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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 140904754-4999-01]

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:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This proposed 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). This proposed 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:

Comments must be received no later than January 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0138, by any of the following methods:

• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0138,

click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

•

Mail:

Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115.

•

Fax:

206-525-4736; Attn: Sarah Williams.

Instructions:

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 by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on

www.regulations.gov

without change. All personal identifying information (

e.g.,

name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available for public review during business hours at the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280. Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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 at

https://www.federalregister.gov.

Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html

and at the Council's Web site at

http://www.pcouncil.org.

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This proposed rule would implement 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, and establish default harvest control rules consistent with Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP. The purpose of the proposed 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. This proposed action would 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. The harvest specifications are set consistent with the optimum yield (OY) harvest management framework described in Chapter 4 of the PCGFMP. The proposed rule would also implement Amendment 24 to PCGFMP. Amendment 24 establishes default harvest control rules that would be 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 proposed rule contains two types of major provisions. The first are the harvest specifications (overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs)), and the second are management measures designed to keep fishing mortality within the ACLs. The 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 later in this proposed rule.

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 taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. The ACLs are based on consideration of conservation objectives, socio-economic concerns, management uncertainty, and other factors. All known sources of fishing and scientific research catch are counted against the ACL.

This proposed 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 T

MAX

and T

TARGET

rebuilding parameters. T

MAX

is the maximum permissible time period for rebuilding the stock its target biomass. T

TARGET

is 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 T

TARGET

is 9 years longer than the new T

MAX

. Accordingly, for cowcod, the T

TARGET

would be revised from 2068 to 2020, which is the median time to rebuild based on the existing harvest control rule. The remaining overfished species are making adequate progress towards rebuilding or are estimated to be rebuilt in 2015. Therefore, this rule proposes to establish harvest specifications consistent with the existing rebuilding plan provisions for those species.

This rule also proposes to implement 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 FMP consistent with SSC guidance on the F

MSY

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.

In order to keep mortality of the species managed under the PCGFMP within the ACLs the Council also recommended management measures. 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 including: Changes to lingcod retention in previously closed cumulative limit periods and canary rockfish retention in the Oregon recreational fishery, along with a few others.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process

II. Harvest Specifications

A. Proposed OFLs for 2015 and 2016

1. Overfished Species OFLs

2. Non-Overfished Species OFLs for Individually Managed Stocks

3. Stock Complex OFLs

B. Proposed ABCs for 2015 and 2016

1. Overfished Species ABCs

2. Non-Overfished Species ABCs for Individually Managed Stocks

3. Stock Complex ABCs

C. Proposed ACLs for 2015 and 2016

1. Overfished Species ACLs

2. Non-Overfished Species ACLs for Individually Managed Stocks

3. Stock Complex ACLs

D. Stock Complexes

1. Minor Nearshore Rockfish Complex North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

2. Minor Shelf Rockfish Complex North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

3. Minor Slope Rockfish Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

4. Other Flatfish Complex

5. Other Fish Complex

E. Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

1. Default Harvest Control Rules, Clarifications, and Adding Species

2. Designation of Ecosystem Component Species

F. Management Measures

1. Management Measures and Ecosystem Component Species

2. Deductions From the ACLs

3. Biennial Fishery Allocations

4. Modifications to the Boundaries Defining RCAs

5. Sorting Requirements

6. Limited Entry Trawl

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

8. Recreational Fishery Management Measures

9. Tribal Fishery Management Measures

10. Housekeeping Measures

III. Classification

I. 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 proposed 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.

A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process

The process for setting the 2015-2016 harvest specifications began in 2012 with the preparation of stock assessments. A stock assessment is the scientific and statistical process where the status of a fish population or subpopulation (stock) is assessed in terms of population size, reproductive status, fishing mortality, and sustainability. In the terms of the PCGFMP, stock assessments generally provide: (1) An estimate of the current biomass (reproductive potential); (2) an F

MSY

or proxy (a default harvest rate for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the maximum sustainable yield), translated into exploitation rate; (3) an estimate of the biomass that produces the maximum sustainable yield (B

MSY

); and, (4) a precision estimate (

e.g.,

confidence interval) for current biomass. Stock assessments, including data moderate assessments, are reviewed by the Council's stock assessment review panel (STAR panel). The STAR panel is designed to review the technical merits of stock assessments and is responsible for determining if a stock assessment document is sufficiently complete. Finally, the SSC reviews the stock assessment and STAR panel reports and makes recommendations to the Council. In addition to full stock assessments, stock assessment updates that run new data through existing models without changing the model are also prepared.

When spawning stock biomass falls below the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), a stock is declared overfished and a rebuilding plan must be developed that determines the strategy for rebuilding the stock to B

MSY

in the shortest time possible while considering needs of fishing communities and other factors (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)). The current MSST reference point for assessed flatfish stocks is 12.5 percent of initial biomass or B

12.5

%

. For all other assessed groundfish stocks, the current MSST reference point is 25 percent of initial biomass or B

25

%

. The following overfished groundfish stocks would be managed under rebuilding plans in 2015-2016: Bocaccio south of 40°10′ N. lat.; canary rockfish; cowcod south of

40°10′ N. lat.; darkblotched rockfish; Pacific Ocean Perch (POP); petrale sole; and yelloweye rockfish.

For overfished stocks, in addition to any stock assessments or stock assessment updates, rebuilding analyses may also be prepared. The rebuilding analysis is used to project the future status of the overfished resource under a variety of alternative harvest strategies and to determine the probability of recovering to B

MSY

or its proxy within a specified time-frame.

The Council considered new stock assessments, stock assessment updates, a new rebuilding analysis for cowcod, public comment, and advice from its advisory bodies over the course of six Council meetings during development of its recommendations for the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures. At each Council meeting between June 2013 and June 2014, the Council made a series of decisions and recommendations that were in some cases refined after further analysis and discussion. Detailed information, including the supporting documentation the Council considered at each meeting is available at the Council's Web site,

www.pcouncil.org.

A draft EIS identifying the preferred alternative for each decision point published on October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63622). A preliminary version of the draft EIS was made available to the public, the Council, and the Council's advisory bodies at the Council's June 2014 meeting. At that meeting, following public comment and Council consideration, the Council made its final recommendations for the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures as well as Amendment 24 to the PCGFMP.

Information regarding the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs being proposed for groundfish stocks and stock complexes in 2015-2016 is presented below, followed by a discussion of the species assemblages and use of stock complexes, concluding with descriptions of the proposed management measures for commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries.

