thefederalregister.com

Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 140904754-5188-02]

RIN 0648-BE27

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 24

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule would establish the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), and approve Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP. This final rule would also revise the management measures that are intended to keep the total catch of each groundfish species or species complex within the harvest specifications. This action also includes regulations to implement Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP, which establishes default harvest control rules for setting harvest specifications after 2015-2016.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 10, 2015, except for the modifications to sorting requirements at SSSS 660.130(d)(1)(i), 660.230(c)(2)(i), and 660.330(c)(2)(i), which are effective April 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this final rule and Amendment 24, which includes a final environmental impact statement (EIS), the Record of Decision (ROD), a regulatory impact review (RIR), final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), and amended PCGFMP, are available from William Stelle, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of this final rule are also available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site:http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Williams, phone: 206-526-4646, fax: 206-526-6736, or email:sarah.williams@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site athttps://www.federalregister.gov.Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site athttp://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.htmland at the Council's Web site athttp://www.pcouncil.org.

Executive Summary Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This final rule implements the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish species taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The purpose of this action is to conserve and manage Pacific Coast groundfish fishery resources to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats (EFH), and to realize the full potential of the Nation's fishery resources. The need for this action is to set catch limit specifications for 2015-2016 consistent with existing or revised harvest control rules for all stocks, and establish management measures designed to keep catch within the appropriate limits. These harvest specifications are set consistent with the optimum yield (OY) harvest management framework described in Chapter 4 of the PCGFMP. This final rule also implements Amendment 24 to PCGFMP. Amendment 24 establishes the default harvest control rules used to determine harvest specifications after 2015-2016. This rule is authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1854-55 and by the PCGFMP.

Major Provisions

This final rule contains two types of major provisions. The first are the harvest specifications (overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs)), and the second are management measures designed to keep fishing mortality within the ACLs. The harvest specifications (OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) in this rule have been developed through a rigorous scientific review and decision-making process, which is described in detail in the proposed rule for this action (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015) and is not repeated here.

In summary, the OFL is the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) harvest level and is an estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring. OFLs are based on recommendations by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) as the best scientific information available. The ABC is an annual catch specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended method for incorporating scientific uncertainty is referred to as the P star-sigma approach and is discussed in detail in the proposed and final rules for the 2011-2012 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010 and 76 FR 27508, May 11, 2011)and 2013-2014 (77 FR 67974, November 12, 2012, and 78 FR 580, January 3, 2013) biennial harvest specifications and management measures. The ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC. The ACLs are decided in a manner to achieve OY from the fishery, which is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and considering the protection of marine ecosystems. The ACLs are based on consideration of conservation objectives, socio-economic concerns, management uncertainty, and other factors. All known sources of fishing and scientific research catch are counted against the ACL.

This final rule includes ACLs for the seven overfished species managed under the PCGFMP. For the 2015-2016 biennium only one species, cowcod, requires rebuilding plan changes to its TMAXand TTARGETrebuilding parameters. TMAXis the maximum permissible time period for rebuilding the stock to its target biomass. TTARGETis the year by which the stock can be rebuilt as soon as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within the marine ecosystem. The changes are necessary because the rebuilding analyses prepared showed that the current TTARGETis 9 years longer than the new TMAX. Accordingly, for cowcod, the TTARGETis revised from 2068 to 2020, which is the median time to rebuild based on the established harvest control rule. The remaining overfished species (bocaccio, canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, petrale sole and yelloweye rockfish) are making adequate progress towards rebuilding or are estimated to be rebuilt in 2015. Therefore, this rule establishes harvest specifications consistent with the existing rebuilding plan provisions for those species.

This action also approves and implements regulations for Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP. Amendment 24 consists of three components: (1) Default harvest control rules; (2) a suite of minor changes, including clarification of routine management measures and adjustments to those measures, clarification to the harvest specifications decision making schedule, changes to the description of biennial management cycle process, updates to make the PCGFMP consistent with SSC guidance on the FMSY proxy for elasmobranchs, and clarifications to definitions; and (3) addition of two rockfish species to the PCGFMP and the designation of ecosystem component (EC) species.

With respect to the Council's recommendations for EC species, in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS noted that reclassification of Pacific grenadier from a stock “in the fishery” to an EC species is arguably inconsistent with the NS 1 Guidelines, which state that EC species should not be a target stock and should generally not be retained. Recent Pacific grenadier landings average about 130 mt per year, and Pacific grenadier is landed, marketed, and possibly targeted in some regions, mainly in central California. However, despite relatively high amounts of catch when compared to catch of other proposed EC species, only about 10 percent of the estimated OFL contribution for Pacific grenadier was caught annually between 2009 and 2011. In addition, because the stocks that are currently in the PCGFMP and are proposed to be reclassified as EC species were previously managed as part of the Other Fish complex rather than as individual species, the EC classification results in very limited changes from existing management practices. Because of this, NMFS believes that the change to EC status will not result in additional fishing pressure on Pacific grenadier. Therefore, NMFS is approving the Council's recommendation to designate Pacific grenadier as an EC species with the understanding that continued monitoring and evaluation of the stocks' classifications will occur.

