this EFP
gear type be approved for legal use inside the NT-RCA (see part J of
this section). Therefore, if this rulemaking is implemented as
proposed, the associated exemptions from the prohibitions on fishing
and/or transiting inside the non-trawl RCA with non-trawl gear would no
longer be needed for this EFP project beginning in 2023. However, the
application contains a new request for 2023 and 2024, which is to test
the effect of using natural bait on the shrimp fly gear. Even if the
commercial jig gear is legalized for use inside the NT-RCA through this
action, there would still be a requirement to use artificial bait,
which has been used in the EFP project since 2013. Testing the use of
natural bait could gather data to inform the Council on changes to
catch composition while using natural bait compared to artificial bait.
If this proposed rule and EFP proposal are approved, this EFP project
would require exemptions from: (1) the prohibition on fishing with
natural bait inside the NT-RCA (see proposed regulation below at Sec.
660.330 (b)(3)(i)(D)); and (2) the open access trip limits in Table 3
(South) to part 660, subpart F (vessels that fish between 40[deg]10' N
lat. and 34[deg]27' have specified EFP catch limits). If this EFP gear
type is not approved for legal use inside the NT-RCA as proposed in
this rulemaking, then this EFP project would require additional
exemptions from: (1) the prohibition to fish inside the non-trawl RCA
with non-trawl gear (see Sec. 660.330(d)(12)(i)); (2) the prohibition
on transiting through the non-trawl RCA without non-trawl gear stowed
(see Sec. 660.330(d)(12)(ii)); and (3) the prohibition on retaining
and landing groundfish harvested from inside the non-trawl RCA with
non-trawl gear (see Sec. 660.330(d)(12)(iii)). In addition to the
request to use natural bait, the 2023-24 application also requests a
geographic expansion of the EFP to include additional area in northern
and southern California. If approved, NMFS would authorize up to 7
vessels to test the use of natural bait inside the non-trawl RCA off
the California coast--specifically between the Oregon/California border
(was previously limited to 40[deg]10' N lat.) and the U.S./Mexico
border (was previously limited to Point Conception, California), at
depths ranging from 35 to 150 fathoms (64 to 274 meters (m)). The EFP
Director did not request any additional EFP allocations for the
geographic expansion north of 40[deg]10' N lat.; those vessels would
fish under the open access trip limits in Table 3 (North) to part 660,
subpart F.
<bullet> Groundfish EFP Proposal--Monterey Bay Regional EFP
Targeting Chilipepper Rockfish: Real Good Fish of Moss Landing,
California submitted a renewal application to continue research that
has been conducted since 2019. Similar to the Emley-Platt EFP, the
Council recommended this gear type be approved for legal use inside the
NT-RCA, but with the requirement to use artificial bait. Therefore,
this application also includes a request to test the use of natural
bait on the groundfish troll gear. If this proposed rule and EFP
proposal are approved, this EFP project would require exemptions from:
(1) the prohibition on fishing with natural bait inside the NT-RCA (see
proposed regulation below at Sec. 660.330 (b)(3)(ii)(E)); and (2) the
open access trip limits in Table 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F. If
this EFP gear type is not approved for legal use inside the NT-RCA as
proposed in this rulemaking, then this EFP project would require
additional exemptions from: (1) the prohibition to fish inside the non-
trawl RCA with non-trawl gear (see Sec. 660.330(d)(12)(i)); (2) the
prohibition on transiting through the non-trawl RCA without non-trawl
gear stowed (see Sec. 660.330(d)(12)(ii)); and (3) the prohibition on
retaining and landing groundfish harvested from inside the non-trawl
RCA with non-trawl gear (see Sec. 660.330(d)(12)(iii)). If approved,
NMFS would authorize up to 10 vessels to test the use of natural bait
inside the non-trawl RCA off the California coast--
[[Page 62692]]
specifically in areas with canyon edges and walls that have
historically produced high volumes of chilipepper rockfish catch and at
depths ranging from 40 to 150 fathoms (73 to 274 m).
<bullet> Groundfish EFP Proposal--Year-round Coastwide Midwater
Rockfish EFP: Monitoring and Minimizing Salmon Bycatch When Targeting
Rockfish in the Shorebased IFQ Fishery, 2023-2024: West Coast Seafood
Processors, Oregon Trawl Commission, Midwater Trawlers Cooperative, and
the Environmental Defense Fund submitted a renewal application to
continue research that has been conducted since 2017; the multi-year
EFP project is collectively referred to as the ``Trawl Gear EFP.'' The
purpose of the EFP is for vessels participating in the West Coast
Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program's Limited Entry Shorebased
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program to test whether removing certain
gear, time, and area restrictions may impact the nature and extent of
bycatch of protected and prohibited species (i.e., Chinook salmon,
coho, eulachon, and green sturgeon). The EFP project would require
exemptions for vessels fishing with bottom trawl groundfish gear from:
(1) the requirement to use selective flatfish trawl gear, and the
prohibition on using small footrope gear other than selective flatfish
trawl gear between 42[deg] and 40[deg]10' North latitude and shoreward
of the boundary line approximating the 100 fathom (fm) depth contour
(see Sec. 660.130(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii)); and (2) the requirement
that selective flatfish trawl must be a two-seamed net with no more
than two riblines, excluding the codend (see Sec.
660.130(b)(1)(ii)(A)). The EFP project would require exemptions for
vessels fishing with midwater trawl groundfish gear from: (1) the
prohibition on fishing outside the primary season dates for the Pacific
whiting IFQ fishery (see Sec. 660.112(b)(1)(x) and Sec.
660.130(c)(3)); and (2) the prohibition on fishing south of 40[deg]10'
N lat. shoreward of the boundary line approximating the 150 fm depth
contour (see Sec. 660.130(c)(3)(ii) and (c)(4)(ii)(B)). The EFP
project would require exemptions for vessels fishing with either
midwater or bottom trawl groundfish gear from: (1) the prohibition on
retaining certain prohibited species (see Sec. 660.12 (a)(1)); and (2)
the requirement to discard certain prohibited species at sea (see Sec.
660.140(g)(1)). If this EFP is approved, NMFS would set a bycatch limit
of 1,000 Chinook salmon north of 42[deg] N lat. and 100 Chinook salmon
south of 42[deg] N lat. for vessels declared into the EFP, regardless
of gear type. If either of these bycatch limits are reached, NMFS would
revoke the EFP for both gear types in the respective management area
(i.e., north or south of 42[deg] N lat.). Participating vessels would
also be required to retain all salmon (excluding salmon already sampled
by NMFS' West Coast Groundfish Observer Program) until offloading. If
approved, NMFS would authorize up to 60 vessels to participate in the
EFP.
<bullet> Groundfish EFP Proposal--California Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2023-2024 EFP: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) submitted a renewal application for research that has been
conducted since 2021. The purpose of the EFP project is to collect
fishery-dependent biological data for cowcod for inclusion in future
stock assessments. The EFP project would require an exemption from the
prohibition to retain cowcod in the California recreational fishery
(see Sec. 660.360(c)(3)). The EFP would also provide that any cowcod
taken and retained would not count against the recreational bag limit
for the aggregate of rockfish, cabezon, and greenlings. If approved,
NMFS would authorize up to 20 vessels that participate in the
California recreational fishery to retain cowcod and transfer the
cowcod to CDFW groundfish staff upon landing.
<bullet> Groundfish EFP Proposal--Washington Department of Fish
Wildlife Enhanced Yelloweye Recreational Fishery Biological Sampling
EFP: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted a
renewal application for research that has been conducted since 2021.
The purpose of the EFP project is to collect fishery-dependent
biological data for yelloweye rockfish for inclusion in future stock
assessments. The EFP project would require an exemption from the
prohibition to retain yelloweye rockfish in the Washington recreational
fishery (see Sec. 660.360(c)(1)(ii)). The EFP would also provide that
any yelloweye rockfish taken and retained would not count against the
recreational bag limit for rockfish. If approved, NMFS would authorize
up to 15 vessels that participate in the Washington recreational
fishery to retain yelloweye rockfish and transfer the yelloweye
rockfish to WDFW staff upon landing.
During the 2-year period of EFP activities from 2023 to 2024, all
vessels participating in the non-trawl RCA EFP projects (i.e., the
renewal applications submitted by Emley-Platt and Real Good Fish) would
adhere to EFP set-asides for targeted and incidental groundfish and
other species, which were considered and approved by the Council at
their June 2022 meeting. The one exception would be for Emley-Platt
vessels fishing north of 40[deg]10' N lat., which would fish pursuant
to open access trip limits in Table 3 (North) to part 660, subpart F,
as the EFP Director did not request additional EFP set-asides for this
area. These EFP set-asides are off-the-top deductions from the 2023-
2024 applicable ACLs, meaning any landings and discards that occur
under these EFPs would be accounted for within the applicable ACLs. EFP
set-asides would not be needed for the Trawl Gear EFP as landings and
discards of IFQ species would be accounted for through the
participating vessel's IFQ. Vessels participating in the non-trawl RCA
EFP projects and the Trawl Gear EFP would be required to have 100
percent observer coverage. All cowcod mortality under the CDFW EFP
project is expected to occur in conjunction with routine recreational
fishing activities and would be calculated as part of the normal
recreational catch estimation process. All yelloweye rockfish taken
under the WDFW EFP project would be counted against the Washington
recreational harvest guideline for yelloweye rockfish. NMFS would not
require 100 percent observer coverage for vessels participating in the
CDFW and WDFW EFP projects because recreational vessels do not meet the
minimum size requirements under Federal regulations to carry an
observer.
NMFS does not expect any impacts to the environment, essential fish
habitat, or protected or prohibited species from these EFPs beyond
those analyzed for the groundfish fishery as a whole in applicable
biological opinions (available at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/west-coast-groundfish#management">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/west-coast-groundfish#management</a>), the draft EA for the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery 2023-2024 Harvest Specifications and
Management Measures (see ADDRESSES), or the EA for the 2018 Trawl Gear
EFP dated December 2017 (available at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast</a>).
After publication of this document in the Federal Register, NMFS
may approve and issue permits for the proposed EFP projects for the
2023 fishing year after the close of the public comment period. All
five EFP applications are available under ``Supporting and Related
Materials'' (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will consider comments submitted in
deciding whether to approve the applications as requested. NMFS may
approve the applications in their entirety or may make any alterations
needed to achieve the goals of the EFP projects. NMFS would not issue
another Federal
[[Page 62693]]
Register notice soliciting public comment on renewing these EFP
projects for 2024 unless: (1) the applicants modify and resubmit their
applications to NMFS; (2) changes to relevant fisheries regulations
warrant a revised set of exemptions authorized under the EFP projects;
or (3) NMFS' understanding of the current biological and economic
impacts from EFP fishing activities substantially changes.