II. Harvest Specifications

The PCGFMP requires the Council to set harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish at least biennially. This proposed rule would set 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures for all of the 90 plus groundfish species or species groups managed under the PCGFMP, except for Pacific whiting. Pacific whiting harvest specifications are established annually through a separate bilateral process with Canada. The Council received notification at its November 2014 meeting that the OFLs adopted in June 2014 for English sole, yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat.; sharpchin rockfish, and rex sole were incorrect. The OFLs from June were based on maximum likelihood estimates, however, the SSC recommended that the 2015-2016 OFLs from the Bayesian data-moderate assessment be based on the median of the posterior distribution of the estimated OFLs. The SSC reviewed and endorsed the updated harvest specifications at the November 2014 Council meeting and the Council recommended those changes. Therefore, this rule proposes the updated OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and HGs for English sole, yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., as well as the Minor Slope Rockfish north and south complexes and the Other Flatfish Complex coastwide because sharpchin rockfish contributes to the Minor Slope Rockfish complex harvest specifications and rex sole contributes to the harvest specifications for the Other Flatfish complex.

A. Proposed OFLs for 2015 and 2016

This section describes the proposed OFLs for overfished species managed under rebuilding plans, non-overfished species managed with individual species-specific harvest specifications, and species managed within stock complexes. The stock complex section below also discusses data moderate assessments.

The OFL is the MSY harvest level associated with the current stock abundance and is an estimate of the level of total catch of a stock or stock complex above which overfishing is occurring. The OFLs for groundfish species with stock assessments are derived by applying the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy to the current estimated biomass. F

x

%

harvest rates are the rates of fishing mortality that will reduce the female spawning biomass per recruit (SPR) to X percent of its unfished level. A rate of F

40

%

is a more aggressive harvest rate than F

45

%

or F

50

%

.

For 2015-2016, the Council maintained a policy of using a default harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (F

MSY

). A proxy is used because there is insufficient information for most Pacific Coast groundfish stocks to estimate species-specific F

MSY

values. Taxon-specific proxy fishing mortality rates are used due to perceived differences in the productivity among different taxa of groundfish. A lower value is used for stocks with relatively high resilience to fishing while higher values are used for less resilient stocks with low productivity. In 2015-2016, the following default harvest rate proxies, based on the SSC's recommendations, were used: F

30

%

for flatfish, F

40

%

for whiting, F

50

%

for rockfish (including longspine and shortspine thornyheads), F

50

%

for elasmobranchs, and F

45

%

for other groundfish such as sablefish and lingcod.

For the 2015-2016 biennial specification process, eight full stock assessments and four stock assessment updates were prepared. Full stock assessments, those that consider the appropriateness of the assessment model and that revise the model as necessary, were prepared for the following stocks: Darkblotched rockfish, petrale sole, shortspine thornyhead, longspine thornyhead, aurora rockfish, rougheye/blackspotted rockfish, Pacific sanddab, and cowcod. A stock assessment update, which runs new data through an existing model, was prepared for bocaccio. Catch reports, which evaluate whether recent mortality has remained at or below the appropriate limits, were also prepared for canary rockfish, POP, and yelloweye rockfish.

Each new stock assessment includes a base model and two alternative models. The alternative models are developed from the base model by bracketing the dominant dimension of uncertainty (

e.g.,

stock-recruitment steepness, natural mortality rate, survey catchability, recent year-class strength, weights on conflicting catch per unit effort series, etc.) and are intended to be a means of expressing uncertainty within the model by showing the contrast in management implications. Once a base model has been bracketed on either side by alternative model scenarios, capturing the overall degree of uncertainty in the assessment, a two-way decision table analysis (states-of-nature versus management action) is used to present the repercussions of uncertainty to decision makers. As noted above, the SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the appropriateness of using the different stock assessments for management purposes, after which the Council considers adoption of the stock assessments, use of the stock assessments for the development of rebuilding analyses, and the OFLs resulting from the base model runs of the stock assessments.

1. Overfished Species OFLs

This section describes the OFLs for overfished species managed under rebuilding plans in 2015-2016.

Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) S. of 40°10′ N. lat.

A stock assessment update was prepared for bocaccio between the U.S.-Mexico border and Cape Blanco, OR. The bocaccio OFLs of 1,444 mt for 2015 and 1,351 mt for 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment update. For setting harvest specifications, six percent of the assessed biomass was estimated to occur north of 40°10′ N. lat. The projected OFLs from the assessment were adjusted accordingly.

Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger)

A catch report was prepared for canary rockfish off Washington, Oregon, and California. The canary rockfish OFLs of 733 mt for 2015 and 729 mt for 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2011 rebuilding analysis.

Cowcod (Sebastes levis) S. of 40°10′ N. lat.

A full stock assessment was prepared for cowcod in the area south of 34°27′ N. lat. The cowcod OFLs of 67 mt for 2015 and 68 mt for 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment added to the revised 2011 Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis OFL estimate for the Monterey area.

Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes crameri)

A full stock assessment was prepared for darkblotched rockfish off Washington, Oregon, and California. The darkblotched rockfish OFLs of 574 mt for 2015 and 580 mt for 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Petrale Sole (Eopsetta jordani)

A full stock assessment was prepared for petrale sole off Washington, Oregon, and California. The assessment treats the U.S. petrale sole resource from the Mexican border to the Canadian border as a single coastwide stock. The petrale sole OFLs of 2,946 mt for 2015 and 3,044 mt for 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

30

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Pacific Ocean Perch (Sebastes alutus)

A catch report was prepared for Pacific Ocean perch (POP) off Washington, Oregon, and California. The POP OFLs of 842 mt for 2015 and 850 mt for 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2011 rebuilding analysis.

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus)

A catch report was prepared for yelloweye rockfish off Washington, Oregon, and California. The yelloweye rockfish OFLs of 52 mt for 2015 and 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2011 rebuilding analysis.

2. Non-Overfished Species OFLs for Individually Managed Stocks

This section describes the OFLs for non-overfished species managed with individual species-specific harvest specifications in 2015-2016.

English Sole (Parophrys vetulus)

A new data-moderate coastwide stock assessment was prepared for English sole in 2013. For a discussion of data-moderate assessments see the “Stock Complex OFL” section below. The English sole OFLs of 10,792 mt in 2015 and 7,890 mt in 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

30

%

applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 data-moderate stock assessment.

Longspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus Altivelis)

A new coastwide full stock assessment was prepared for longspine thornyhead. The longspine thornyhead OFLs of 5,007 mt in 2015 and 4,763 mt in 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Shortspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus Alascanus)

A new coastwide full stock assessment was prepared for shortspine thornyhead. The shortspine thornyhead OFLs of 3,203 mt in 2015 and 3,169 mt in 2016 are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Spiny Dogfish (Squalus Acanthias)

For 2015-2016, spiny dogfish is proposed to be removed from the Other Fish complex and managed with species-specific harvest specifications. A coastwide stock assessment was prepared for spiny dogfish in 2011. In 2013-2014 the spiny dogfish OFLs were based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

45

%

applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2011 stock assessment and contributed to the Other Fish complex OFLs. The SSC has endorsed a new F

MSY

harvest rate proxy for elasmobranchs of F

50

%

to better represent the life-history characteristics and reproductive biology of elasmobranchs. In 2015-2016 the spiny dogfish OFLs of 2,523 mt in 2015 and 2,503 mt in 2016 are derived from the 2011 assessment using an F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

.