Like Pacific grenadier, big skate is also currently in the Groundfish FMP as part of the Other Fish complex, and is designated as an EC species through Amendment 24 and this final rule. The information the Council had before it at the time of its recommendations indicated that recent average catches of big skate were only 18 percent of the estimated OFL. However, at its February 2-6, 2015, work session the Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) discussed new information about the catch data that was used to review whether big skate was an appropriate stock for EC species classification. The GMT noted that it was recently discovered that the majority of landings contributing to an “unspecified skate” market category were in fact predominantly big skate and that recent catches of big skate were much closer to the estimated OFL. Anecdotal evidence also indicates targeting and marketing exist. The Council and its other advisory bodies have not yet reviewed the preliminary information described by the GMT. However, if accurate, big skate would likely be in need of conservation and management and not an acceptable candidate for EC species classification. Because this new information came to light after Amendment 24 was submitted for NFMS' review, and only a few weeks before the statutorily-mandated deadline for a decision on the amendment, it was not practicable for the information to be incorporated into Amendment 24. However, NMFS understands that the Council intends to review the new information regarding big skate at its April 2015 meeting. If trip limits in the trawl fishery are needed to prevent overfishing, the Council and NMFS have authority under existing regulations to implement those changes via inseason action. If the GMT verifies this preliminary information, the Council would need to initiate a process to reclassify big skate as a stock in need of conservation and management rather than an EC species.

In order to keep mortality of the species managed under the PCGFMP within the ACLs the Council also recommended management measures for recreational and commercial fisheries. Generally speaking, management measures are intended to rebuild overfished species, prevent ACLs from being exceeded, and allow for the harvest of healthy stocks. Management measures include time and area restrictions, gear restrictions, trip or bag limits, size limits, and other management tools. Management measures may vary by fishing sector because different fishing sectors require different types of management to control catch. Most of the management measures the Council recommended for 2015-2016 were slight variations to existing management measures and do not represent a change from current management practices. These types of changes include changes to trip limits, bag limits, closed areas, etc. Additionally, several new management measures were recommended by the Council and proposed by NMFS. Those measures are described in detail in the proposed rule for this action.

This final rule implements the same regulations that were described in the proposed rule with a few exceptions. All of these changes are discussed in detail below in Changes from the Proposed Rule.

Background

The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is managed under the PCGFMP. The PCGFMP was prepared by the Council, approved on July 30, 1984, and has been amended numerous times. Regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, implement the provisions of the PCGFMP.

The PCGFMP requires the harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish to be set at least biennially. This final rule is based on the Council's final recommendations that were made at its June 2014 meeting with updated harvest specifications for some stocks adopted at its November 2014 meeting. The Notice of Availability for the FEIS for this action was published on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2414). The final preferred alternative in the FEIS is the same as the Council's preferred alternative from June 2014, and includes the updated harvest specifications that the Council recommended at its November 2014 meeting. The final preferred alternative, including updated harvest specifications from November 2014, was described in the proposed rule for this action. See the preamble to the proposed rule for additional background information on the fishery and the provisions implemented in this final rule.

Comments and Responses

NMFS published a proposed rule on January 6, 2015 (80 FR687) with a comment period that closed on January 26, 2015. NMFS received three letters of comment on the proposed rule. NMFS received one letter from the Department of the Interior stating it had no comment, one letter from an anonymous commenter, and one letter from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Comment 1:An anonymous commenter requested that PCGFMP Amendment 24 incorporate mandatory protocols for when a species is discovered to be overfished or threatened, including reporting of that information.

Response:Amendment 24 establishes NMFS' ability to implement harvest specifications based on the harvest control rules from the previous biennium, applied to the best available science, in the absence of Council action. If the best available science indicates that a species is subject to overfishing or is in an overfished condition, Section 4.6 of the PCGFMP describes procedures for the use of precautionary harvest control rules that will apply for that species in the interim until a rebuilding plan can be developed and implemented (e.g.the harvest control rules that applied in the previous biennium would change based on the best available science). Section 4.6.3.7 of the PCGFMP also describes the protocols used with regard to species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Accordingly, the PCGFMP already addresses the issues raised by the commenter and this action does not change those protocols. Development of new rebuilding plans and steps taken to ensure the conservation of species listed under the ESA are considered through the Council process, which is open to the public.

Comment 2:The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife requested that NMFS delay the addition of shortraker and blackspotted/rougheye rockfish to the list of species that must be sorted coastwide because data is collected on a quarterly basis and April 1st is the beginning of a quarter.

Response:NMFS supports this delay in effectiveness and therefore has modified the effective date of the sorting requirement changes. This delay does not change the current sorting requirements, only the addition of the new species. NMFS does not believe that the short delay in effectiveness with result in conservation concerns.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

For the recreational fishery in California, the Council recommended changes for California scorpionfish and black rockfish which are incorporated into this rule. NMFS requested comments on these changes in the proposed rule but did not include the necessary regulatory text at that time. Therefore, this rule will modify regulations at § 660.360(c)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (4) to prohibit retention of California scorpionfish in the California recreational fisheries from September through December. Additionally, this rule will add a 5 fish sub-bag limit for black rockfish within the Rockfish-Cabezon-Greenling limits at § 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B). These changes are consistent with the Council's recommendations at the November 2014 meeting and with the description of these changes in the proposed rule for this action.