I. Shortbelly Rockfish 2,000 mt Catch Threshold To Initiate Council
Review
Shortbelly rockfish is one of the most abundant rockfish species in
the California Current Ecosystem and is a key forage species for many
fish, birds, and marine mammals. The Council recommended and NMFS
approved the designation of shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem
component (EC) species through Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP, as part of
the 2021-2022 groundfish management measure process (85 FR 79880,
December 11, 2020). The Notice of Availability for Amendment 29 (85 FR
54529, September 2, 2020) provides additional background on shortbelly
rockfish. The Council monitors and tracks shortbelly rockfish mortality
inseason. Shortbelly rockfish are not, and have not historically been,
a directed target of commercial or recreational fisheries. Due to their
small size, shortbelly rockfish are not currently marketable. However,
concerns over the potential future development of a directed fishery
prompted the Council to note during the 2021-2022 groundfish management
measure process that it would consider taking action if mortality of
shortbelly rockfish in the fishery exceeds, or is projected to exceed,
2,000 mt in a calendar year. This guidance was not formalized in the
PCGFMP as part of Amendment 29. Therefore, the Council recommended and
NMFS is proposing to amend the PCGFMP to add language stating that if
shortbelly rockfish mortalities exceed, or are projected to exceed,
2,000 mt in a calendar year, the Council would review relevant fishery
information and consider if management changes were warranted,
including, but not limited to reconsideration of its current
classification as an EC species. To estimate mortality and provide for
catch accounting, NMFS proposes a sorting requirement for shortbelly
rockfish in the LEFG and OA fisheries. For more information on this
measure, see the NOA for Amendment 30 and the Analysis.
NMFS notes that routine management measures as laid out in 50 CFR
660.60(c) are not currently available for shortbelly rockfish
management because shortbelly rockfish is an EC species. Shortbelly
rockfish would need to be redesignated as ``in the fishery'' prior to
routine management measures being available for inseason use. However,
the Council could recommend, consistent with the points of concern
framework (FMP Section 6.2.2), management measures to minimize bycatch
or bycatch mortality of EC species as laid out in 50 CFR 600.305(c)(5).
Depending on the issue triggering the need for management measures,
this pathway might require revisiting the EC designation.
J. Non-Bottom Contact Hook-and-Line Gear Allowance in the Non-Trawl
Rockfish Conservation Area
In order to provide additional opportunity to commercial non-trawl
fisheries to target healthy stocks, relieve pressure on overfished or
constraining nearshore stocks, and limit impacts to sensitive habitats,
the Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, allowing non-trawl vessels
to use select hook-and-line gear configurations within the NT-RCA which
were tested through EFPs as described above in Section III.H. The non-
trawl fisheries are distinguished by the types of gears permitted to be
used to harvest their catch. OA fisheries are allowed to use any ``open
access'' gear, including hook-and-line, pot, and troll gear. Limited
entry fixed gear (LEFG) vessels are restricted to using the gear
endorsed on their registered permit (longline or pot/trap) or are held
to the lower landing limits associated with the OA sector when using
alternative gears. Vessels participating in the shorebased IFQ sector
with fixed gear (i.e., gear switchers) are permitted to use any legal
groundfish gear. Participants in all three fisheries are prohibited
from fishing in the NT-RCA unless permitted (e.g., fishing for other
flatfish or through an EFP).
This proposed action would allow vessels in the directed open
access fishery targeting groundfish to operate inside the NT-RCA from
46[deg]16' N lat. to the U.S./Mexico border with non-bottom contact
hook-and-line gear only, subject to the specifications below.
Prohibited bottom contact hook-and-line gears would include bottom
longline, commercial vertical hook-and-line gear (anchored to the
bottom), and dinglebar gear. Vessels would need to declare their intent
to fish within the NT-RCA and their gear type prior to departure.
Vessels could fish inside and outside of the non-trawl RCA on the same
trip but could only carry one type of legal non-bottom contact hook-
and-line gear on-board the vessel when fishing occurs in the NT-RCA.
Vessels that typically fish in the LEFG or IFQ sector would be required
to declare into the OA fishery to utilize this proposed management
measure and would be subject to the lower OA trip limits.
The proposed action would include a new gear definition. Legal
``non-bottom contact hook-and-line gear'' would be defined as
stationary vertical jig gear attached to the vessel and not anchored to
the bottom, and groundfish troll gear. The following requirements would
apply to stationary vertical jig gear: (1) must be a minimum of 50 feet
between the bottom weight and the lowest fishing hook; (2) no more than
4 vertical mainlines may be used at one time with no more than 25 hooks
on each mainline, and; (3) no more than 100 hooks may be in the water
at one time, with no more than 25 extra hooks on board the vessel.
``Groundfish troll gear'' would be defined as a horizontally-suspended
monofilament mainline attached to a troll wire. The following
requirements would apply to groundfish troll gear: (1) must be a
minimum of 50 feet between the bottom weight and the troll wire's
connection to the horizontal mainline; (2) no more than 1 mainline may
be used at one time; and (3) no more than 500 hooks may be in the water
at one time, with no more than 25 extra hooks on board the vessel;
hooks must be spaced apart by a visible marker (e.g., floats, line
wraps, colored lines splices), with no more than 25 hooks between each
marker and no more than 20 markers on the mainline.
Under the proposed action both stationary vertical jig gear and
groundfish troll gear could be equipped with artificial lures and
flies. Natural bait or weighted hooks could not be used nor be on board
the vessel during the trip. This restriction is expected to mitigate
any potential additional seabird bycatch effects, as seabirds are known
to dive on baited hooks and potentially become entangled.
In order to fish inside the NT-RCA, vessels would be required to
declare into the directed open access fishery, and would not be
permitted to declare into any other fishery if fishing inside the NT-
RCA.
This proposed management measure may provide increased opportunity
for West Coast vessels to expand their portfolios, especially in light
of the proposed restrictions related to quillback and copper rockfishes
(see Section III.G), but it is likely that a limited group of vessels
will take advantage of this opportunity given its limitations. Effort
would likely be constrained by fuel prices, potential offshore travel
danger to ``sport-like''
[[Page 62694]]
OA vessels, and the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirement. Given
the barriers to access the area, it is unlikely the non-trawl
allocations for midwater rockfish would be exceeded.
Based on the Analysis (Section 8) and data from the non-trawl EFPs
(i.e., Emley-Platt and Real Good Fish EFPs), the gear configurations
proposed have relatively low bycatch of groundfish species of concern
while being able to harvest healthy midwater rockfish. Under this
proposal, non-trawl attainments of healthy midwater rockfish species
would likely increase, while impacts to nearshore stocks of concern
including quillback and copper rockfish would be limited. Under this
proposed new gear and area flexibility, mortality of yelloweye rockfish
and cowcod could increase but is expected to remain within the proposed
harvest specifications. Additionally, because the gears are designed to
not contact the bottom, the proposed gear types have minimal impacts on
habitat.
K. LEFG Sablefish Primary Season Extension
This proposed action would permanently extend the LEFG primary
sablefish tier fishery (hereinafter referred to as primary fishery)
season end date from October 31 to December 31. The primary fishery
would close on December 31, or close for an individual vessel owner
when the tier limit for the sablefish endorsed permit(s) registered to
the vessel has been reached, whichever is earlier. This proposed action
would also extend the incidental halibut retention allowance provision
for the primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, Washington from
October 31 to the date/time specified by the International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC) annually for the closure of commercial
fisheries coastwide, or until the quota is taken, whichever comes
first. After the specified date/time, any incidental halibut would need
to be discarded as a prohibited species. The proposed action would not
change any other aspects of the program (e.g., stacking privileges,
transferability).
The primary sablefish fishery tier program is a limited access
privilege program set up under Amendment 14 to PCGFMP (66 FR 41152,
August 7, 2001). Participants hold limited entry permits with a pot
gear and/or longline gear endorsement and a sablefish endorsement.
Under Amendment 14, as set out in 50 CFR 660.231, the permit holder
of a sablefish-endorsed permit receives a tier limit, which is an
annual share of the sablefish catch allocation to this sector. NMFS
sets three different tier limits through the biennial harvest
specifications and management measures process (see Section III.F for
the proposed 2023 limits); and up to three permits may be stacked at
one time on a vessel participating in the fishery. Stacked tier limits
are combined to provide a cumulative catch limit for that vessel. After
vessels have caught their full tier limits, they are allowed to move
into other fisheries for sablefish, specifically the limited entry or
open access trip limit fishery, or fisheries for other species.
Under Amendment 14, the sablefish primary season has historically
been open from April 1 through October 31 of each year, though
individual permit holders may only fish up to their tier limits and so
may be required to cease fishing prior to October 31. These season
dates were put into regulation during the development and
implementation of the fishery under Amendment 14 to the PCFMP. Prior to
the implementation of Amendment 14, the sablefish fishery had operated
as a `derby' style fishery, with a season length lasting a few weeks to
a few days. Under Amendment 14, the fishery began operating under a
seven-month season. The seven-month season structure, as opposed to a
year-long season, was intended to allow for timely catch accounting so
that the sector allocation was not exceeded. As of 2017, commercial
vessels landing sablefish are required to submit e-tickets within 24
hours of offload, ``to improve timeliness and accuracy of sablefish
catch reporting in the limited entry fixed gear fisheries and open
access fisheries'' (Sec. 660.213). Given the increase in speed of
modern catch accounting, the original reason for the seven-month season
is no longer applicable.
In response to industry requests and Council recommendation, NMFS
issued emergency rules in 2020 and 2021 (85 FR 68001, October 27, 2020;
86 FR 59873, October 29, 2021) to temporarily extend the sablefish
primary fishery from October 31 to December 31. These emergency actions
were intended to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic related disruptions in the
fishery by allowing participants more time to harvest their full tier
limits.
The Analysis discusses that the primary fishery has experienced
lower than average attainment since 2019 amidst higher than average
sablefish allocations. Even with the season extension in 2020 and 2021,
attainment was only 80 and 74 percent of the sector allocation,
respectively. A season extension could provide opportunity and
flexibility for vessels to fish their full tier limits and maximize
economic benefits.
As detailed in the Analysis, the additional two months proposed in
this measure would give primary tier vessels the flexibility to make
safer decisions and plan their season based on markets and weather with
the ultimate goal of increasing attainment and profitability. Habitat
and gear-related impacts resulting from this proposed measure would
likely be similar to those of an October 31st season end date, because
roughly the same number of fixed gear vessels are expected to
participate in the groundfish fishery as a whole. The overall amount of
permits in this sector is static; however, some permits are not used
every year, or vessels may stack permits, which ultimately reduces the
potential number of participants. This proposed measure could increase
the amount of time that humpback whales are likely to co-occur with the
primary tier fishery. However, the proposed measure would likely have
negligible additional impact on humpback whales compared to the 7-month
season because, (1) based on migration patterns the likelihood of
humpback whale aggregations interacting with fishing gear decreases
from October to December, (2) the majority of the effort during the
entire sablefish primary fishery season would continue to occur via
bottom longline gear and not pot gear, and (3) extending the season
would be unlikely to increase the overall amount of pot gear used
throughout the season due to restrictions on gear endorsements.