Yellowtail Rockfish (Sebastes Flavidus) N. of 40°10′ N. lat.

A full assessment of northern yellowtail rockfish was conducted in 2004. In 2013, a new data moderate stock assessment was prepared for the portion of the yellowtail rockfish population north of 40°10′ N. lat. Yellowtail is managed as a single species with a stock-specific OFL north and within the Minor Slope Complex south of 40°10′ N. lat. The yellowtail rockfish north OFLs are 7,218 mt in 2015 and 6,949 mt in 2016. These estimates are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 data-moderate stock assessment. Additional information on data-moderate assessments and the OFL contribution of yellowtail rockfish to the Minor Slope Rockfish complex south of 40°10′ N. lat. can be found below in the discussion of “Stock Complex OFLs.”

For individually managed species that did not have new stock assessments or updates prepared, the Council recommended OFLs derived from applying the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy to the estimated exploitable biomass from the most recent stock assessment or update, the results of rudimentary stock assessments, or the historical landings data approved by the Council for use in setting harvest specifications. These stocks include: Arrowtooth flounder, black rockfish south, black rockfish north, cabezon (off California), cabezon (off Oregon), California scorpionfish, chilipepper, Dover sole, lingcod north and south of 42° N. lat., longnose skate (using the revised F

MSY

harvest rate proxy for elasmobranchs), Pacific cod, sablefish north and south of 36° N. lat., shortbelly rockfish, spiny dogfish (as described above), splitnose rockfish, starry flounder, and widow rockfish. Proposed OFLs for these species can be found in Tables 1a and 2a to Subpart C.

3. Stock Complex OFLs

There are currently eight stock complexes used to manage groundfish stocks pursuant to the PCGFMP. These stock complexes are: (1) Minor Nearshore Rockfish north; (2) Minor

Nearshore Rockfish south; (3) Minor Shelf Rockfish north; (4) Minor Shelf Rockfish south (5) Minor Slope rockfish north; (6) Minor Slope Rockfish south; (7) Other Flatfish; and (8) Other Fish. Stock complexes are used to manage the harvest of many of the unassessed groundfish stocks.

The proposed OFLs for stock complexes are the sum of the OFL contributions for the component stocks, when known. For the 2015-2016 biennial specification process, similar to 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, Depletion-Corrected Average Catch (DCAC), Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis (DB-SRA), or other SSC-endorsed methodologies were used to determine the OFL contributions made by category three species (data limited species). In general, OFL contribution estimates should not vary from year to year for the category three stocks; the OFL contributions for unassessed component stocks that remain in the eight stock complexes are the same in 2015-2016 as in 2013-2014.

The proposed OFLs for each complex can also be found in tables 1a and 2a of this proposed rule. In addition to OFL contributions derived by DCAC, DB-SRA, or other SSC approved estimates, OFL contributions for the following stocks were determined by applying the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy to the estimated exploitable biomass from the most recent stock assessments: Brown rockfish, China rockfish, copper rockfish, aurora rockfish, rougheye/blackspotted rockfish, sharpchin rockfish, and rex sole. Pacific sanddab was assessed in 2013, but the OFL contribution will continue to be derived by DB-SRA in 2015-2016 because the SSC determined the assessment results were too uncertain for determining harvest specifications. As summarized below, nine of the stocks with OFL contributions to stock complexes had new or updated assessments that resulted in their OFL contributions being determined by applying the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy to the estimated exploitable biomass.

The following section discusses the OFL contributions from the data moderate assessments for brown rockfish, China rockfish, copper rockfish, rex sole, shapchin rockfish, stripetail rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and the full assessments for aurora rockfish and blackspotted/rougheye rockfish. Two data-moderate assessment methods, XDB-SRA (Extended Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis) and exSSS (Extended Simple Stock Synthesis), were endorsed by the STAR panel for use in the assessment cycle that is informing the 2015-2016 harvest specifications. Results from data-moderate assessments are an improvement over data-poor approaches because they incorporate abundance indices. Due to a lack of time, the STAR panel was unable to review the draft assessments of vermillion rockfish and yellowtail rockfish south of Cape Mendocino, and was unable to make recommendations regarding their use for Council decision-making. However, the STAR panel was able to conclude that the base model was adequate for management of yellowtail rockfish north of Cape Mendocino. Overall, the SSC viewed the data-moderate assessment methods as being useful tools for assisting the Council's groundfish management process and a substantial improvement over the Council's data-poor methods. The SSC concluded that: (1) The assessments represent the best available science; (2) they should be accepted as valid data-moderate stock assessments, and; (3) they should be used as the basis for management decisions in 2015-2016. Stocks managed within stock complexes that had new data-moderate assessments or new full assessments for use in 2015-2016 are discussed below.

Nearshore Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish (North of 40°10′ N. lat.)

The proposed OFL for the Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex is 88 mt in 2015 and in 2016, which is a 20 percent reduction from the 2014 OFL of 94 mt. The decrease is due to new data-moderate assessments for brown, China, and copper rockfish conducted in 2013. In 2015-2016, stocks composing the Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex will remain the same as in 2013-2014. The Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex is comprised of: Black rockfish (

Sebastes melanops

), Black and yellow rockfish (

S. chrysomelas

), blue rockfish (

S. mystinus

), brown rockfish (

S. auriculatus

), calico rockfish (

S. dalli

), China rockfish (

S. nebulosus

), copper rockfish (

S. caurinus

), gopher rockfish (

S. carnatus

), grass rockfish (

S. rastrelliger

), kelp rockfish (

S. atrovirens

), olive rockfish (

S. serranoides

), quillback rockfish (

S. maliger

), and treefish (

S. serriceps

). These stocks are all unassessed with the exception of blue rockfish in California, brown rockfish, China rockfish, copper rockfish, and gopher rockfish in California.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish (South of 40°10′ N. lat.)

The proposed OFL for the Minor Nearshore Rockfish south complex is 1,313 mt in 2015, and is 1,291 mt in 2016 which in 2015 is a 31 percent increase, and in 2016 is a 29 percent increase from the 2014 complex OFL of 1,001 mt. The increase is due to new data-moderate assessments for brown, China, and copper rockfish conducted in 2013. In 2015-2016, stocks composing the Minor Nearshore Rockfish south complex will remain the same as in 2013-2014. The Minor Nearshore south complex is comprised of black and yellow rockfish (

S. chrysomelas

), China rockfish (

S. nebulosus

), gopher rockfish, (

S. carnatus

), grass rockfish (

S. rastrelliger

), kelp rockfish (

S. atrovirens

), black rockfish (

S. melanops

), blue rockfish (

S. mystinus

), brown rockfish (

S. auriculatus

), calico rockfish (

S. dalli

), copper rockfish (

S. caurinus

), olive rockfish (

S. serranoides

), quillback rockfish (

S. maliger

), and treefish (

S. serriceps

).