Classifications

The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the 2015-2016 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures and Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP, which this final rule implements, are necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery and are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in theFederal Register, except in the case of the sorting requirements for rougheye/blackspotted and shortraker rockfish, which will become effective on April 1, 2015. Because this final rule increases the catch limits for several species for 2015, leaving 2014 harvest specifications in place could unnecessarily delay fishing opportunities until later in the year, potentially reducing the total catch for these species in 2015. Thus, a delay in effectiveness could ultimately cause economic harm to the fishing industry and associated fishing communities or result in harvest levels inconsistent with the best available scientific information. This final rule also approves the Council's 2015-2016 management measures, which respond to the needs of the fisheries in each state. Therefore, allowing the 2014 management measures to remain in place would not respond to the needs of the fishery and would be in conflict with the Council's final recommendation for 2015 management measures. For example, due to higher than expected catches in California, the Council recommended implementing a 5 fish sub-bag limit for black rockfish in order to slow catches and provide for year round opportunity while managing to the California harvest guideline for black rockfish. Because of the potential harm to fish stocks and fishing communities that could be caused by delaying the effectiveness of this final rule, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

NMFS prepared an FEIS for the 2015-2016 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures and Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP. The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of availability for the FEIS on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2414.) A copy of the FEIS is available online athttp://www.pcouncil.org/.In approving the 2015-2016 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures, NMFS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the selected alternatives. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (seeADDRESSES).

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (seeADDRESSES) and a summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), follows:

NMFS received no comments to the RIR/IRFA. NMFS agrees that the Council's choice of preferred alternatives would best achieve the Council's objectives while minimizing, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects on harvesters, processors, fishing support industries, and associated communities. The preamble above provides a statement and need for, and objective of this rule. The MSA provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This final rule would not introduce any changes to current reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements.

This rule regulates businesses that harvest groundfish. This rule directly affects limited entry fixed gear permit holders, trawl Quota Share (QS) and whiting catch history endorsed permit holders (which includes shorebased whiting processors), tribal vessels, charterboat vessels, and open access vessels. QS holders are directly affected because the amount of Quota Pounds (QP) they receive based on their QS are affected by the ACLs. Vessels that fish under the trawl rationalization program receive their QP from the QS holders, and thus are indirectly affected if they only own vessel accounts rather than QS. Similarly, Mothership processors are indirectly affected as they receive the fish they process from limited entry permits that are endorsed with whiting catch history assignments.

According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), a small commercial harvesting business is one that has annual receipts under $20.5 million (including its affiliates), a small charterboat business is one with receipts under $7.5 million, and a small processor employs less than 500 employees. Small non-profit organizations must be independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field. Small government jurisdictions must have populations less than 50,000. For purposes of rulemaking, NMFS is applying the $20.5 million standard to catcher processors because whiting catcher processors are involved in the commercial harvest of finfish.

To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this rule, NMFS reviewed analyses of fish ticket data and limited entry permit data. NMFS also reviewed the EIS associated with this rulemaking. The EIS includes information on charterboat, tribal, and open access fleets, available cost-earnings data developed by Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). NMFS also reviewed responses associated with the permitting process for the trawl rationalization program—applicants were asked if they considered themselves a small business based on SBA definitions. This rule would regulate businesses that harvest groundfish.

NMFS makes the following conclusions based primarily on analyses associated with fish ticket data, limited entry permit data, previous analysis of the charterboat and tribal fleets, NMFS expertise, and the EIS associated with this rule making. As part of the permitting process for the Trawl rationalization program or to participate in non-trawl limited entry permit fisheries, applicants were asked if they considered themselves a small business. NMFS reviewed the ownership and affiliation relationships of quota share permit holders, vessel account holders, catcher processor permits, Mothership processing, and first receiver/shore processor permits. Based on this review, there are an estimated 102 unique small businesses and 21 large businesses that participate in this Trawl Rationalization Program. In the non-trawl limited entry program, there are 222 small businesses.

Open access vessels are not federally permitted so counts based on landings can provide an estimate of the affected. The Draft EIS analysis for the 2013-14 Pacific Groundfish Specifications and Management Measures contained the following assessment, which is deemed reasonable estimates for this rule, as these fisheries have not changed significantly in recent years. In 2011, 682 directed open access vessels fished while 284 incidental open access vessels fished for a total of 966 vessels. Over the 2005-2010 period, 1583 different directed open access vessels fished and 837 different incidental open access vessels fished for a total of 2420 different vessels. According to the Draft EIS, over the 2008-2010 period, 447 to 470 charterboats participated in the groundfish fishery, 447 in 2010. The four tribal fleets sum to a total of 54 longline vessels, 5 whiting trawlers, and 5 non-whiting trawlers, for a grand total of 64 vessels. Available information on average revenue per vessel suggests that all the entities in these groups can be considered small.