Vessels in the primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, Washington
using bottom longline gear are also allowed to retain incidentally
caught Pacific halibut up to a specific limit specified at 50 CFR
660.231(b)(3)(iv). Halibut are encountered regularly in the normal
operation of the sablefish primary fishery due to the co-occurrence of
halibut and sablefish in the same environments, and the design and
function of fixed gear. This retention is allowed until the sablefish
primary season ends and it contributes additional economic value to
this sector. The extended retention allowance proposed in this action
would ensure additional economic benefits and reduce regulatory
discards of commercially valuable incidental halibut.
The IPHC adopts a closure date for Pacific halibut in all
commercial fisheries, which the primary fishery is subject to, and
closure dates are typically set at mid- to late-November but was set at
December 7 in 2021 and 2022. The IPHC typically sets the season
[[Page 62695]]
closure date in late January of that year during its annual meeting.
Per 50 CFR 300.62, NMFS publishes the IPHC's regulations setting forth
annual management measures in the Federal Register by March 15 each
year. For example, NMFS published the 2022 annual management measures
governing the Pacific halibut fishery on March 7, 2022 (87 FR 12604).
Extending the incidental Pacific halibut allowance for the primary
tier fishery to the date annually specified by the IPHC would reduce
regulatory discards, provide more opportunity for an important
alternative income source, and result in minimal additional impacts to
Pacific halibut mortality.
L. Correction to the Definition of Block Area Closures
NMFS proposes a minor change to the PCGFMP to resolve a mismatch
between the FMP and current regulatory text. The salmon bycatch
minimization measures action (86 FR 10857; February 23, 2021)
established Block Area Closures (BACs) as a tool to minimize salmon
bycatch. BACs are described in multiple regulation sections (e.g., 50
CFR 660.11 Conservation area(s); Sec. 660.111 Block area closures;
Sec. 660.60(c)(3)(i)). The regulations articulate the Council's intent
to manage incidental salmon bycatch by vessels using groundfish
midwater trawl gear in the EEZ off of Washington, Oregon, and
California with Block Area Closures (BACs). However, inadvertently, the
FMP was not updated to be consistent with regulations. To avoid
potential future implementation delays, updates would be made to the
FMP that are consistent with Council intent described in the salmon
bycatch mitigation rulemaking document (86 FR 10857, February 23,
2021). The FMP would be revised to include language that BACs are
available in the EEZ seaward of Washington, Oregon and California state
waters for vessels using limited entry bottom trawl gear and in the EEZ
seaward of Washington, Oregon and California state waters for vessels
using midwater trawl gear. For more information on this measure, see
the NOA for Amendment 30 and the Analysis.
M. Annual Catch Targets for Quillback and Copper Rockfish
The 2021 stock assessments indicated that the portion of quillback
rockfish and copper rockfish off the coast of California are likely
experiencing localized depletion. An Annual Catch Target (ACT), as
defined at 50 CFR 660.11, is a management target set below the ACL to
account for management uncertainty. ACTs may be used as an
accountability measure to ensure against exceeding an ACL or accomplish
management objectives. As they are part of a stock complex, the ACL
contributions for copper rockfish and quillback rockfish are combined
with the ACL contributions from the other stocks in the complex to set
ACLs for the Nearshore Rockfish complexes north and south of 40[deg]10'
N lat. In setting specifications, the Council, for analytic purposes,
calculated three ACL contributions for quillback rockfish that
corresponded to state boundaries, which were combined and then
apportioned based on historical catch to determine the overall ACL
contribution for quillback rockfish to each Nearshore Rockfish complex
(see Section II.C).
The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, setting ACTs for copper
rockfish and quillback rockfish. For copper rockfish, the ACT would be
set equal to its ACL contribution for the portion of the stock found
off of California and would be set at 91.54 mt in 2023, and 94.72 mt in
2024. For quillback rockfish, an ACT would be set for the portion of
the stock found off of California and would be set at 1.86 mt in 2023,
and 1.97 mt in 2024.
Given quillback and copper rockfish are managed in a stock complex,
the proposed ACTs would essentially formalize the ACL contributions for
management purposes. Setting the ACTs equal to the ACL contributions
would allow the Council to recommend necessary management measures
inseason when the ACL contribution is met or projected to be met.
Exceeding the ACL contribution for stocks in a complex would otherwise
typically not trigger a Council response or accountability measure. In
order to allow tracking of mortality against the ACT, this proposed
rule also includes sorting requirements for quillback and copper
rockfish.
CDFW closely monitors commercial and recreational landings of
quillback and copper rockfish and the Council would receive updates on
landings at each Council meeting. The management response to an overage
or projected overage would be highly situational. Therefore, as an
accountability measure, should the ACT be exceeded or projected to be
exceeded, the Council would consider routine inseason management
measures (e.g., bag limit reductions or depth restrictions) at regular
Council meetings.
N. Novel Utilization of Existing Rockfish Conservation Area Boundary
Lines
The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, a novel utilization of
the previously established Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) boundary
lines for the recreational fishery seaward of California (Sec.
660.360(c)(3)). Recreational RCA boundary lines are a set of connecting
waypoints which approximate a depth contour (Sec. 660.71 through Sec.
660.73). These lines have historically been used to allow fishing
shoreward of a specific RCA boundary line and prohibit fishing seaward
of that line. This proposed rule would also allow fishing seaward of a
specified RCA boundary line and prohibit fishing shoreward of that
line. For example, fishing could be prohibited in Federal waters
shoreward of the 30, 40, 50, 60, 75, 100, or 125, fathom line.
Additionally, this novel use of the RCA would allow logistical
flexibility for the management of overfished species like yelloweye
rockfish (current RCA utilization) and non-overfished species that
include species of concern such as quillback rockfish, copper rockfish,
or cowcod (novel RCA utilization). This new management measure, if
approved, may be used during the regular season setting process through
the biennial specifications and management measures or as an inseason
action to achieve harvest specifications.
This proposed measure is intended to be a tool to reduce mortality
for nearshore rockfish species of concern (e.g., quillback rockfish,
copper rockfish, or cowcod) or rebuilding yelloweye rockfish by
shifting fishing effort away from the habitats and depths where those
stocks are most commonly encountered, and onto shelf and slope waters
to target other, healthier groundfish stocks. This measure would
provide more flexibility in managing groundfish fisheries seaward of
California and is designed to be combined with other season structure
options and bag limit options to create a suite of management measures
which take steps to achieve harvest specifications and minimize impacts
to California fisheries and coastal communities. The effectiveness of
this proposed management tool would be limited based on the prevalence
of each species in state waters as compared to in the EEZ. The majority
of fishery effort for copper and quillback rockfish off California is
in state waters, therefore, the overall effectiveness of this
management measure may be constrained.
The Analysis discusses uncertainty with model projections when RCA
boundary lines are utilized in this novel way, especially for species
with a deeper depth distribution, like cowcod and yelloweye rockfish.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife's
[[Page 62696]]
weekly and monthly tracking processes have been an effective and
reliable tool to closely monitor recreational inseason mortality and
provide timely and accurate information to apply inseason adjustments,
such as changes to depth limits, season length, or bag limits, to
fisheries.
This proposed measure is intended to limit the negative
socioeconomic impacts that could otherwise occur as a result of the
need to reduce mortality for quillback and copper rockfishes, and stay
within harvest guidelines for yelloweye rockfish and cowcod.
The Analysis discusses the impact of this measure on the
recreational boat-based groundfish fisheries in California. Short-term
and long-term impacts would likely occur as the sector adjusts to new
regulations and fishery operations. Loss of fishing vessels, captains
and crew leaving the industry and the potential closures of landings
and fishing tackle providers are possible. Innovations in fishing gears
or a shift in angler preference for target species could provide new
opportunities for anglers, businesses, and communities. These changes
could have positive long-term effects, but would not bring immediate
relief to communities that would be negatively impacted by fisheries
reductions related to quillback rockfish.
Changes to angler behavior are difficult to predict, but anglers
may choose to opt out of the groundfish fishery due to fuel costs and
other difficulties in reaching fishing grounds, safety concerns related
to fishing offshore, logistical constraints associated with smaller
vessels, such as vessel size and fuel capacity, and the physical effort
of reeling fish up from deeper depths. It is likely the increased
distance and travel time associated with offshore RCA lines would
reduce small vessel effort. Effort may shift to other state and
federally managed fisheries such as Pacific halibut, salmon, California
scorpionfish, highly migratory species, coastal pelagic species,
California sheephead, California halibut, striped bass, kelp bass, and
others as anglers search for other available fishing targets.
In a report (Agenda Item F.6.a, June 2022) to the Council, the
Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) noted that once shelf rockfish
species are aboard, it restricts fishermen's ability to fish inshore
waters. The GAP stated that mornings are when the outer waters are most
accessible due to weather patterns. During the afternoons, winds
generally make exposed deep waters unfishable and that is when inshore
access is most needed.
As described in Section III.G, in addition to the regulatory
management measures to reduce mortality of copper and quillback
rockfish in 2022 (and proposed for 2023-2024), the fishery industry has
untaken several voluntary measures including dissemination of enhanced
species identification information, avoidance procedures, and no
retention when a biological sampler is not aboard. It is expected that
these mandatory and voluntary measures will substantially reduce
mortality. If mortality is lower than expected through the regular
inseason monitoring and reporting, the Council and NMFS would consider
relieving restrictions during the biennium in order to reduce
socioeconomic impacts, while keeping mortality within the recommended
ACTs.
For more information on this measure, see the NOA for Amendment 30
and the Analysis.
O. Block Area Closures for Groundfish Mitigation
This proposed rule would make Block Area Closures (BACs) available
as a routine management measure to control catch of groundfish by
midwater trawl and bottom trawl vessels. BACs could be implemented in
the EEZ seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California. BACs could be
implemented within tribal Usual and Accustomed (U&A) fishing areas but
would only apply to non-tribal vessels. This proposed rule would
prohibit midwater trawl and/or bottom trawl fishing within the BAC
boundaries.
BACs are size variable spatial closures bounded by latitude lines,
defined at 50 CFR 660.11, and depth contour approximations defined at
50 CFR 660.71 through 660.74 ((10 fm (18 m) through 250 fm (457 m)),
and Sec. 660.76 (700 fm (1280 m)). Amendment 28 to the FMP (84 FR
63966; November 19, 2019) first established BACs as a management tool.