Minor Nearshore Rockfish Complex Stocks Assessed in 2013

New coastwide data-moderate assessments were performed for brown, China, and copper rockfish in 2013.

Brown Rockfish

A coastwide data-moderate stock assessment utilizing a XDB-SRA model run was prepared for brown rockfish in 2013. The coastwide brown rockfish stock was estimated to be at 42 percent of unfished spawning biomass. The estimated brown rockfish OFL contribution to the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex north is 1.9 mt in 2015 and 2016, which is a 65.5 percent decrease from the 2014 contribution OFL of 5.5 mt. The estimated brown rockfish OFL contribution to the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex south is 163.8 mt in 2015 and 160.2 mt in 2016, which is a 20 percent decrease in 2015, and is a 22 percent decrease in 2016 from the 2014 contribution OFL of 204.6 mt. These estimates are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

applied to the exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

China Rockfish

An area-specific, data-moderate stock assessment was prepared for China rockfish in 2013. The STAR Panel focused on the XDB-SRA model for China rockfish. The model estimated China rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. to be at 37 percent of unfished spawning biomass, which is below the management target, but above the

MSST. The China rockfish estimate south of 40°10′ N. lat. was estimated to be at 66 percent depletion of unfished spawning biomass, which is above management target. The estimated China rockfish OFL contribution to the Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex is 7.2 mt in 2015 and 7.4 mt in 2016, which is a decrease of 26.5 percent in 2015 and 24.5 percent in 2016 from the 2014 OFL contribution of 9.8 mt. The estimated China rockfish OFL contribution to the Minor Nearshore Rockfish south complex is 55.2 mt in 2015 and 52.7 mt in 2016, which is a 232.5 percent increase in 2015 and a 217.5 percent increase in 2016 from the 2014 OFL contribution of 16.6 mt. These estimates are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

applied to the exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Copper Rockfish

An area-specific, data-moderate stock assessment was prepared for copper rockfish in 2013. The STAR Panel focused on the XDB-SRA model for copper rockfish. The model estimated copper rockfish north of 34°27′ N. lat. to be at 48 percent of unfished spawning biomass, which is above management target. The copper rockfish estimate south of 34°27′ N. lat. was estimated to be 76 percent depletion of unfished spawning biomass, which is above management target. The estimated copper rockfish contribution OFL to the Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex is 10.6 mt in 2015 and 10.3 mt in 2016, which is a 59 percent decrease in 2015 and a 60 percent decrease in 2016 from the 2014 contribution OFL of 26 mt. The estimated OFL contribution to the south complex is 301.1 mt in 2015 and 284.3 mt in 2016, which is a 112.7 percent increase in 2015 and a 100.9 percent increase in 2016 from the 2014 OFL contribution of 141.5 mt. These estimates are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

applied to the exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Shelf Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

Minor Shelf Rockfish (North of 40°10′ N. lat.)

The proposed OFL for the Minor Shelf Rockfish north complex is 2,209 mt in 2015, and is 2,218 mt in 2016 which is a negligible increase in both years from the 2014 complex OFL of 2,195 mt. In 2015-2016, stocks composing the Minor Shelf Rockfish north complex will remain the same as in 2013-2014. The Minor Shelf Rockfish north complex is comprised of: Bronzespotted rockfish (

S. gilli

), bocaccio (

S. paucispinis

), chameleon rockfish (

S. phillipsi

), chilipepper (

S. goodie

), cowcod (

S. levis

), dusky rockfish (

S. ciliates

), dwarf-red (

S. rufianus

), flag rockfish (

S. rubrivinctus

), freckled rockfish (

S. lentiginosus

), greenblotched rockfish (

S. rosenblatti

), greenspotted rockfish (

S. chlorostictus

), greenstriped rockfish (

S. elongates

), 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

), swordspine rockfish (

S. ensifer

), tiger rockfish (

S. nigrocinctus

), and vermilion rockfish (

S. miniatus

).

Minor Shelf Rockfish (South of 40°10′ N. lat.)

The proposed OFL for the Minor Shelf Rockfish south complex is 1,917.9 mt in 2015, and is 1,918.9 mt in 2016, which is a negligible increase in both years from the 2014 complex OFL of 1,912.9 mt. In 2015-2016, stocks composing the Minor Shelf Rockfish south complex will remain the same as in 2013-2014. The Minor Shelf Rockfish south complex is comprised of: Bronzespotted rockfish (

S. gilli

), chameleon rockfish (

S. phillipsi

), dusky rockfish (

S. ciliates

), dwarf-red rockfish (

S. rufianus

), flag rockfish (

S. rubrivinctus

), freckled (

S. lentiginosus

), greenblotched rockfish (

S. rosenblatti

), greenspotted rockfish (

S. chlorostictus

), greenstriped rockfish (

S. elongates

), 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

), swordspine rockfish (

S. ensifer

), tiger rockfish (

S. nigrocinctus

), vermilion rockfish (

S. miniatus

), and yellowtail rockfish (

S. flavidus

).

Minor Shelf Rockfish Complex Stocks Assessed in 2013

A new coastwide data-moderate assessment was performed for stripetail rockfish in 2013.

Stripetail Rockfish

Stripetail rockfish was assessed as a coastwide stock. Catches of stripetail rockfish have been negligible since 2000, and the stock has not been previously assessed. The XDB-SRA model was used in a sensitivity analysis to evaluate probable levels of stock status for stripetail rockfish. The STAR Panel noted that stripetail rockfish is rarely caught and appears to be in an essentially unfished state, as indicated by the trawl survey abundance estimates. There is little information in the trawl survey data to estimate catchability, so abundance estimates are extremely uncertain. However, over a broad range of plausible values for trawl survey catchability, stock depletion estimates were relatively consistent, ranging from 75 percent to 95 percent. The STAR Panel recommended that status of stripetail rockfish can be estimated, but that the extreme uncertainty in abundance estimates precludes using assessment results for setting the OFL. With these model limitations considered, stripetail rockfish (coastwide) was estimated to be at 77.5 percent of unfished spawning biomass, which is well above management target. The OFL contribution of stripetail rockfish to the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex OFLSs (north and south of 40°10′ N. lat.) was not able to be estimated using data moderate methods. Therefore, utilizing data-poor DB-SRA methods, the stripetail contribution OFL to the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north is the same as the 2014 contribution OFL estimates: 40.1 mt in 2015 and 2016. The stripetail contribution OFL to the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex south is the same as the 2014 contribution OFL estimates: 23.6 mt in 2015 and 2016.

Minor Slope Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

Minor Slope Rockfish (North of 40°10′ N. lat.)

The proposed OFL for the Minor Slope Rockfish north complex is 1,831 mt in 2015, and is 1,844 mt in 2016, which is roughly a 17 percent increase in 2015 and a 18 percent increase in 2016 from the 2014 northern complex OFL of 1,553 mt. The increase is due to new full assessments for aurora and rougheye/blackspotted rockfish and a data-moderate assessment for sharpchin rockfish conducted in 2013. The Minor

Slope Rockfish north complex is comprised of: 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

), sunset rockfish (

S. crocotulus

) which is a species proposed to be added to the PCGFMP, and yellowmouth rockfish (

S. reedi

).