These regulations implement the Council's preferred alternative. The key economic effects of the Council's preferred alternative and the other alternatives were described in detail in the proposed rule for this action. The economic effects of the Council's preferred alternative were compared with the no action alternative where the no action alternative reflects maintaining 2013-2014 harvest specifications and management measures into 2015-2016. Total shoreside sectors' ex-vessel revenue under the Preferred Alternative is projected to be the highest among the action alternatives. Compared with No Action, total non-whiting shoreside ex-vessel revenue under the preferred alternative is projected to increase by $16 million (20 percent) in 2015. Projected revenues are higher than under No Action for every shorebased groundfish sector. The greatest absolute and percentage increase in revenue is projected for the IFQ sector: $12.8 million (45 percent) in 2015. There is no projected change from No Action for the incidental Open Access Sector. Future rulemaking will address the amount of whiting that is to be harvested by shoreside IFQ, mothership catcher vessels, catcher-processors, and tribal fleets. This rule making does affect the amount of bycatch that these fleets will have for their directed whiting fisheries.

Under the Preferred Alternative, an increase of 11,600 angler trips is projected from No Action coastwide. All of the increase occurs in California. Trips increase by 1,600 (20 percent) in the Mendocino region, 5,600 (11 percent) in the San Francisco region and 4,400 (4 percent) in the Central region. No change from No Action is projected for California's Northern and Southern management areas or for recreational fisheries in Washington and Oregon. This represents a coastwide income increase of $1,471,000 compared to No Action alternative.

NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the PCGFMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the PCGFMP is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, orresult in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006 concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.

NMFS has reinitiated section 7 consultation on the PCGFMP with respect to its effects on listed salmonids. In the event the consultation identifies either reasonable and prudent alternatives to address jeopardy concerns or reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take, NMFS would exercise necessary authorities in coordination, to the extent possible, with the Council to put such additional alternatives or measures into place. After reviewing the available information, NMFS has concluded that, consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA, this action will not jeopardize any listed species, would not adversely modify any designated critical habitat, and will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.

On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concluded that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions.

On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The (FWS) also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, or bull trout critical habitat.

This final rule would not alter the effects on marine mammals over what has already been considered for the fishery. West Coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other West Coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. On February 27, 2012, NMFS published notice that the incidental taking of Steller sea lions in the West Coast groundfish fisheries is addressed in NMFS' December 29, 2010, Negligible Impact Determination (NID) and this fishery has been added to the list of fisheries authorized to take Steller sea lions (77 FR 11493, February 27, 2012). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for a period of three years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553, September 4, 2013).

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with Tribal officials from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the MSA 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(d)(2) further state “the Secretary will develop Tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected Tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with Tribal consensus.” The Tribal management measures in this final rule have been developed following these procedures.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

Dated: March 3, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

2. In § 660.11, in the definition for “Groundfish,” revise paragraphs (1), (2), (5), (7) introductory text, (7)(i) introductory text, (7)(ii), (7)(iii), (9) and (10); in the definition for “North-South management area” revise paragraph (2)(v) and revise the definitions for “Office of Law Enforcement or OLE”, “Regional Administrator”, and “Sustainable Fisheries Division or SFD” to read as follows:
§ 660.11 General definitions.

Groundfish* * *

(1)Sharks:Leopard shark,Triakis semifasciata;soupfin shark,Galeorhinus zyopterus;spiny dogfish,Squalus suckleyi.

(2)Skates:“Skates” in the PCGFMP include all genera and species in the family Arhynchobatidae that occur off Washington, Oregon, and California, including but not limited to Aleutian skate,Bathyraja aleutica;Bering/sandpaper skate,B. interrupta;big skate,Raja binoculata;California skate,R. inornata;longnose skate,R. rhina;roughtail/black skate,B. trachura.

(5)Grenadiers:“Grenadiers” in the PCGFMP include all genera and species in the family Macrouridae that occur off Washington, Oregon, and California, including but not limited to Giant grenadier,Albatrossia pectoralis;Pacific grenadier,Coryphaenoides acrolepis.

(7)Rockfish:“Rockfish” in the PCGFMP include all genera and species of the family Scorpaenidae that occur off Washington, Oregon, and California, even if not listed below, including longspine thornyhead,Sebastolobus altivelis,and shortspine thornyhead,S. alascanus.Where species below are listed both in a geographic category (nearshore, shelf, slope) and as an area-specific listing (north or south of 40°10′N. lat.) those species are managed within a “minor” rockfish complex in that area-specific listing.