The salmon bycatch minimization measures action (86 FR 10857; February
23, 2021) established BACs as a tool to minimize salmon bycatch. This
proposed measure would align the outermost available depth boundaries
(i.e., 700 fathoms) across all midwater and bottom trawl BACs used to
control groundfish catch.
The BAC tool would allow the Council to recommend, and NMFS to
implement, size variable area closures as a routine management measure
to address specific areas of high catch or bycatch of one or more
specific groundfish species rather than large fixed closure areas
(e.g., Bycatch Reduction Area or BRA). BACs would allow for the trawl
fishery to remain open in areas outside of the BACs.
This proposed rule would not implement specific individual BACs.
BACs could not be used to close an area to any type of fishing other
than groundfish bottom or midwater trawling. This proposed rule would
allow NMFS to close or reopen BACs preseason (e.g., before the start of
the fishing year or before the start of the Pacific whiting fishery) or
inseason. The approach would be consistent with existing ``routine
inseason'' frameworks already in the FMP and regulations. Most trip,
bag, and size limits, and some Groundfish Conservation Area closures in
the groundfish fishery, including BRAs and BACs, have been designated
``routine'' management measures in the PCGFMP and in Sec. 660.60(c).
The Council can use routine management measures to rapidly implement or
modify these management measures through a single Council meeting
process. Inseason changes to routine management measures are announced
in the Federal Register pursuant to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act. If good cause exists under the
Administrative Procedure Act to waive notice and comment, a single
Federal Register notice will announce routine inseason BACs approved by
NMFS.
When deciding whether to recommend BACs for NMFS to implement,
consistent with the PCGFMP, the Council will consider environmental
impacts, including economic impacts, and public comment via the Council
process. Depending on the circumstances, NMFS may close areas for a
defined period of time, for example, a few months or the remainder of
the fishing year, or maintain the closure for an indefinite period of
time, for example, until reopened by a subsequent action. NMFS may
close one or more BACs and the size of the BACs can vary. A Federal
Register notice will announce the geographic boundaries (described with
coordinates in codified regulations) of one or more BACs, the effective
dates, applicable gear/fishery restrictions, as well as the purpose and
rationale. NMFS would also disseminate this information on BACs through
public notices and posting on the West Coast Region website (see
ADDRESSES for electronic access information).
This action is needed because fishery managers do not currently
have appropriate scaled spatial tools to mitigate trawl-based
groundfish catches, while also minimizing economic impacts to the
fishing industry. BAC could be an important tool to manage a species
like Pacific spiny dogfish, which
[[Page 62697]]
exhibit spatial and seasonal aggregations, that may be limiting based
on recent stock assessment outlook.
During development of this measure, the Council noted BACs should
be considered a last-resort measure behind industry implemented
avoidance measures. The Council also noted BAC were not intended to be
used for habitat protection because of their flexible nature.
P. Corrections
This rule proposes minor corrections to the regulations at 50 CFR
600. These regulations are associated with Amendment 29 (85 FR 79880,
December 11, 2020), Amendment 21-4 to the PCGFMP (84 FR 68799, December
17, 2019), and the 2019-2020 biennial harvest specifications (83 FR
63970, December 12, 2018). These minor corrections are necessary to
reduce confusion and inconsistencies in the regulatory text and ensure
the regulations accurately implement the Council's intent.
The Council recommended and NMFS approved the designation of
shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species through Amendment
29, as part of the 2021-2022 groundfish management measure process.
That rule erroneously did not update the definition of ``Ecosystem
component species'' at Sec. 660.11 to reflect that designation. This
rule proposes to include shortbelly rockfish in the list of species
designated as ecosystem component species at Sec. 660.11.
Additionally, Amendment 29 erroneously included shortbelly rockfish
trip limits for limited entry fixed gear and open access vessels. As an
ecosystem component species, shortbelly rockfish is not managed ``in
the fishery,'' and therefore should not be subject to trip limits. This
rule proposes to remove the shortbelly rockfish trip limit from Table 2
(North) and Table 2 (South) to Part 660, Subpart E, as well as Table 3
(North) and Table 3 (South) to Part 660, Subpart F.
The final rule for Amendment 29 made changes to the trawl/non-trawl
allocations established through Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP (75 FR
32993, June 10, 2010). That rule erroneously did not update Sec.
660.55(c)(1) Table 1 to reflect those changes. This rule proposes to
correct Sec. 660.55(c)(1) Table 1 by removing the allocations for
canary rockfish, as well as petrale sole, widow rockfish, lingcod south
of 40[deg]10' N lat., and the slope rockfish complex south of
40[deg]10' N lat.. Per Amendment 29, these allocations between the
trawl and non-trawl fisheries are determined through the biennial
harvest specifications process to better align these allocations with
current harvest trends. The Council's recommended and NMFS' proposed
allocations through the 2023-2024 specifications process are shown
Tables 1b and 2b in the proposed regulatory text for this proposed
rule.
Amendment 21-4 moved darkblotched rockfish, pacific ocean perch,
and widow rockfish from at-sea allocations to set-asides. That rule
erroneously did not update Sec. 660.140 to reflect those changes. This
rule proposes to amend Sec. 660.140 to remove these species from
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) and add them to paragraph (c)(3)(iv).
Amendment 29 removed the at-sea set-asides from Table 1d to Subpart
C of part 660. However, cross references indicating that the at-sea
set-asides are located at Table 1d to Subpart C remain, erroneously.
This rule proposes removing these cross references in Sec. 660.150 and
Sec. 660.160 and clarifying that the at-sea set-asides are described
in the biennial specifications.
The final rule for the 2019-2020 biennial harvest specifications
contained a revision to the depth boundary within which commercial
fixed gear and recreational gear are allowed to operate in the Western
Cowcod Conservation Area. Fishing was permitted shoreward of the 20
fathom (fm) (36.6 m) depth contour prior to the 2019-2020 biennial
harvest specifications final rule. The final rule revised the depth
boundary to allow fishing shoreward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour.
In the regulations for this change at Sec. 660.360(c)(3)(i)(B), NMFS
did not explicitly describe how the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour is
delineated, or cross reference the depth contour definition in existing
regulations. This rule proposes to correct these regulations to note
that a coordinate list describing the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour can be
found in Sec. 660.71.
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.
Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are
developed by the IPHC, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Secretary of
Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982
(Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council, having
authority for a particular geographical area, to develop regulations
governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters
as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. The
proposed action is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate
halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off the
United States.
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
660.50 further direct NMFS to develop tribal allocations and
regulations in consultation with the affected tribes. The tribal
management measures in this proposed rule have been developed following
these procedures. The tribal representative on the Council made a
motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management measures, which was
passed by the Council. Those management measures, which were developed
and proposed by the tribes, are included in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an analyses for this action, which address the
statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 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 <a href="http://www.pcouncil.org">www.pcouncil.org</a>. NMFS addressed the statutory
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act through
preparation of an EIS and an EA. NMFS prepared an EIS for the 2015-16
biennial harvest specifications and management measures and is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This EIS examined the harvest
specifications and
[[Page 62698]]
management measures for 2015-16 and 10-year projections for routinely
adjusted harvest specifications and management measures. The 10-year
projections evaluated 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 2023-24 cycle tiers from the
2015-16 EIS and focuses on the harvest specifications and management
measures that were not within the scope of the 10-year projections in
the 2015-16 EIS. A copy of the draft EA is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). This action also announces a public comment period on the
draft EA.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
An estimated six businesses primarily engaged in seafood product
preparation and packaging and employing 750 or fewer persons may be
affected by this action. An estimated 629 commercial fishing businesses
with less than $11 million in annual gross receipts may be affected by
this action. An estimated 431 charter fishing boats may be affected by
this action, all of which are assumed to have annual receipts of less
than $7.5 million and therefore be considered small businesses. One
governmental jurisdiction, with a population of less than 50,000
persons and therefore considered small, may be affected by this action.
An estimated five not-for-profit organizations with combined annual
receipts of less than $7.5 million may be affected by this action. An
estimated eight small trust, estates, and agency accounts with annual
receipts of less than $32.5 million may be affected by this action. The
purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve Pacific Coast groundfish
stocks by preventing overfishing, while still allowing harvest
opportunity among the various fishery sectors. This will be
accomplished by implementing the 2023-2024 annual specifications in the
U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast. The harvest
specifications affect large and small entities similarly, and for this
biennium, several of the catch limits are proposed to increase,
providing benefit to all participants. Additionally, this proposed rule
contains several of new management measures that are likely to benefit
vessels, specifically openings of previously closed fishing grounds. As
a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required
and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains no new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This action will require
non-trawl sector participants to declare into the open access fishery
and specify the non-bottom contact gear type to be used if fishing in
the non-trawl RCA. The collection of such information was previously
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control
Number 0648-0573.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 16, 2022.
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. Amend Sec. 660.11 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (1)(vi)(c) under the definition of ``Conservation
areas(s)'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (1) under the definition of ``Fishing gear'' and
adding a paragraph (12);
0
c. Revising paragraph (10) under the definition of ``Groundfish''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 660.11 General definitions.
* * * * *
Conservation area(s) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(C) Recreational RCAs. Recreational RCAs are closed areas intended
to protect overfished rockfish species. In the EEZ seaward of
California, recreational RCAs are also intended to limit catch of non-
overfished groundfish species. Recreational RCAs may either have
boundaries defined by general depth contours or boundaries defined by
specific latitude and longitude coordinates approximating depth
contours. Boundaries for the recreational RCAs throughout the year are
provided in the text in subpart G of this part under each state
(Washington, Oregon and California) and may be modified by NMFS
inseason pursuant to Sec. 660.60(c).
* * * * *
Fishing gear includes the following types of gear and equipment:
(1) Bottom contact gear means fishing gear designed or modified to
make contact with the bottom. This includes, but is not limited to,
beam trawl, bottom trawl, dredge, fixed gear, set net, demersal seine,
dinglebar gear, and other gear (including experimental gear) designed
or modified to make contact with the bottom. Gear used to harvest
bottom dwelling organisms (e.g. by hand, rakes, and knives) are also
considered bottom contact gear for purposes of this subpart. Non-bottom
contact gear is defined in paragraph (12) of this definition.
* * * * *
(12) Non-bottom contact gear means fishing gear designed or
modified to not make contact with the bottom. This includes, but is not
limited to, commercial vertical hook-and-line gear not anchored to the
bottom (e.g., vertical jig gear or rod-and-reel gear with weights
suspended off the bottom) and troll gear.