Minor Slope Rockfish (South of 40°10′ N. lat.)

The proposed OFL for the Minor Slope Rockfish south complex is 813 mt in 2015, and is 814 mt in 2016, which is roughly an 18 percent increase in 2015 and 2016 from the 2014 southern complex OFL of 685 mt. The increase is due to new full assessments for aurora and rougheye/blackspotted rockfish and a data-moderate assessment for sharpchin rockfish conducted in 2013. The Minor Slope Rockfish south complex is comprised of: 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

), sunset rockfish (

S. crocotulus

) which is a species proposed to be added to the PCGFMP, and yellowmouth rockfish (

S. reedi

).

Minor Slope Rockfish Complex Stocks Assessed in 2013

As mentioned above, a new coastwide data-moderate assessment was performed for sharpchin rockfish, and new full coastwide stock assessments for aurora and rougheye/blackspotted rockfish were performed in 2013.

Sharpchin Rockfish

Sharpchin rockfish was assessed as a data-moderate coastwide stock utilizing exSSS in 2013. The coastwide sharpchin rockfish stock was estimated to be 89 percent of unfished spawning biomass, which is well above management target. The proposed sharpchin rockfish OFL contribution to the Minor Slope Rockfish complex north is 332.8 mt in 2015 and 323.2 mt in 2016, which is a 55 percent increase in 2015 and a 50 percent increase in 2016 from the 2014 contribution OFL of 214.5 mt. The proposed sharpchin rockfish OFL contribution to the Minor Slope Rockfish south complex OFL is 83.2 mt in 2015 and 80.8 mt in 2016, which is a roughly 8 percent increase in 2015 and a 5 percent increase in 2016 from the 2014 contribution OFL of 76.4 mt. These estimates are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

applied to the exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Aurora Rockfish

A full coastwide stock assessment was prepared in 2013 for aurora rockfish. The coastwide OFL contributions were apportioned north and south of 40°10′ N. lat. based on the average swept area biomass estimates from the triennial survey. The assessment estimated that the spawning stock biomass at the start of 2013 was 1,673 mt, which is 64 percent of its unfished biomass. The proposed OFL contribution to the Minor Slope Rockfish north complex is 17.4 mt for 2015 and 17.5 mt for 2016, which is a 13 percent increase in 2015, and a 13.6 percent increase in 2016 from the 2014 northern contribution OFL of 15.4 mt. The proposed OFL contribution to the Minor Slope Rockfish south complex is 74.3 mt for 2015 and 2016, which is a 184.6 percent increase from the 2014 contribution OFL of 26.1 mt. These OFL contributions are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish

A full coastwide stock assessment was prepared in 2013 for rougheye/blackspotted rockfish off Washington, Oregon, and California. The assessment estimated that the spawning stock biomass at the start of 2013 was 2,552 mt and 47 percent of its unfished biomass. The proposed OFL contribution to the Minor Slope Rockfish north complex is 201.9 mt in 2015 and 206.8 in 2016, which is an increase of 184 percent in 2015 and an increase of 191 percent in 2016 from the 2014 contribution OFL of 71.1 mt. The proposed OFL contribution to the Minor Slope Rockfish south complex is 4.1 mt in 2015 and 4.2 in 2016, which is an increase of 925 percent in 2015, and an increase of 950 percent in 2016 from the 2014 contribution OFL of 0.4 mt. These estimates are based on the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

50

%

as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2013 stock assessment.

Other Flatfish Complex

The Other Flatfish complex contains most of the flatfish species managed in the PCGFMP (with the exception of arrowtooth flounder, Dover sole, English sole, petrale sole, and starry founder). These species include butter sole (

Isopsetta isolepis

), curlfin sole (

Pleuronichthys decurrens

), flathead sole (

Hippoglossoides elassodon

), Pacific sanddab (

Citharichthys sordidus

), rex sole (

Glyptocephalus zachirus

), rock sole (

Lepidopsetta bilineata

), and sand sole (

Psettichthys melanostictus

). The proposed OFL for the Other Flatfish complex is 11,453 mt in 2015 and is 9,645 mt in 2016, an increase of 13 percent in 2015 and a decrease of 4 percent in 2016 from the 2014 OFL of 10,060 mt.

Other Flatfish Complex Stocks Assessed in 2013

A new coastwide data-moderate assessment was performed for rex sole, and a full coastwide stock assessment for Pacific sanddab was performed in 2013.

Rex Sole

Rex sole was assessed as a coastwide resource in 2013. The data-moderate exSSS model was selected for the rex sole stock assessment. The STAR Panel concluded that the base model provides an adequate basis for management, but noted that the inability to fit the NWFSC survey index (as one time series) implies some model mis-specification. There is considerably more confidence in stock status estimates than in the biomass scale. With these model limitations considered, rex sole (coastwide) was estimated to be at 79 percent of unfished spawning biomass, which is well above management target. The proposed OFL contribution to the other flatfish complex of 5,764 mt in 2015 and 3,956 mt in 2016 is a 31 percent increase in 2015 and is a 9.5 percent decrease in 2016 from the 2014 OFL contribution of 4,371.5 mt.

Pacific Sanddab

A full coastwide assessment for Pacific sanddab was conducted in 2013, although it did not result in an estimate of depletion as a measure of stock status. Therefore, utilizing data-poor DB-SRA methods, the Pacific sanddab OFL contribution to the Other Flatfish complex is 4,801 mt in 2015 and 2016, which is from the same as the 2014 OFL contribution.

Other Fish Complex

The Other Fish complex contains other species managed in the PCGFMP and changes to this complex are proposed for the 2015-2016 biennium. The Other Fish complex species are proposed to include cabezon (

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

) off Washington, kelp greenling (

Hexagrammos decagrammus

) off Washington, Oregon, and California (as three state-specific stocks), and leopard

shark (

Triakis semifasciata

). Of these five stocks, only kelp greenling off California, cabezon off Washington, and leopard shark have OFL contributions to the Other Fish complex. Spiny dogfish, which were managed within the Other Fish complex in 2013-2014, are proposed for management with species-specific specifications in 2015-2016. The other species managed in the Other Fish complex in 2013-2014 are proposed for designation as EC species. No full or data-moderate stock assessments were performed for any of these stocks in 2013. Only Kelp greenling in California, cabezon in Washington, and leopard shark contribute to the Other Fish complex harvest specifications, while kelp greenling in Oregon and Washington do not, though they are still part of the Other Fish complex. The proposed OFL for the Other Fish complex is 286 mt, which is a 4,104 percent reduction from the 2014 OFL of 6,802 mt due to the proposed reorganization of the complex. The kelp greenling OFL contribution (off California) to the Other Fish complex is proposed to be 118.0 mt, which is the same as in 2014. The leopard shark OFL contribution to the Other Fish complex is proposed to be 167.1 mt, which is the same as in 2014. For more information on the designation of ecosystem component species see the “Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan” section below.