(i)Nearshore rockfishincludes black rockfish,Sebastes melanopsand the following nearshore rockfish species managed in “minor rockfish” complexes:

(ii)Shelf rockfishincludes bocaccio,Sebastes paucispinis;canary rockfish,S. pinniger;chilipepper,S. goodei;cowcod,S. levis;shortbelly rockfish,S. jordani;widow rockfish,S. entomelas;yelloweye rockfish,S. ruberrimus;yellowtail rockfish,S. flavidusand the following shelf rockfish species managed in “minor rockfish” complexes:

(A)Shelf Rockfish North of 40°10′ N. lat.:Bronzespotted rockfish,S. gilli;bocaccio,S. paucispinis;chameleon rockfish,S. phillipsi;chilipepper,S. goodei;cowcod,S. levis;dusky rockfish,S. ciliatus;dwarf-red rockfish,S. rufianus;flag rockfish,S. rubrivinctus;freckled rockfish,S. lentiginosus;greenblotched rockfish,S. rosenblatti;greenspotted rockfish,S. chlorostictus;greenstriped rockfish,S. elongatus;halfbanded rockfish,S. semicinctus;harlequin rockfish,S. variegatus;honeycomb rockfish,S. umbrosus;Mexican rockfish,S. macdonaldi;pink rockfish,S. eos;pinkrose rockfish,S. simulator;pygmy rockfish,S. wilsoni;redstripe rockfish,S. proriger;rosethorn rockfish,S. helvomaculatus;rosy rockfish,S. rosaceus;silvergray rockfish,S. brevispinis;speckled rockfish,S. ovalis;squarespot rockfish,S. hopkinsi;starry rockfish,S. constellatus;stripetail rockfish,S. saxicola;sunset rockfish,S. crocotulus;swordspine rockfish,S. ensifer;tiger rockfish,S. nigrocinctus;vermilion rockfish,S. miniatus.

(B)Shelf Rockfish South of 40°10′ N. lat.:Bronzespotted rockfish,S. gilli;chameleon rockfish,S. phillipsi;dusky rockfish,S. ciliatus;dwarf-red rockfish,S. rufianus;flag rockfish,S. rubrivinctus;freckled rockfish,S. lentiginosus;greenblotched rockfish,S. rosenblatti;greenspotted rockfish,S. chlorostictus;greenstriped rockfish,S. elongatus;halfbanded rockfish,S. semicinctus;harlequin rockfish,S. variegatus;honeycomb rockfish,S. umbrosus;Mexican rockfish,S. macdonaldi;pink rockfish,S. eos;pinkrose rockfish,S. simulator;pygmy rockfish,S. wilsoni;redstripe rockfish, S. proriger;rosethorn rockfish,S. helvomaculatus;rosy rockfish,S. rosaceus;silvergray rockfish,S. brevispinis;speckled rockfish,S. ovalis;squarespot rockfish,S. hopkinsi;starry rockfish,S. constellatus;stripetail rockfish,S. saxicola;sunset rockfish,S. crocotulus;swordspine rockfish,S. ensifer;tiger rockfish,S. nigrocinctus;vermilion rockfish,S. miniatus;yellowtail rockfish,S. flavidus.

(iii)Slope rockfishincludes darkblotched rockfish,S. crameri;Pacific ocean perch,S. alutus;splitnose rockfish,S. diploproa;and the following slope rockfish species managed in “minor rockfish” complexes:

(A)Slope Rockfish North of 40°10′ N. lat.:Aurora rockfish,Sebastes aurora;bank rockfish,S. rufus;blackgill rockfish,S. melanostomus;blackspotted rockfish,S. melanostictus;redbanded rockfish,S. babcocki;rougheye rockfish,S. aleutianus;sharpchin rockfish,S. zacentrus;shortraker rockfish,S. borealis;splitnose rockfish,S. diploproa;yellowmouth rockfish,S. reedi.

(B)Slope Rockfish South of 40°10′ N. lat.:Aurora rockfish,Sebastes aurora;bank rockfish,S. rufus;blackgill rockfish,S. melanostomus;blackspotted rockfish,S. melanostictus;Pacific ocean perch,S. alutus;redbanded rockfish,S. babcocki;rougheye rockfish,S. aleutianus;sharpchin rockfish,S. zacentrus;shortraker rockfish,S. borealis;yellowmouth rockfish,S. reedi.

(9)“Other fish”:kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus), leopard shark (Trakis semifasciata), and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) in waters off Washington.

(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; all grenadiers listed here in paragraph (5); soupfin shark; ratfish; and finescale codling.

North-South management area* * *

(2) * * *

(v) Columbia River—46°16.00′ N. lat.

Office of Law Enforcement or OLErefers to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforcement, Western Division.

Regional Administratormeans the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS.

Sustainable Fisheries Division or SFDmeans the Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast Regional Office, NMFS, or a designee.

3. In § 660.40, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 660.40 Overfished species rebuilding plans.

(c)Cowcod.Cowcod was declared overfished in 2000. The target year for rebuilding the cowcod stock south of 40°10′ N. lat. to BMSYis 2020. The harvest control rule to be used to rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual SPR harvest rate of 82.7 percent.

4. In § 660.50, revise paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(5) and (7), and add paragraph (f)(8) to read as follows:
§ 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

(f) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) The Tribal allocation is 479 mt in 2015 and 524 mt in 2016 per year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey through Vancouver area (North of 36° N. lat.) ACL. The Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.6 percent for estimated discard mortality.

(5)Pacific cod.There is a tribal harvest guideline of 500 mt of Pacific cod per year. The tribes will manage their fisheries to stay within this harvest guideline.