* * * * *
Groundfish * * *
* * * * *
(10) ``Ecosystem component species'' means species that are
included in the PCGFMP but are not ``in the fishery'' and therefore not
actively managed and do not require harvest specifications. Ecosystem
component species are not targeted in any fishery, not generally
retained for sale or personal use, and are not determined to be subject
to overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, or overfished, nor
are they likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the
absence of conservation and management measures. Ecosystem component
species include: All skates listed here in paragraph (2), except
longnose skate and big skate; all grenadiers listed here in paragraph
(5); soupfin shark; ratfish; finescale codling; and shortbelly rockfish
as listed here in paragraph (7)(ii).
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 660.25, revise paragraphs (b)(4)(v)(C) and (b)(4)(vi)(D) to
read as follows:
Sec. 660.25 Permits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) Sablefish-endorsed permits. If a permit owner submits an
application to register a sablefish-endorsed limited
[[Page 62699]]
entry permit to a new permit owner or vessel owner during the primary
sablefish season described at Sec. 660.231 (generally April 1 through
December 31), the initial permit owner must certify on the application
form the cumulative quantity, in round weight, of primary season
sablefish landed against that permit as of the application signature
date for the then current primary season. The new permit owner or
vessel owner must sign the application form acknowledging the amount of
landings to date given by the initial permit owner. This certified
amount should match the total amount of primary season sablefish
landings reported on state landing receipts. As required at Sec.
660.12(b), any person landing sablefish must retain on board the vessel
from which sablefish is landed, and provide to an authorized officer
upon request, copies of any and all reports of sablefish landings from
the primary season containing all data, and in the exact manner,
required by the applicable state law throughout the primary sablefish
season during which a landing occurred and for 15 days thereafter.
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
(D) Sablefish-endorsed permits. If a permit owner submits an
application to register a sablefish-endorsed limited entry permit to a
new vessel during the primary sablefish season described at Sec.
660.231 (generally April 1 through December 31), the initial permit
owner must certify on the application form the cumulative quantity, in
round weight, of primary season sablefish landed against that permit as
of the application signature date for the then current primary season.
The new permit owner or vessel owner associated with the new vessel
must sign the application form acknowledging the amount of landings to
date given by the initial permit owner. This certified amount should
match the total amount of primary season sablefish landings reported on
state landing receipts. As required at Sec. 660.12(b), any person
landing sablefish must retain on board the vessel from which sablefish
is landed, and provide to an authorized officer upon request, copies of
any and all reports of sablefish landings from the primary season
containing all data, and in the exact manner, required by the
applicable state law throughout the primary sablefish season during
which a landing occurred and for 15 days thereafter.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 660.50, revise paragraph (f)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The Tribal allocation is 849 mt in 2023 and 778 mt in 2024 per
year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey
through Vancouver area (North of 36[deg] N lat.) ACL. The Tribal
allocation is reduced by 1.7 percent for estimated discard mortality.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 660.55, revise Table 1 to paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.55 Allocations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(1)--Allocation Amounts and Percentages for
Limited Entry Trawl and Non-Trawl Sectors Specified for FMP Groundfish
Stocks and Stock Complexes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All non-treaty All non-treaty
Stock or complex LE trawl sectors non-trawl sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth Flounder............... 95% 5%
Chilipepper Rockfish S of 75% 25%
40[deg]10' N lat.................
Darkblotched Rockfish............. 95% 5%
Dover Sole........................ 95% 5%
English Sole...................... 95% 5%
Lingcod N of 40[deg]10' N lat..... 45% 55%
Longspine Thornyhead N of 95% 5%
34[deg]27' N lat.................
Pacific Cod....................... 95% 5%
Pacific Ocean Perch............... 95% 5%
Sablefish S of 36[deg] N lat...... 42% 58%
Shortspine Thornyhead N of 95% 5%
34[deg]27' N lat.................
Shortspine Thornyhead S of 50 mt Remaining Yield
34[deg]27' N lat.................
Splitnose Rockfish S of 40[deg]10' 95% 5%
N lat............................
Starry Flounder................... 50% 50%
Yellowtail Rockfish N of 88% 12%
40[deg]10' N lat.................
Minor Slope Rockfish N rth of 81% 19%
40[deg]10' N lat.................
Other Flatfish.................... 90% 10%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 660.71 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (e)(193), (e)(277), and (r)(20);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(194) through (276) as (e)(193) through
(275), (e)(278) through (336) as (e)(276) through (334), (o)(113)
through (218) as (o)(114) through (219), (q)(25) as (q)(26), and
(r)(21) through (r)(23) as (r)(20) through (r)(22);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(144) and (e)(192); newly redesignated
paragraphs (e)(263), (e)(274), (e)(280), (e)(287), (e)(307), and
paragraphs (h)(13), (i)(1), (i)(9), (i)(14), (i)(20), (i)(34), (j)(27),
(j)(30), (j)(40)
0
d. Revising paragraphs (o)(95), (o)(97), (o)(112);
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (o)(113);
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (o)(181), (o)(193), (0)(215),
and (o)(216) and paragraphs (q)(8), (q)(14), (q)(19), (q)(24);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (q)(25); and
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (r)(8), (r)(15).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 660.71 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 10-fm (18-m)
through 40-fm (73-m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 62700]]
(144) 39[deg]16.88' N lat., 123[deg]49.29' W long.;
* * * * *
(192) 36[deg]33.20' N lat., 121[deg]57.50' W long.;
* * * * *
(263) 34[deg]06.13' N lat., 119[deg]15.26' W long.;
* * * * *
(274) 34[deg]04.66' N lat., 119[deg]04.51' W long.;
* * * * *
(280) 33[deg]59.78' N lat., 118[deg]47.26' W long.;
* * * * *
(287) 33[deg]50.29' N lat., 118[deg]24.58' W long.;
* * * * *
(307) 33[deg]35.26' N lat., 118[deg]02.55' W long.;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
* * * * *
(13) 33 [deg]56.75' N lat., 119[deg]49.13' W long.;
* * * * *
(i) * * *
* * * * *
(1) 33[deg]02.98' N lat., 118[deg]37.64' W long.;
* * * * *
(9) 32[deg]54.79' N lat., 118[deg]33.34' W long.;
* * * * *
(14) 32[deg]48.05' N lat., 118[deg]26.81' W long.;
* * * * *
(20) 32[deg]49.04' N lat., 118[deg]20.71' W long.;
* * * * *
(34) 33[deg]02.98' N lat., 118[deg]37.64' W long.;
* * * * *
(j) * * *
* * * * *
(27) 33[deg]28.77' N lat., 118[deg]32.95' W long.;
* * * * *
(30) 33[deg]27.58' N lat., 118[deg]29.51' W long.;
* * * * *
(40) 33[deg]20.21' N lat., 118[deg]18.50' W long.;
* * * * *
(o) * * *
* * * * *
(95) 40 [deg]22.41' N lat., 124[deg]24.19' W long.;
* * * * *
(97) 40[deg]18.71' N lat., 124[deg]22.63' W long.;
* * * * *
(112) 39[deg]22.63' N lat., 123[deg]51.03' W long.;
(113) 39[deg]11.86' N lat., 123[deg]48.83' W long.;
* * * * *
(181) 34[deg]08.23' N lat., 119[deg]13.21' W long.;
* * * * *
(193) 33[deg]49.87' N lat., 118[deg] 24.15' W long.;
* * * * *
(215) 32[deg]51.90' N lat., 117[deg]16.32' W long.;
(216) 32[deg]52.11' N lat., 117[deg]19.33' W long.;
* * * * *
(q) * * *
* * * * *
(8) 32[deg] 54.78' N lat., 118[deg]33.44' W long.;
* * * * *
(14) 32[deg]45.53' N lat., 118[deg]24.82' W long.;
* * * * *
(19) 32[deg]49.70' N lat., 118[deg]21.04' W long.;
* * * * *
(24) 33[deg]02.98' N lat., 118[deg]35.40' W long.;
(25) 33[deg]03.36' N lat., 118[deg]37.57' W long.; and
* * * * *
(r) * * *
* * * * *
(8) 33[deg]20.88' N lat., 118[deg]30.54' W long.;
* * * * *
(15) 33[deg]22.24' N lat., 118[deg]19.99' W long.;