B. Proposed ABCs for 2015 and 2016

The ABC is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended P star-Sigma approach determines the amount by which the OFL is reduced to establish the ABC. Under this approach, the SSC recommends a sigma (σ) value. The σ value is generally based on the scientific uncertainty in the biomass estimates generated from stock assessments. After the SSC determines the appropriate σ value the Council chooses a P star (P*) based on its chosen level of risk aversion considering the scientific uncertainties. As the P* value is reduced, the probability of the ABC being greater than the “true” OFL becomes lower. In combination, the P* and σ values determine the amount by which the OFL will be reduced to establish the SSC-endorsed ABC.

Since 2011, the SSC has quantified major sources of scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and recommended a σ value of 0.36 for category one stocks, a σ value of 0.72 for category two stocks, and a σ value of 1.44 for category three stocks. For category two and three stocks there is typically greater scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL because the stock assessments have less data to inform them. Therefore, the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that recommended for stocks with quantitative stock assessments. Assuming the same P* is applied, a larger σ value results in a larger reduction from the OFL. For 2015-2016, the Council continued the general policy of using the SSC-recommended σ values for each species category. However, an exception to the general σ values assigned to each category was made for aurora rockfish and widow rockfish, as described below.

The PCGFMP specifies that the upper limit of P* will be 0.45. A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional reduction for scientific uncertainty beyond the sigma value reduction. A lower P* is more risk averse than a higher value, meaning that the probability of the ABC being greater than the “true” OFL is lower. For 2015-2016, the Council largely maintained the P* policies it established for the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 bienniums. The Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for all category one species, except sablefish, as described below. Combining the category one σ value of 0.36 the P* value of 0.45 results in a reduction of 4.4 percent from the OFL when deriving the ABC. For individually managed category two and three stocks, the Council's general policy was to use a P* of 0.4, although the Council recommended a P* of 0.45 for all of the stocks managed in complexes (except stocks in the Other Flatfish complex). When combined with the σ values of 0.72 and 1.44 for category two and three stocks, a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 16.7 percent and 30.6 percent reductions, respectively. Specifically, the Council recommended using P* values of 0.40 for all individually managed category two and three species, except cowcod, English sole, lingcod between 42° and 40°10′ N. lat., and yellowtail rockfish 40°10′ N. lat., as described below.

Additional information about the σ values used for different species categories as well as the P* − σ approach can be found in the proposed and final rules from the 2011-2012 biennium (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010; 76 FR 27508, May 11, 2011) and the 2013-2014 biennium (77 FR 67974, November 14, 2012; 78 FR 580, January 3, 2013). A discussion of the P* values used in combination with the σ values follows. Tables 1a and 2a of this proposed rule present the harvest specifications for each stock and stock complex, including the proposed ABCs, while the footnotes to these tables describe how the proposed specifications where derived. Details can also be found in Chapter 2.1.2 of the DEIS (see Supplementary Information section above).

1. Overfished Species ABCs

Cowcod

The Council recommended revising the P* values in 2015-2016 for cowcod south of 40°10′ N. lat. from those that have been used since 2011. Cowcod is a category 2 stock in the Conception Area and a category 3 stock in the Monterey Area and has had a P* value lower than or equal to 0.40 since 2011 (0.35 in Conception an 0.40 in Monterey for 2011-2012 and 0.40 in both areas in 2013-2014). A new stock assessment was conducted for cowcod in 2013, however the SSC recommended that cowcod remain a category 2 stock in the Conception Area and a category 3 stock in the Monterey Area. Cowcod ACLs are not based on the ABC, but rather on the rebuilding plan; therefore, the change in P* to 0.45 for cowcod will not impact the ACL or rebuilding but will reduce the reduction from the OFL for scientific uncertainty (from an 16.7 percent reduction to an 8.7 percent reduction in the Conception Area and from a 30.6 percent reduction to a 16.6 percent reduction in the Monterey Area). The proposed cowcod ABCs are 59.9 mt and 61.5 mt in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

2. Non-Overfished Species ABCs for Individually Managed Stocks

Several species changed categories in 2015-2016 as a result of updated stock assessments or due to a new assessment or being assessed for the first time. The σ value and P* for these species was updated accordingly when determining the proposed ABCs for 2015-2016, as described below.

English Sole

The species category for English sole was revised for 2015-2016 from a category one to a category two stock. The previous full assessment for English sole (2007) was a category 1 assessment. The SSC recommended the 2013 data-moderate assessments for English sole for use in management as the best available science, and recommended that it be considered a category two stock based on the data-moderate assessment; therefore, the σ value of 0.72 was used. The Council recommended using the same P* value in 2015-2016 for English sole as was used since 2011. Though the stock was downgraded from category one to category two for 2015-2016, the Council recommended a P* of 0.45 because the

stock is healthy (88 percent of its unfished biomass in 2013) and is underutilized (maximum annual catch of English sole from 2009-2012 has been less than 10 percent of the proposed 2015-2016 ABCs). A P* of 0.45 for English sole results in an 8.7 percent reduction from the OFL. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for English sole are 9,853 mt and 7,204 mt, respectively.

Lingcod

The Council recommended revising the P* values in 2015-2016 for lingcod between 42° and 40°10′ N. lat. from those that have been used since 2011. Lingcod was assessed in 2009 and the SSC recommended that lingcod north of 42° N. lat. be considered a category one stock (σ=0.36) and that lingcod south of 42° N. lat. be considered a category two stock (σ=0.72). Since 2011, the Council recommended P* values corresponding to the category for these two areas: 0.45 north of 42° N. lat. and 0.40 south of 42° N. lat. Since the 2009 assessment, the management line for lingcod shifted from 42° to 40°10′ N. lat. and the harvest specifications were re-apportioned to match the new management line. For 2015-2016, the Council's recommended ABC for lingcod north of 40°10′ N. lat. was calculated using a P* of 0.45 and the ABC south of 40°10′ N. lat. was calculated using a P* of 0.40. Increasing the P* from 0.40 to 0.45 between 42° to 40°10′ N. lat. means a smaller reduction from the OFL for scientific uncertainty. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for lingcod north of 40°10′ N. lat. are 2,830 mt and 2,719 mt, respectively. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for lingcod south of 40°10′ N. lat. are 1,004 mt and 946 mt, respectively.

Longspine Thornyhead

The species category for longspine thornyhead was revised for 2015-2016 from a category one to a category two stock. The longspine thornyhead assessment lacks age data and cannot discern year class strength, therefore the SSC recommended longspine thornyhead be considered a category two stock, and the σ value of 0.72 was used. The Council recommended a P* of 0.40 for longspine thornyhead, which results in a 16.7 percent reduction from the OFL for this category two stock. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for longspine thornyhead are 4,171 mt and 3,968 mt, respectively.