(7)Yellowtail rockfish.Yellowtail rockfish taken in the directed tribal mid-water trawl fisheries are subject to a catch limit of 1,000 mt for the entire fleet, per year.

(8)Spiny dogfish.Spiny dogfish taken in the treaty fisheries are subject to an overall expected total spiny dogfish catch of 275 mt per year.

5. In § 660.60, add paragraphs (b)(1) and reserved (b)(2) and revise paragraph (c)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 660.60 Specifications and management measures.

(b) * * *

(1) Except for Pacific whiting, every biennium, NMFS will implement OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs, if applicable, for each species or species group based on the harvest controls used in the previous biennium (referred to as default harvest control rules) applied to the best available scientific information. The default harvest control rules for each species or species group are listed in Appendix F to the PCGFMP and the biennial SAFE document. NMFS may implement OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs, if applicable, that vary from the default harvest control rules based on a Council recommendation.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(i)Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear.Trip landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the following species or species groups: Widow rockfish, canary rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, black rockfish, blue rockfish, splitnose rockfish, blackgill rockfish in the area south of 40°10' N. lat., chilipepper, bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope rockfish; Dover sole, sablefish, shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the other flatfish complex, which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species listed at § 660.11; Pacific whiting; lingcod; Pacific cod; spiny dogfish; longnose skate; cabezon in Oregon and California and “other fish” as a complex described at § 660.11. In addition to the species and species groups listed above, sub-limits or aggregate limits may be specified, specific to the Shorebased IFQ Program, for the following species: Big skate, California skate, California scorpionfish, leopard shark, soupfin shark, finescale codling, Pacific rattail (grenadier), ratfish, kelp greenling, shortbelly, and cabezon in Washington. Size limits have been designated as routine for sablefish and lingcod. Trip landing and frequency limits and size limits for species with those limits designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis for the purpose of keeping landings within the harvest levels announced by NMFS, and for the other purposes given in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.

6. In § 660.72: a. Revise paragraph (c); b. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(199) through (211) as paragraphs (f)(200) through (212); c. Add new paragraph (f)(199); and d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (f)(207);

The revisions and addition read as follows:

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

(c) * * *

(1) 34°08.40′ N. lat., 120°33.78′ W. long.;

(2) 34°07.80′ N. lat., 120°30.99′ W. long.;

(3) 34°08.42′ N. lat., 120°27.92′ W. long.;

(4) 34°09.31′ N. lat., 120°27.81′ W. long.;

(5) 34°05.85′ N. lat., 120°17.13′ W. long.;

(6) 34°05.73′ N. lat., 120°05.93′ W. long.;

(7) 34°06.14′ N. lat., 120°04.86′ W. long.;

(8) 34°05.70′ N. lat., 120°03.17′ W. long.;

(9) 34°05.67′ N. lat., 119°58.98′ W. long.;

(10) 34°06.34′ N. lat., 119°56.78′ W. long.;

(11) 34°05.57′ N. lat., 119°51.35′ W. long.;

(12) 34°07.08′ N. lat., 119°52.43′ W. long.;

(13) 34°04.49′ N. lat., 119°35.55′ W. long.;

(14) 34°04.73′ N. lat., 119°32.77′ W. long.;

(15) 34°02.02′ N. lat., 119°19.18′ W. long.;

(16) 34°01.03′ N. lat., 119°19.50′ W. long.;

(17) 33°59.45′ N. lat., 119°22.38′ W. long.;

(18) 33°58.68′ N. lat., 119°32.36′ W. long.;

(19) 33°56.43′ N. lat., 119°41.13′ W. long.;

(20) 33°56.04′ N. lat., 119°48.20′ W. long.;

(21) 33°57.32′ N. lat., 119°51.96′ W. long.;

(22) 33°59.32′ N. lat., 119°55.59′ W. long.;

(23) 33°57.52′ N. lat., 119°55.19′ W. long.;

(24) 33°56.26′ N. lat., 119°54.29′ W. long.;

(25) 33°54.30′ N. lat., 119°54.83′ W. long.;

(26) 33°50.97′ N. lat., 119°57.03′ W. long.;

(27) 33°50.25′ N. lat., 120°00.00′ W. long.;

(28) 33°50.03′ N. lat., 120°03.00′ W. long.;

(29) 33°51.06′ N. lat., 120°03.73′ W. long.;

(30) 33°54.49′ N. lat., 120°12.85′ W. long.;

(31) 33°58.90′ N. lat., 120°20.15′ W. long.;

(32) 34°00.71′ N. lat., 120°28.21′ W. long.;

(33) 34°02.20′ N. lat., 120°30.37′ W. long.;

(34) 34°03.60′ N. lat., 120°30.60′ W. long.;

(35) 34°06.96′ N. lat., 120°34.22′ W. long.;

(36) 34°08.01′ N. lat., 120°35.24′ W. long.; and

(37) 34°08.40′ N. lat., 120°33.78′ W. long.