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 660.72 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(74) and (75), (a)(106) and (107), (a)(130),
(a)(132) and (133),
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(134) through (200) as (a)(135) through
(201);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(134);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(147) and (148), (a)(162), (a)(169),
(a)(171), (a)(173), (a)(174)
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(18), (c)(33), (d)(2) through (4), (f)(89),
(f)(96), (f)(129), (f)(143) and (144), (f)(146), (f)(155), (f)(159),
(f)(169), (f)(175) and (176), (f)(208), (g)(17), (h)(2), (h)(4) through
(6), (i)(6);
0
f. Removing paragraph (j)(140);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (j)(99) through (139) as (j)(100) through
(140);
0
h. Adding new paragraph (j)(99);
0
i. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (j)(100), and (j)(109) and
paragraphs (j)(154), (j)(157), (j)(166), (j)(186) and (187), (j)(189)
and (190), (j)(206), (j)(208) through (210), (j)(215), (j)(220) through
(222), (j)(227), (k)(29), (l)(3), (m)(1), (m)(3) and (4), (m)(6),
(m)(15), and (m)(18).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 660.72 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 50 fm (91 m)
through 75 fm (137 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(74) 40[deg]23.71' N lat., 124[deg]28.32' W long.;
(75) 40[deg]22.53' N lat., 124[deg]24.67' W long.;
* * * * *
(106) 37[deg]49.84' N lat., 123[deg]16.05' W long.;
(107) 37[deg]35.67' N lat., 122[deg]55.43' W long.;
* * * * *
(130) 36[deg]00.00' N lat., 121[deg]34.95' W long.;
* * * * *
(132) 35[deg]40.44' N lat., 121[deg] 22.43' W long.;
(133) 35[deg]27.11' N lat., 121[deg]03.55' W long.;
(134) 35[deg]14.91' N lat., 120[deg]56.67' W long.;
* * * * *
(147) 34[deg]07.83' N lat., 119[deg]13.48' W long.;
(148) 34[deg]07.71' N lat., 119[deg]13.29' W long.;
* * * * *
(162) 33[deg]51.33' N lat., 118[deg]36.00' W long.;
* * * * *
(169) 33[deg]48.25' N lat., 118[deg]26.97' W long.;
* * * * *
(171) 33[deg]44.11' N lat., 118[deg]25.23' W long.;
* * * * *
(173) 33[deg]38.16' N lat., 118[deg]15.65' W long.;
(174) 33[deg]37.47' N lat., 118[deg] 16.62' W long.;
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
(18) 33[deg]58.76' N lat., 119[deg]32.27' W long.;
* * * * *
(33) 34[deg]02.47' N lat., 120[deg]30.00' W long.;
* * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * *
(2) 33[deg]02.53' N lat., 118[deg]34.25' W long.;
(3) 32[deg]55.51' N lat., 118[deg]28.92' W long.;
(4) 32[deg]54.99' N lat., 118[deg]27.72' W long.;
* * * * *
(f) * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 62701]]
(89) 40[deg]34.26' N lat., 124[deg]29.52' W long.;
* * * * *
(96) 40[deg]21.58' N lat., 124[deg]24.87' W long.;
* * * * *
(129) 36[deg]51.42' N lat., 121[deg]57.62' W long.;
* * * * *
(143) 36[deg]10.30' N lat., 121[deg]43.00' W long.;
(144) 36[deg]02.54' N lat., 121[deg]36.43' W long.;
* * * * *
(146) 35[deg]58.21' N lat., 121[deg]32.88' W long.;
* * * * *
(155) 34[deg]23.05' N lat., 119[deg]56.25' W long.;
* * * * *
(159) 34[deg]03.80' N lat., 119[deg]12.70' W long.;
* * * * *
(169) 33[deg]55.20' N lat., 118[deg]33.18' W long.;
* * * * *
(175) 33[deg]49.93' N lat., 118[deg]26.36' W long.;
(176) 33[deg]50.68' N lat., 118[deg]26.15' W long.;
* * * * *
(208) 32[deg]43.03' N lat., 117[deg]20.43' W long.;
* * * * *
(g) * * *
* * * * *
(17) 33[deg]59.22' N lat., 119[deg]55.49' W long.;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
* * * * *
(2) 33[deg]02.56' N lat., 118[deg]34.19' W long.;
* * * * *
(4) 32[deg]55.01' N lat., 118[deg]27.70' W long.;
(5) 32[deg]49.77' N lat., 118[deg]20.92' W long.;
(6) 32[deg]48.38' N lat., 118[deg]20.02' W long.;
* * * * *
(i) * * *
* * * * *
(6) 33[deg]25.39' N lat., 118[deg]22.80' W long.;
* * * * *
(j) * * *
* * * * *
(99) 40[deg]39.40' N lat., 124[deg]28.90' W long.;
(100) 40[deg]36.96' N lat., 124[deg]28.02' W long.;
* * * * *
(109) 40[deg]21.65' N lat., 124[deg]24.89' W long.;
* * * * *
(154) 37[deg]04.49' N lat., 122[deg]38.50' W long.;
* * * * *
(157) 37[deg]01.16' N lat., 122[deg]24.50' W long.;
* * * * *
(166) 36[deg]49.80' N lat., 121[deg]57.93' W long.;
* * * * *
(186) 36[deg]10.35' N lat., 121[deg]43.03' W long.;
(187) 36[deg]02.50' N lat., 121[deg]36.47' W long.;
* * * * *
(189) 36[deg]00.00' N lat., 121[deg]35.32' W long.;
(190) 35[deg]58.20' N lat., 121[deg]32.97' W long.;
* * * * *
(206) 34[deg]03.70' N lat., 119[deg]12.77' W long.;
* * * * *
(208) 34[deg]04.44' N lat., 119[deg]04.90' W long.;
(209) 34[deg]02.94' N lat., 119[deg]02.89' W long.;
(210) 34[deg]01.30' N lat., 119[deg]00.48' W long.;
* * * * *
(215) 33[deg]58.99' N lat., 118[deg]47.33' W long.;
* * * * *
(220) 33[deg]49.85' N lat., 118[deg]32.31' W long.;
(221) 33[deg]49.61' N lat., 118[deg]28.07' W long.;
(222) 33[deg]49.77' N lat., 118[deg]26.34' W long.;
* * * * *
(227) 33[deg]44.07' N lat., 118[deg]25.28' W long.;
* * * * *
(k) * * *
* * * * *
(29) 33[deg]51.69' N lat., 120[deg]07.98' W long.;
* * * * *
(l) * * *
* * * * *
(3) 32[deg]55.57' N lat., 118[deg]28.84' W long.;
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) 33[deg]28.13' N lat., 118[deg]38.25' W long.;
* * * * *
(3) 33[deg]28.94' N lat., 118[deg]30.81' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]26.73' N lat., 118[deg]27.35' W long.;
* * * * *
(6) 33[deg]25.42' N lat., 118[deg]22.76' W long.;
* * * * *
(15) 33[deg]24.94' N lat., 118[deg]32.29' W long.;
* * * * *
(18) 33[deg]28.13' N lat., 118[deg]38.25' W long.;
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 660.73 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(159) through (322);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (a)(323) through (329);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(10), (e)(188) and (189), (e)(264), (e)(272),
(e)(274) through (276), (e)(284) through (286), (e)(290), (e)(318)
through (323), (e)(350) through (363);
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (e)(364) through (371); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f), (g)(12) and (13), (h) and (l).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 660.73 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183
m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(159) 40[deg]39.44' N lat., 124[deg]29.08' W long.;
(160) 40[deg]37.08' N lat., 124[deg]28.29' W long.;
(161) 40[deg]34.76' N lat., 124[deg]29.82' W long.;
(162) 40[deg]36.78' N lat., 124[deg]37.06' W long.;
(163) 40[deg]32.44' N lat., 124[deg]39.58' W long.;
(164) 40[deg]30.37' N lat., 124[deg]37.30' W long.;
(165) 40[deg]28.48' N lat., 124[deg]36.95' W long.;
(166) 40[deg]24.82' N lat., 124[deg]35.12' W long.;
(167) 40[deg]23.30' N lat., 124[deg]31.60' W long.;
(168) 40[deg]23.52' N lat., 124[deg]28.78' W long.;
(169) 40[deg]22.43' N lat., 124[deg]25.00' W long.;
(170) 40[deg]21.72' N lat., 124[deg]24.94' W long.;
(171) 40[deg]21.87' N lat., 124[deg]27.96' W long.;
(172) 40[deg]21.40' N lat., 124[deg]28.74' W long.;
(173) 40[deg]19.68' N lat., 124[deg]28.49' W long.;
(174) 40[deg]17.73' N lat., 124[deg]25.43' W long.;
(175) 40[deg]18.37' N lat., 124[deg]23.35' W long.;
(176) 40[deg]15.75' N lat., 124[deg]26.05' W long.;
(177) 40[deg]16.75' N lat., 124[deg]33.71' W long.;
(178) 40[deg]16.29' N lat., 124[deg]34.36' W long.;
(179) 40[deg]10.13' N lat., 124[deg]21.92' W long.;
(180) 40[deg]07.70' N lat., 124[deg]18.44' W long.;
[[Page 62702]]
(181) 40[deg]08.84' N lat., 124[deg]15.86' W long.;
(182) 40[deg]06.39' N lat., 124[deg]17.26' W long.;
(183) 40[deg]03.15' N lat., 124[deg]14.43' W long.;
(184) 40[deg]02.19' N lat., 124[deg]12.85' W long.;
(185) 40[deg]02.89' N lat., 124[deg]11.78' W long.;
(186) 40[deg]02.78' N lat., 124[deg]10.70' W long.;
(187) 40[deg]04.57' N lat., 124[deg]10.08' W long.;
(188) 40[deg]06.06' N lat., 124[deg]08.30' W long.;
(189) 40[deg]04.05' N lat., 124[deg]08.93' W long.;
(190) 40[deg]01.17' N lat., 124[deg]08.80' W long.;
(191) 40[deg]01.00' N lat., 124[deg]09.96' W long.;
(192) 39[deg]58.07' N lat., 124[deg]11.81' W long.;
(193) 39[deg]56.39' N lat., 124[deg]08.69' W long.;
(194) 39[deg]54.64' N lat., 124[deg]07.30' W long.;
(195) 39[deg]53.86' N lat., 124[deg]07.95' W long.;
(196) 39[deg]51.95' N lat., 124[deg]07.63' W long.;
(197) 39[deg]48.78' N lat., 124[deg]03.29' W long.;
(198) 39[deg]47.36' N lat., 124[deg]03.31' W long.;
(199) 39[deg]40.08' N lat., 123[deg]58.37' W long.;
(200) 39[deg]36.16' N lat., 123[deg]56.90' W long.;
(201) 39[deg]30.75' N lat., 123[deg]55.86' W long.;
(202) 39[deg]31.62' N lat., 123[deg]57.33' W long.;
(203) 39[deg]30.91' N lat., 123[deg]57.88' W long.;
(204) 39[deg]01.79' N lat., 123[deg]56.59' W long.;
(205) 38[deg]59.42' N lat., 123[deg]55.67' W long.;