Shortspine Thornyhead

The species category for shortspine thornyhead was revised for 2015-2016 from a category one to a category two stock. The shortspine thornyhead assessment lacks age data and cannot discern year class strength, therefore the SSC recommended shortspine thornyhead be considered a category two stock, and the σ value of 0.72 was used. The Council recommended a P* of 0.40 for shortspine thornyhead, which results in a 16.7 percent reduction from the OFL for this category two stock. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for shortspine thornyhead are 2,668 mt and 2,640 mt, respectively.

Sablefish

The SSC recommended that sablefish be considered a category 1 stock and recommended the corresponding σ of 0.36. The Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for all category one species, except sablefish, where the Council recommended continuing use of a more precautionary P* value of 0.40 due to uncertainty in the 2011 assessment. A P* of 0.40 and σ of 0.36 results in an 8.7 percent reduction from the OFL for this category one stock. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for sablefish, coastwide, are 7,173 mt and 7,784 mt, respectively.

Spiny Dogfish

Spiny dogfish are proposed to be managed with species-specific harvest specifications for the first time in 2015-2016. The Council recommended revising the P* value in 2015-2016 for spiny dogfish from 0.30 to 0.40. For 2013-2014 the Council recommended a precautionary reduction in the P* value greater than for other category 2 stocks because of uncertain catch history of the stock, which are largely discarded in west coast fisheries, and due to the indication in the stock assessment that the F

MSY

harvest rate proxy of F

45

%

may be too aggressive; the more conservative P* value of 0.30 was used to calculate the ABC contribution of spiny dogfish to the other fish complex ABC (77 FR 67974, November 14, 2012). There has been no new assessment or assessment update for 2015-2016 and spiny dogfish remains a healthy category two stock. However, since the 2011 assessment and decisions on the 2013-2014 harvest specifications, the SSC has completed a meta-analysis of elasmobranch F

MSY

harvest rates. Given this work, the Council recommended a P* of 0.40 to reflect the improvements in understanding of F

MSY

, but did not recommend a P* of 0.45 as the stock is considered a category two stock. The P* of 0.40 and σ of 0.72 results in a 16.7 percent reduction from the OFL. The 2015 and 2016 ABCs for spiny dogfish are 2,101 mt and 2,085 mt, respectively.

Widow Rockfish

As in 2013 and 2014 for widow rockfish, the SSC recommended a larger σ value of 0.41 rather than the 0.36 that would typically be used for category one stocks to better represent uncertainty in stock-recruit steepness, which is considered the major source of uncertainty in the widow rockfish assessment. The Council recommended a P* of 0.45, resulting in a 5 percent reduction from the OFL for this category one stock. The 2015 and 2016 ABCs for widow rockfish are 3,929 mt and 3,790 mt, respectively.

Yellowtail Rockfish North of 40°10′ N. Lat.

The species category for yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. was revised for 2015-2016 from a category one to a category two stock. The previous full assessment for yellowtail rockfish (2004) was a category 1 assessment. The SSC recommended use of the 2013 data-moderate assessments for yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. for use in management as the best available science, and recommended that it be considered a category two stock based on the data-moderate assessments; therefore, the σ value of 0.72 was used. The Council recommended using the same P* value in 2015-2016 for yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. as was used since 2011. Though the stock was downgraded from category one to category two for 2015-2016, the Council recommended a P* of 0.45 because the stock is healthy (69 percent of its unfished biomass in 2013) and is underutilized (maximum annual catch of yellowtail rockfish from 2009-2012 has been less than 20 percent of the proposed 2015-2016 ABC). A P* of 0.45 for yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. results in an 8.7 percent reduction from the OFL. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ABCs for yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. are 6,590 mt and 6,344 mt, respectively.

3. Stock Complex ABCs

Similar to the past two biennial cycles, the Council applied the two-step σ and P* approach for stocks managed in stock complexes. For each of the stock complexes, the component species ABC contributions were calculated and summed to derive the complex ABC. The Council's SSC categorized and applied the appropriate σ value for individual stocks managed in stock complexes. For all stocks managed in complexes, except aurora rockfish, the SSC-recommended sigma values are assigned to species category. The

Council recommended a P* of 0.45 for all of the stocks managed in complexes, except stocks in the Other Flatfish complex, as described below.

Minor Rockfish Complexes

For the six minor rockfish complexes, which are comprised of a mix of all three categories of stocks, the Council recommended a P* of 0.45. ABCs for the six minor rockfish complexes can be found in Table 1a and 2a to Subpart C.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. Lat.

For all stocks managed in the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex the SSC-recommended sigma values by species category. Because of new stock assessments the species categories for brown rockfish, China rockfish, and copper rockfish were revised for 2015-2016 from category three stocks to category two stocks. Accordingly, the σ values of 0.72 were used for those species.

For the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex north of 40°10′ N. lat., a complex ABC of 77 mt is proposed for each year in 2015 and 2016. The proposed ABC for the Minor Nearshore Rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat. in 2015, is 1,169 mt, while in 2016 the ABC is proposed to be 1,148 mt. The 2015 and 2016 complex ABCs are the summed contributions of the component stocks' ABCs.

Minor Shelf Rockfish Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. Lat.

For all stocks managed in the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex the SSC-recommended sigma values by species category.

For Minor Shelf Rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ABC is 1,944 mt, and the proposed 2016 ABC is 1,953 mt. For Minor Shelf Rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed ABC is 1,625 mt, and the proposed 2016 ABC is 1,626 mt. As with the other stock complexes the 2015 and 2016 ABCs are the summed contributions of the component stocks' ABCs.

Minor Slope Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. Lat.

For all stocks managed in the Minor Slope Rockfish complex, except aurora rockfish, the SSC-recommended sigma values are assigned by species category. As a result of a new stock assessment the species category for aurora rockfish was revised for 2015-2016 from category three to category one. For aurora rockfish, the SSC recommended a larger σ value of 0.39, rather than the 0.36 that would typically be used for category one stocks, to better represent uncertainty in the estimated spawning biomass caused by sensitivity to the natural mortality rates, which are considered the major source of uncertainty in the aurora rockfish assessment. As a result of new stock assessments, the species categories for rougheye/blackspotted rockfish and sharpchin rockfish were revised for 2015-2016 from category three stocks to category two stocks. Accordingly, the σ values of 0.72 were used.

For Minor slope rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ABC is 1,693 mt and the proposed 2016 ABC is 1,706 mt. For Minor slope rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ABC is 705 mt and the proposed 2016 ABC is 705 mt.

Other Flatfish Complex

For the Other Flatfish complex, which is comprised mostly of category three stocks (rex sole is category two), a more precautionary P* of 0.40 was recommended. A σ of 0.72 was used for rex sole and a σ of 1.44 was used for all other stocks. The 2015 and 2016 ABCs for the Other Flatfish complex are 8,749 mt and 7,243 mt, respectively.