(f) * * *

(199) 32°56.00′ N. lat., 117°19.16′ W. long.;

(207) 32°44.89′ N. lat., 117°21.89′ W. long.;

7. In § 660.73, revise paragraph (a)(123) to read as follows:
§ 660.73 Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183 m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.

(a) * * *

(123) 43°56.07′ N. lat., 124°55.41′ W. long.;

8. In § 660.74: a. Remove paragraphs (l)(80) through (82); b. Redesignate paragraphs (l)(83) through (245) as (l)(87) through (249); and c. Add paragraphs (l)(80) through (l)(86).

The additions read as follows:

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

(l) * * *

(80) 44°48.25′ N. lat., 124°40.61′ W. long.;

(81) 44°42.24′ N. lat., 124°48.05′ W. long.;

(82) 44°41.35′ N. lat., 124°48.03′ W. long.;

(83) 44°40.27′ N. lat., 124°49.11′ W. long.;

(84) 44°38.52′ N. lat., 124°49.11′ W. long.;

(85) 44°21.73′ N. lat., 124°49.82′ W. long.;

(86) 44°17.57′ N. lat., 124°55.04′ W. long.;

9. In subpart C, tables 1a through 1d are revised to read as follows: BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER10MR15.000

a/ Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs) and harvest guidelines (HGs) are specified as total catch values.

b/ Fishery harvest guidelines means the harvest guideline 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/ Bocaccio. A bocaccio stock assessment update was conducted in 2013 for the bocaccio stock between the U.S.-Mexico border and Cape Blanco. The stock is managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of 40°10′ N. lat. and within the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40°10′ N. lat. A historical catch distribution of approximately 6 percent was used to apportion the assessed stock to the area north of 40°10′ N. lat. The bocaccio stock was estimated to be at 31.4 percent of its unfished biomass in 2013. The OFL of 1,444 mt is projected in the 2013 stock assessment using an FMSYproxy of F50 %. The ABC of 1,380 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The 349 mt ACL is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2022 and an SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent. 8.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (0.7 mt), EFP catch (3.0 mt) and research catch (4.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 340.7 mt. The California recreational fishery has an HG of 178.8 mt.

d/ Canary rockfish. A canary rockfish stock assessment update was conducted in 2011 and the stock was estimated to be at 23.2 percent of its unfished biomass coastwide in 2011. The coastwide OFL of 733 mt is projected in the 2011 rebuilding analysis using an FMSYproxy of F50 %. The ABC of 701 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL of 122 mt is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2030 and an SPR harvest rate of 88.7 percent. 15.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (7.7 mt), the incidental open access fishery (2 mt), EFP catch (1.0 mt) and research catch (4.5 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 106.8 mt. Recreational HGs are: 3.4 mt (Washington); 11.7 mt (Oregon); and 24.3 mt (California).

e/ Cowcod. A stock assessment for the Conception Area was conducted in 2013 and the stock was estimated to be at 33.9 percent of its unfished biomass in 2013. The Conception Area OFL of 55.0 mt is projected in the 2013 rebuilding analysis using an FMSYproxy of F50 %. The OFL contribution of 11.6 mt for the unassessed portion of the stock in the Monterey area is based on depletion-based stock reduction analysis. The OFLs for the Monterey and Conception areas were summed to derive the south of 40°10′ N. lat. OFL of 66.6 mt. The ABC for the area south of 40°10′ N. lat. is 59.9 mt. The assessed portion of the stock in the Conception Area is considered category 2, with a Conception area contribution to the ABC of 50.2 mt, which is an 8.7 percent reduction from the Conception area OFL (σ=0.72/P*=0.45). The unassessed portion of the stock in the Monterey area is considered a category 3 stock, with a contribution to the ABC of 9.7 mt, which is a 16.6 percent reduction from the Monterey area OFL (σ=1.44/P*=0.45). A single ACL of 10.0 mt is being set for both areas combined. The ACL of 10.0 mt is based on the rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2020 and an SPR harvest rate of 82.7 percent, which is equivalent to an exploitation rate (catch over age 11+ biomass) of 0.007. 2.0 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP fishing (less than 0.02 mt) and research activity (2.0 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 8.0 mt. Any additional mortality in research activities will be deducted from the ACL. A single ACT of 4.0 mt is being set for both areas combined.

f/ Darkblotched rockfish. A 2013 stock assessment estimated the stock to be at 36 percent of its unfished biomass in 2013. The OFL of 574 mt is projected in the 2013 stock assessment using an FMSYproxy of F50 %. The ABC of 549 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL of 338 mt is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2025 and an SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent. 20.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (0.2 mt), the incidental open access fishery (18.4 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt) and research catch (2.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 317.2 mt.

g/ Pacific Ocean Perch. A POP stock assessment was conducted in 2011 and the stock was estimated to be at 19.1 percent of its unfished biomass in 2011. The OFL of 842 mt for the area north of 40°10′ N. lat. is projected in the 2011 rebuilding analysis using an F50 %FMSYproxy. The ABC of 805 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL of 158 mt is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2051 and an SPR harvest rate of 86.4 percent. 15 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (9.2 mt), the incidental open access fishery (0.6 mt), and research catch (5.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 143.0 mt.