(206) 38[deg]58.89' N lat., 123[deg]56.28' W long.;
(207) 38[deg]57.50' N lat., 123[deg]56.28' W long.;
(208) 38[deg]54.72' N lat., 123[deg]55.68' W long.;
(209) 38[deg]48.95' N lat., 123[deg]51.85' W long.;
(210) 38[deg]36.67' N lat., 123[deg]40.20' W long.;
(211) 38[deg]33.82' N lat., 123[deg]39.23' W long.;
(212) 38[deg]29.02' N lat., 123[deg]33.52' W long.;
(213) 38[deg]18.88' N lat., 123[deg]25.93' W long.;
(214) 38[deg]14.12' N lat., 123[deg]23.26' W long.;
(215) 38[deg]11.07' N lat., 123[deg]22.07' W long.;
(216) 38[deg]03.18' N lat., 123[deg]20.77' W long.;
(217) 38[deg]00.00' N lat., 123[deg]23.08' W long.;
(218) 37[deg]55.07' N lat., 123[deg]26.81' W long.;
(219) 37[deg]50.66' N lat., 123[deg]23.06' W long.;
(220) 37[deg]45.18' N lat., 123[deg]11.88' W long.;
(221) 37[deg]35.67' N lat., 123[deg]01.20' W long.;
(222) 37[deg]26.81' N lat., 122[deg]55.57' W long.;
(223) 37[deg]26.78' N lat., 122[deg]53.91' W long.;
(224) 37[deg]25.74' N lat., 122[deg]54.13' W long.;
(225) 37[deg]25.33' N lat., 122[deg]53.59' W long.;
(226) 37[deg]25.29' N lat., 122[deg]52.57' W long.;
(227) 37[deg]24.50' N lat., 122[deg]52.09' W long.;
(228) 37[deg]23.25' N lat., 122[deg]53.12' W long.;
(229) 37[deg]15.58' N lat., 122[deg]48.36' W long.;
(230) 37[deg]11.00' N lat., 122[deg]44.50' W long.;
(231) 37[deg]07.00' N lat., 122[deg]41.25' W long.;
(232) 37[deg]03.18' N lat., 122[deg]38.15' W long.;
(233) 37[deg]00.48' N lat., 122[deg]33.93' W long.;
(234) 36[deg]58.70' N lat., 122[deg]27.22' W long.;
(235) 37[deg]00.85' N lat., 122[deg]24.70' W long.;
(236) 36[deg]58.00' N lat., 122[deg]24.14' W long.;
(237) 36[deg]58.74' N lat., 122[deg]21.51' W long.;
(238) 36[deg]56.97' N lat., 122[deg]21.32' W long.;
(239) 36[deg]51.52' N lat., 122[deg]10.68' W long.;
(240) 36[deg]48.39' N lat., 122[deg]07.60' W long.;
(241) 36[deg]47.43' N lat., 122[deg]03.22' W long.;
(242) 36[deg]50.95' N lat., 121[deg]58.03' W long.;
(243) 36[deg]49.92' N lat., 121[deg]58.01' W long.;
(244) 36[deg]48.86' N lat., 121[deg]58.80' W long.;
(245) 36[deg]47.76' N lat., 121[deg]58.68' W long.;
(246) 36[deg]48.39' N lat., 121[deg]51.10' W long.;
(247) 36[deg]45.74' N lat., 121[deg]54.17' W long.;
(248) 36[deg]45.51' N lat., 121[deg]57.72' W long.;
(249) 36[deg]38.84' N lat., 122[deg]01.32' W long.;
(250) 36[deg]35.62' N lat., 122[deg]00.98' W long.;
(251) 36[deg]32.46' N lat., 121[deg]59.15' W long.;
(252) 36[deg]32.79' N lat., 121[deg]57.67' W long.;
(253) 36[deg]31.98' N lat., 121[deg]56.55' W long.;
(254) 36[deg]31.79' N lat., 121[deg]58.40' W long.;
(255) 36[deg]30.73' N lat., 121[deg]59.70' W long.;
(256) 36[deg]30.31' N lat., 122[deg]00.22' W long.;
(257) 36[deg]29.35' N lat., 122[deg]00.28' W long.;
(258) 36[deg]27.66' N lat., 121[deg]59.80' W long.;
(259) 36[deg]26.22' N lat., 121[deg]58.35' W long.;
(260) 36[deg]21.20' N lat., 122[deg]00.72' W long.;
(261) 36[deg]20.47' N lat., 122[deg]02.92' W long.;
(262) 36[deg]18.46' N lat., 122[deg]04.51' W long.;
(263) 36[deg]15.92' N lat., 122[deg]01.33' W long.;
(264) 36[deg]13.81' N lat., 121[deg]57.40' W long.;
(265) 36[deg]14.43' N lat., 121[deg]55.43' W long.;
(266) 36[deg]10.24' N lat., 121[deg]43.08' W long.;
(267) 36[deg]07.66' N lat., 121[deg]40.91' W long.;
(268) 36[deg]02.49' N lat., 121[deg]36.51' W long.;
(269) 36[deg]01.08' N lat., 121[deg]36.63' W long.;
(270) 36[deg]00.00' N lat., 121[deg]35.41' W long.;
(271) 35[deg]57.84' N lat., 121[deg]32.81' W long.;
(272) 35[deg]50.36' N lat., 121[deg]29.32' W long.;
(273) 35[deg]39.03' N lat., 121[deg]22.86' W long.;
(274) 35[deg]24.27' N lat., 121[deg]02.74' W long.;
(275) 35[deg]16.53' N lat., 121[deg]00.39' W long.;
(276) 35[deg]04.82' N lat., 120[deg]53.96' W long.;
(277) 34[deg]52.51' N lat., 120[deg]51.62' W long.;
(278) 34[deg]43.36' N lat., 120[deg]52.12' W long.;
(279) 34[deg]38.06' N lat., 120[deg]49.65' W long.;
(280) 34[deg]30.85' N lat., 120[deg]44.76' W long.;
(281) 34[deg]27.00' N lat., 120[deg]39.00' W long.;
(282) 34[deg]21.90' N lat., 120[deg]25.25' W long.;
(283) 34[deg]24.86' N lat., 120[deg]16.81' W long.;
(284) 34[deg]22.80' N lat., 119[deg]57.06' W long.;
(285) 34[deg]18.59' N lat., 119[deg]44.84' W long.;
[[Page 62703]]
(286) 34[deg]15.04' N lat., 119[deg]40.34' W long.;
(287) 34[deg]14.40' N lat., 119[deg]45.39' W long.;
(288) 34[deg]12.32' N lat., 119[deg]42.41' W long.;
(289) 34[deg]09.71' N lat., 119[deg]28.85' W long.;
(290) 34[deg]04.70' N lat., 119[deg]15.38' W long.;
(291) 34[deg]03.33' N lat., 119[deg]12.93' W long.;
(292) 34[deg]02.72' N lat., 119[deg]07.01' W long.;
(293) 34[deg]03.90' N lat., 119[deg]04.64' W long.;
(294) 34[deg]02.75' N lat., 119[deg]02.88' W long.;
(295) 33[deg]59.44' N lat., 119[deg]03.43' W long.;
(296) 33[deg]59.12' N lat., 118[deg]59.59' W long.;
(297) 33[deg]59.84' N lat., 118[deg]57.29' W long.;
(298) 33[deg]58.83' N lat., 118[deg]46.69' W long.;
(299) 33[deg]58.73' N lat., 118[deg]41.76' W long.;
(300) 33[deg]55.09' N lat., 118[deg]34.11' W long.;
(301) 33[deg]54.09' N lat., 118[deg]38.42' W long.;
(302) 33[deg]51.00' N lat., 118[deg]36.66' W long.;
(303) 33[deg]49.06' N lat., 118[deg]31.86' W long.;
(304) 33[deg]49.69' N lat., 118[deg]26.49' W long.;
(305) 33[deg]49.35' N lat., 118[deg]26.04' W long.;
(306) 33[deg]47.60' N lat., 118[deg]31.13' W long.;
(307) 33[deg]39.82' N lat., 118[deg]18.31' W long.;
(308) 33[deg]35.68' N lat., 118[deg]16.81' W long.;
(309) 33[deg]32.85' N lat., 118[deg]09.41' W long.;
(310) 33[deg]35.14' N lat., 118[deg]04.95' W long.;
(311) 33[deg]33.56' N lat., 118[deg]00.63' W long.;
(312) 33[deg]34.25' N lat., 117[deg]53.44' W long.;
(313) 33[deg]31.65' N lat., 117[deg]49.21' W long.;
(314) 33[deg]16.07' N lat., 117[deg]34.74' W long.;
(315) 33[deg]07.06' N lat., 117[deg]22.71' W long.;
(316) 33[deg]02.81' N lat., 117[deg]21.17' W long.;
(317) 33[deg]01.76' N lat., 117[deg]20.51' W long.;
(318) 32[deg]59.90' N lat., 117[deg]19.38' W long.;
(319) 32[deg]57.29' N lat., 117[deg]18.94' W long.;
(320) 32[deg]56.15' N lat., 117[deg]19.54' W long.;
(321) 32[deg]55.30' N lat., 117[deg]19.38' W long.;
(322) 32[deg]54.27' N lat., 117[deg]17.17' W long.;
(323) 32[deg]52.94' N lat., 117[deg]17.11' W long.;
(324) 32[deg]52.66' N lat., 117[deg]19.67' W long.;
(325) 32[deg]50.95' N lat., 117[deg]21.17' W long.;
(326) 32[deg]47.11' N lat., 117[deg]22.98' W long.;
(327) 32[deg]45.60' N lat., 117[deg]22.64' W long.;
(328) 32[deg]42.79' N lat., 117[deg]21.16' W long.; and
(329) 32[deg]34.22' N lat., 117[deg]21.20' W long.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * *
(10) 34[deg]02.97' N lat., 119[deg]16.89' W long.;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
(188) 40[deg]22.32' N lat., 124[deg]25.15' W long.;
(189) 40[deg]21.85' N lat., 124[deg]25.09' W long.;
* * * * *
(264) 36[deg]51.44' N lat., 122[deg]10.79' W long.;
* * * * *
(272) 36[deg]45.52' N lat., 121[deg]57.74' W long.;
* * * * *
(274) 36[deg]38.84' N lat., 122[deg]01.44' W long.;
(275) 36[deg]35.62' N lat., 122[deg]01.06' W long.;
(276) 36[deg]32.41' N lat., 121[deg]59.18' W long.;
* * * * *
(284) 36[deg]13.66' N lat., 121[deg]57.17' W long.;
(285) 36[deg]14.35' N lat., 121[deg]55.38' W long.;
(286) 36[deg]10.18' N lat., 121[deg]43.26' W long.;
* * * * *
(290) 35[deg]59.96' N lat., 121[deg]35.39' W long.;
* * * * *
(318) 34[deg]07.06' N lat., 120[deg]10.42' W long.;
(319) 34[deg]08.93' N lat., 120[deg]18.34' W long.;
(320) 34[deg]11.04' N lat., 120[deg]25.20' W long.;
(321) 34[deg]13.01' N lat., 120[deg]29.29' W long.;
(322) 34[deg]09.41' N lat., 120[deg]37.69' W long.;
(323) 34[deg]03.20' N lat., 120[deg]34.52' W long.;
* * * * *
(350) 33[deg]48.70' N lat., 118[deg]31.99' W long.;
(351) 33[deg]48.87' N lat., 118[deg]29.47' W long.;
(352) 33[deg]48.37' N lat., 118[deg]29.40' W long.;
(353) 33[deg]47.63' N lat., 118[deg]31.57' W long.;
(354) 33[deg]39.78' N lat., 118[deg]18.40' W long.;
(355) 33[deg]35.50' N lat., 118[deg]16.85' W long.;
(356) 33[deg]32.46' N lat., 118[deg]10.90' W long.;
(357) 33[deg]32.81' N lat., 118[deg]07.30' W long.;
(358) 33[deg]34.38' N lat., 118[deg]05.94' W long.;
(359) 33[deg]34.42' N lat., 118[deg]03.95' W long.;
(360) 33[deg]33.40' N lat., 118[deg]01.26' W long.;
(361) 33[deg]34.11' N lat., 117[deg]54.07' W long.;
(362) 33[deg]31.61' N lat., 117[deg]49.30' W long.;
(363) 33[deg]16.36' N lat., 117[deg]35.48' W long.;
(364) 33[deg]06.81' N lat., 117[deg]22.93' W long.;
(365) 32[deg]59.28' N lat., 117[deg]19.69' W long.;
(366) 32[deg]55.37' N lat., 117[deg]19.55' W long.;
(367) 32[deg]53.12' N lat., 117[deg]17.49' W long.;
(368) 32[deg]52.56' N lat., 117[deg]20.75' W long.;
(369) 32[deg]46.42' N lat., 117[deg]23.45' W long.;
(370) 32[deg]42.71' N lat., 117[deg]21.45' W long.; and
(371) 32[deg]34.54' N lat., 117[deg]23.04' W long.