h/ Petrale sole. A 2013 stock assessment estimated the stock to be at 22.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2013. The OFL of 2,946 mt is projected in the 2013 assessment using an F30 %FMSYproxy. The ABC of 2,816 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL is based on the 25-5 harvest control rule specified in the current rebuilding plan; since the stock is projected to be rebuilt at the start of 2014, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. 236.6 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (220 mt), the incidental open access fishery (2.4 mt), and research catch (14.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,579.4 mt.

i/ Yelloweye rockfish. A stock assessment update was conducted in 2011. The stock was estimated to be at 21.4 percent of its unfished biomass in 2011. The 52 mt coastwide OFL was projected in the 2011 rebuilding analysis using an FMSYproxy of F50 %. The ABC of 43 mt is a 16.7 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 stock. The 18 mt ACL is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2074 and an SPR harvest rate of 76.0 percent. 5.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2.3 mt), the incidental open access fishery (0.2 mt), EFP catch (0.03 mt) and research catch (3.3 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 12.2 mt. Recreational HGs are: 2.9 mt (Washington); 2.6 mt (Oregon); and 3.4 mt (California).

j/ Arrowtooth flounder. The arrowtooth flounder stock was last assessed in 2007 and was estimated to be at 79 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL of 6,599 mt is derived from the 2007 assessment using an F30 %FMSYproxy. The ABC of 5,497 mt is a 16.7 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 stock. The ACL is set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B25 %. 2,087 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt), the incidental open access fishery (30 mt), and research catch (16.4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 3,410 mt.

k/ Black rockfish south (Oregon and California). A stock assessment was conducted for black rockfish south of 45°46′ N. lat. (Cape Falcon, Oregon) to Central California (i.e.,the southern-most extent of black rockfish, Love et al. 2002) in 2007. The biomass in the south was estimated to be at 70 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL from the assessed area is derived from the 2007 assessment using an FMSYharvest rate proxy of F50 %plus 3 percent of the OFL from the stock assessment conducted for black rockfish north of 45°46′ N. lat., to cover the portion of the stock occurring off Oregon north of Cape Falcon (the 3% adjustment is based on historical catch distribution). The resulting OFL for the area south of 46°16′ N. lat. is 1,176 mt. The ABC of 1,124 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The 2015 ACL is 1,000 mt, which maintains the constant catch strategy designed to keep the stock above its target biomass of B40 %. 1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 999 mt. The black rockfish ACL, in the area south of 46°16′ N. lat. (Columbia River), is subdivided with separate HGs for waters off Oregon (579 mt/58 percent) and for waters off California (420 mt/42 percent).

l/ Black rockfish north (Washington). A stock assessment was conducted for black rockfish north of 45°46′ N. lat. (Cape Falcon, Oregon) in 2007. The biomass in the north was estimated to be at 53 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL from the assessed area is derived from the 2007 assessment using an FMSYharvest rate proxy of F50 %. The resulting OFL for the area north of 46°16′ N. lat. is 421 mt and is 97 percent of the OFL from the assessed area based on the area distribution of historical catch. The ABC of 402 mt for the north is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL is set equal to the ABC since the stock is above its target biomass of B40 %. 14 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 388 mt.

m/ Cabezon (California). A cabezon stock assessment was conducted in 2009. The cabezon spawning biomass in waters off California was estimated to be at 48.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 161 mt is calculated using an FMSYproxy of F45 %. The ABC of 154 mt is based on a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL is set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B40 %. There are nodeductions from the ACL so the fishery HG is equal to the ACL of 154 mt.

n/ Cabezon (Oregon). A cabezon stock assessment was conducted in 2009. The cabezon spawning biomass in waters off Oregon was estimated to be at 52 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 49 mt is calculated using an FMSYproxy of F45 %. The ABC of 47 mt is based on a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The ACL is set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B40 %. There are no deductions from the ACL so the fishery HG is also equal to the ACL of 47 mt.

o/ California scorpionfish was assessed in 2005 and was estimated to be at 79.8 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 119 mt is projected in the 2005 assessment using an FMSYharvest rate proxy of F50 %. The ABC of 114 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL is set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B40 %. 2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 112 mt.

p/ Chilipepper. The coastwide chilipepper stock was assessed in 2007 and estimated to be at 70 percent of its unfished biomass in 2006. Chilipepper are managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of 40°10 N. lat. and within the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40°10′ N. lat. Projected OFLs are stratified north and south of 40°10′ N. lat. based on the average 1998-2008 assessed area catch, which is 93 percent for the area south of 40°10′ N. lat. and 7 percent for the area north of 40°10′ N. lat. The OFL of 1,703 mt for the area south of 40°10′ N. lat. is projected in the 2007 assessment using an FMSYproxy of F50 %. The ABC of 1,628 mt is a 4.4 percent reduction from the OFL (σ=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 stock. The ACL is set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B40 %. 24 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (5 mt), EFP fishing (10 mt), and research catch (9 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,604 mt.

q/ Dover sole. A 2011 Dover sole assessment estimated the stock to be at 83.7 perc