* * * * *
(f) The 125 fm (229 m) depth contour around San Clemente Island off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]04.86' N lat., 118[deg]37.89' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]02.67' N lat., 118[deg]34.07' W long.;
(3) 32[deg]55.97' N lat., 118[deg]28.95' W long.;
(4) 32[deg]55.06' N lat., 118[deg]27.66' W long.;
(5) 32[deg]49.79' N lat., 118[deg]20.84' W long.;
(6) 32[deg]48.02' N lat., 118[deg]19.49' W long.;
(7) 32[deg]47.37' N lat., 118[deg]21.72' W long.;
(8) 32[deg]43.58' N lat., 118[deg]24.54' W long.;
(9) 32[deg]47.74' N lat., 118[deg]30.39' W long.;
[[Page 62704]]
(10) 32[deg]49.74' N lat., 118[deg]32.11' W long.;
(11) 32 [deg]53.36' N lat., 118[deg]33.44' W long.;
(12) 32 [deg]54.89' N lat., 118[deg]35.37' W long.;
(13) 33 [deg]00.20' N lat., 118[deg]38.72' W long.;
(14) 33 [deg]03.15' N lat., 118[deg]39.80' W long.; and
(15) 33 [deg]04.86' N lat., 118[deg]37.89' W long.;
* * * * *
(g) * * *
* * * * *
(12) 33[deg]19.85' N lat., 118[deg]32.25' W long.;
(13) 33[deg]20.82' N lat., 118[deg]32.98' W long.;
* * * * *
(h) The 125 fm (229 m) depth contour around Lasuen Knoll off the
state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the
following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]24.50' N lat., 118[deg]01.08' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]23.35' N lat., 117[deg]59.83' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]23.69' N lat., 117[deg]58.47' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]24.76' N lat., 117[deg]59.33' W long.; and
(5) 33[deg]24.50' N lat., 118[deg]01.08' W long.
* * * * *
(l) The 150 fm (274 m) depth contour used around Lasuen Knoll off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]25.07' N lat., 117[deg]59.26' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]23.69' N lat., 117[deg]58.13' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]23.18' N lat., 117[deg]59.87' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]24.61' N lat., 118[deg]01.31' W long.; and
(5) 33[deg]25.07' N lat., 117[deg]59.26' W long.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 660.74, revise paragraphs (d), (j), and (p)(3) through (7)
to read as follows:
Sec. 660.74 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 180 fm (329
m) through 250 fm (457 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
(d) The 180 fm (329 m) depth contour used around Lasuen Knoll off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]25.05' N lat., 118[deg]01.70' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]25.41' N lat., 117[deg]59.36' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]23.49' N lat., 117[deg]57.47' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]23.02' N lat., 117[deg]59.78' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]23.85' N lat., 118[deg]00.88' W long.; and
(6) 33[deg]25.05' N lat., 118[deg]01.70' W long.
* * * * *
(j) The 200 fm (366 m) depth contour used around Lasuen Knoll off
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of
the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33[deg]25.91' N lat., 117[deg]59.44' W long.;
(2) 33[deg]23.37' N lat., 117[deg]56.97' W long.;
(3) 33[deg]22.88' N lat., 117[deg]59.72' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]23.85' N lat., 118[deg]01.03' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]25.20' N lat., 118[deg]01.89' W long.; and
(6) 33[deg]25.91' N lat., 117[deg]59.44' W long.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
* * * * *
(3) 33[deg]23.83' N lat., 117[deg]56.19' W long.;
(4) 33[deg]22.24' N lat., 117[deg]57.20' W long.;
(5) 33[deg]22.78' N lat., 117[deg]59.68' W long.;
(6) 33[deg]23.79' N lat., 118[deg]01.32' W long.;
(7) 33[deg]25.79' N lat., 118[deg]02.25' W long.;
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Tables 1a through 1c to part 660, subpart C, to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Table 1a. to Part 660, Subpart C--2023, Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT and Fishery HG
[(Weights in metric tons). Capitalized stocks are rebuilding.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stocks Area OFL ABC ACL \a\ Fishery HG \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH \c\........ Coastwide....... 123 103 66 55.3
Arrowtooth Flounder \d\....... Coastwide....... 26,391 18,632 18,632 16,537
Big Skate \e\................. Coastwide....... 1,541 1,320 1,320 1,260.2
Black Rockfish \f\............ California (S of 368 334 334 332.1
42[deg] N lat).
Black Rockfish \g\............ Washington (N of 319 290 290 271.8
46[deg]16' N
lat).
Bocaccio \h\.................. S of 40[deg]10' 2,009 1,842 1,842 1,793.9
N lat.
Cabezon \i\................... California (S of 197 182 182 180.4
42[deg] N lat).
California Scorpionfish \j\... S of 34[deg]27' 290 262 262 258.4
N lat.
Canary Rockfish \k\........... Coastwide....... 1,413 1,284 1,284 1,215.1
Chilipepper \l\............... S of 40[deg]10' 2,401 2,183 2,183 2,085
N lat.
Cowcod \m\.................... S of 40[deg]10' 113 80 80 68.8
N lat.
Cowcod.................... (Conception).... 94 69 NA NA
Cowcod.................... (Monterey)...... 19 11 NA NA
Darkblotched Rockfish n....... Coastwide....... 856 785 785 761.2
Dover Sole \o\................ Coastwide....... 63,834 59,685 50,000 48,402.9
English Sole \p\.............. Coastwide....... 11,133 9,018 9,018 8,758.5
Lingcod \q\................... N of 40[deg]10' 5,010 4,378 4,378 4,098.4
N lat.
Lingcod \r\................... S of 40[deg]10' 846 739 726 710.5
N lat.
Longnose Skate \s\............ Coastwide....... 1,993 1,708 1,708 1,456.7
Longspine Thornyhead \t\...... N of 34[deg]27' 4,616 3,019 2,295 2,241.3
N lat.
Longspine Thornyhead \u\...... S of 34[deg]27' 725 722.8
N lat.
Pacific Cod \v\............... Coastwide....... 3,200 1,926 1,600 1,094
Pacific Ocean Perch \w\....... N of 40[deg]10' 4,248 3,573 3,573 3,427.5
N lat.
Pacific Whiting \x\........... Coastwide....... x x x x
Petrale Sole \y\.............. Coastwide....... 3,763 3,485 3,485 3,098.8
Sablefish \z\................. N of 36[deg] N 11,577 10,825 8,486 See Table 1c
lat.
Sablefish \aa\................ S of 36[deg] N 2,338 2,310.6
lat.
Shortspine Thornyhead \bb\.... N of 34[deg]27' 3,177 2,078 1,359 1,280.7
N lat.
Shortspine Thornyhead \cc\.... S of 34[deg]27' 719 712.3
N lat.
Spiny Dogfish \dd\............ Coastwide....... 1,911 1,456 1,456 1,104.5
Splitnose \ee\................ S of 40[deg]10' 1,803 1,592 1,592 1,573.4
N lat.
Starry Flounder \ff\.......... Coastwide....... 652 392 392 343.7
Widow Rockfish \gg\........... Coastwide....... 13,633 12,624 12,624 12,385.7
Yellowtail Rockfish \hh\...... N of 40[deg]10' 6,178 5,666 5,666 4,638.5
N lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62705]]
Stock Complexes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue/Deacon/Black Rockfish Oregon.......... 679 597 597 595.2
\ii\.
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling \jj\... Oregon.......... 202 185 185 184.2
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling \kk\... Washington...... 25 20 20 18.0
Nearshore Rockfish North \ll\. N of 40[deg]10' 110 93 93 89.7
N lat.
Nearshore Rockfish South \mm\. S of 40[deg]10' 1,089 897 887 882.5
N lat.
Other Fish \nn\............... Coastwide....... 286 223 223 201.8
Other Flatfish \oo\........... Coastwide....... 7,887 4,862 4,862 4,641
Shelf Rockfish North \pp\..... N of 40[deg]10' 1,614 1,283 1,283 1,212.1
N lat.
Shelf Rockfish South \qq\..... S of 40[deg]10' 1,835 1,469 1,469 1,336.2
N lat.
Slope Rockfish North \rr\..... N of 40[deg]10' 1,819 1,540 1,540 1,474.6
N lat.
Slope Rockfish South \ss\..... S of 40[deg]10' 870 701 701 662.1
N lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs) and harvest guidelines (HGs) are specified as total
catch valueS
\b\ Fishery HGs means the HG or quota after subtracting Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes allocations and
projected catch, projected research catch, deductions for fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, and
deductions for EFPs from the ACL or ACT.
\c\ Yelloweye rockfish. The 66 mt ACL is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of
2029 and an SPR harvest rate of 65 percent. 10.7 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery
(5 mt), EFP fishing (0.12 mt), research catch (2.92 mt), and incidental open access mortality (2.66 mt)
resulting in a fishery HG of 55.3 mt. The non-trawl HG is 50.9 mt. The combined non-nearshore/nearshore HG is
10.7 mt. Recreational HGs are: 13.2 mt (Washington); 11.7 mt (Oregon); and 15.3 mt (California). In addition,
the non-trawl ACT is 39.9 mt, and the combined non-nearshore/nearshore ACT is 8.4 mt. Recreational ACTs are:
10.4 mt (Washington), 9.2 mt (Oregon), and 12.0 mt (California).
\d\ Arrowtooth flounder. 2,094.98 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt),
research catch (12.98 mt) and incidental open access mortality (41 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 16,537
mt.
\e\ Big skate. 59.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (15 mt), research catch (5.49
mt), and incidental open access mortality (39.31 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,260.2 mt.
\f\ Black rockfish (California). 2.26 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP fishing (1.0 mt), research
catch (0.08 mt), and incidental open access mortality (1.18 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 332.1 mt.
\g\ Black rockfish (Washington). 18.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (18 mt) and
research catch (0.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 271.8 mt.
\h\ Bocaccio south of 40[deg]10' N lat. Bocaccio are managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of
40[deg]10' N lat. and within the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N lat. 48.12 mt is deducted
from the ACL to accommodate EFP fishing (40 mt), research catch (5.6 mt), and incidental open access mortality
(2.52 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,793.9 mt. The California recreational fishery south of 40[deg]10' N
lat. has an HG of 755.6 mt.
\i\ Cabezon (California). 1.63 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP fishing (1 mt), research catch
(0.02 mt), and incidental open access fishery mortality (0.61 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 180.4 mt.
\j\ California scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27' N lat. 3.89 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate research
(0.18 mt) and the incidental open access fishery (3.71 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 258.4 mt.
\k\ Canary rockfish. 68.9
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on October 14, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.