Other Fish Complex

For the newly reconfigured Other Fish complex (as described in “Stock Complex OFLs” for the “Other Fish Complex” above and in “Stock Complexes” below), which is composed entirely of category three stocks, a P* value of 0.45 was recommended. With the proposed reconfiguration, the species that would remain in the Other Fish complex have more similar life history characteristics, depth distributions, and vulnerabilities to potential overfishing than the Other Fish complex as it was configured in 2014. This reduces the risk of overfishing for species that remain in the Other Fish complex, as some of the stocks that were removed would have inflated the complex-level harvest specifications. While a higher P* was chosen than is usual for category three stocks, the ABC for the newly reconfigured complex was further reduced by the Council's recommendation to only include the contributing OFL/ABC for some of the species for calculating the harvest specifications for the Other Fish complex. Kelp greenling in California, cabezon in Washington, and leopard shark contribute to the complex harvest specifications, while kelp greenling in Oregon and Washington do not, though they are still part of the Other Fish complex. A P* of 0.45 for these category three stocks results in a 16.7 percent reduction from the OFL. The 2015 and 2016 ABCs for the Other Fish complex are 242 mt and 243 mt, respectively.

C. Proposed ACLs for 2015 and 2016

ACLs are specified for each stock and stock complex that is “in the fishery”. An ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC to address conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty, or other factors necessary to meet management objectives. All sources of fishing related mortality (tribal, commercial groundfish and non groundfish, recreational, and exempted fishing permits (EFPs)), including retained and discard mortality, plus research catch are counted against an ACL. The ACL serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures (AMs). If ACLs are exceeded more than one time in four years, then improvements to or additional AMs, for example catch monitoring and inseason adjustments to fisheries, may need to be implemented.

Under the PCGFMP harvest policies, when a stock's depletion level falls below B

MSY

or the proxy for B

MSY

, which is the biomass level that produces MSY (B

25

%

for assessed flatfish, B

40

%

for all other groundfish stocks), but is above the overfished level (MSST- B

12.5

%

for assessed flatfish, B

25

%

for all other groundfish stocks), the stock is said to be in the “precautionary zone” or below the precautionary threshold. In general, when recommending ACLs, the Council follows a risk-averse policy by recommending an ACL that is below the ABC when there is a perception the stock is below its B

MSY

, or to accommodate management uncertainty, socioeconomic concerns, or other considerations. When a stock is below the precautionary threshold the harvest policies reduce the fishing mortality rate. The further the stock biomass is below the precautionary threshold, the greater the reduction in ACL relative to the ABC, until at B

10

%

for a stock with a B

MSY

proxy of B

40

%

or B

5

%

for a stock with a B

MSY

proxy of B

25

%

, the ACL would be set at zero. These policies, known as the 40-10 and 25-5 harvest control rules, respectively, are designed to prevent stocks from becoming overfished and serve as an interim rebuilding policy for stocks that are below the overfished threshold. For stock complexes, the ACL is set for the complex in its entirety and is less than or equal to the sum of the individual component ABCs. The ACL may be adjusted below the sum of component ABCs to address the factors described above. Under the PCGFMP, the Council may recommend setting the ACL at a

different level than what the these harvest control rules specify as long as the ACL does not exceed the ABC and complies with the requirements of the MSA. For many of the species or stock complexes “in the fishery”, there is no new information to inform changes to harvest policies, or the Council did not identify a need for a change in policy from updated information. Therefore, for those species or stock complexes the Council chose to maintain the ACL policies from the previous biennial cycle. A summary table of the proposed ACL policies for 2015-2016 is presented below. The following sections discuss proposed ACLs for overfished species, healthy and precautionary zone species, and stock complexes.

1. Overfished Species ACLs

When a stock has been declared overfished a rebuilding plan must be developed and the ACLs for these stocks are therefore set according to the rebuilding plans. The following seven overfished groundfish stocks would be managed under rebuilding plans in 2015-2016: bocaccio south of 40°10′ N. lat.; canary rockfish; cowcod south of 40°10′ N. lat.; darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch (POP), petrale sole, and yelloweye rockfish. The proposed rules for the 2011-2012 (75 FR 67810), 2013-2014 (77 FR 67974) harvest specifications, and management measures contain extensive discussions on the management approach used for overfished species, which are not repeated here. Further, the SAFE document posted on the Council's Web site at

http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/

contains a detailed description of each overfished species, its status and management as well how rebuilding analyses are conducted. Finally, appendix F to the FMP contains the most recent rebuilding plan parameters as well as a history of each overfished species and can be found at

http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/

.

The proposed SPR or harvest control rule for each stock managed under a rebuilding plan, the resulting ACLs, and summarized information about rebuilding progress are presented below. Detailed information is also available in the relevant stock assessments, stock assessment updates, rebuilding analyses, and the draft EIS for this action, which are all available from NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

).

Bocaccio

The 2011 rebuilding analysis indicated that bocaccio is showing steady progress towards a rebuilt status under the current rebuilding plan described in 50 CFR 660.40(a). This progress was confirmed by the 2011 update to the rebuilding analysis and the 2013 update. The updated assessment predicted the stock would be rebuilt in 2015. However, the SSC recommended maintaining the rebuilding plan for the 2015-2016 biennium until a full stock assessment can confirm that the stock is rebuilt.

When an SPR harvest rate of 77.7 percent from the current rebuilding plan is applied to the biomass estimate from the 2013 assessment update, it results in the proposed ACLs of 349 mt in 2015 and 362 mt in 2016. Because rebuilding progress is considered adequate, and the 2011 assessment update supports our fundamental understanding of the stock, the Council's recommendation was to maintain the rebuilding plan currently in the FMP and 50 CFR 660.40(a) (

i.e.,

no modifications to T

TARGET

or SPR harvest rate).

Canary Rockfish

Due to progress on rebuilding and no changes in our understanding of the biology of the stock, the SSC did not recommended preparing a new canary rockfish rebuilding analysis in 2013. A catch report was drafted for canary that showed the 2010-2012 total catches were below the canary rockfish ACL. The Council recommended maintaining the canary rockfish rebuilding plan.

The Council's recommended ACLs are 122 mt in 2015 and 125 mt in 2016, which maintains the current SPR harvest rate of 88.7. The preferred ACLs are intended to provide a level of harvest that rebuilds quickly, yet takes into account the needs of fishing communities. Also, the proposed management measures and catch allocations are projected to result in canary rockfish total catch mortality less than the annual ACLs. Managing the fishery to a level that is less than the annual ACLs is intended to ensure total mortality stays below the ACL, to allow the stock to rebuild faster, and to reduce the likelihood that inseason management changes will be needed to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded. Because the rebuilding progress was considered adequate, no changes to the rebuilding plan are proposed.

Cowcod

Modifications are necessary to the cowcod rebuilding plan because the 2013 rebuilding analysis showed that the estimated T

MAX

is nine years earlier than the current T

TARGET

. The Council's recommendation was to maintain the current harvest rate but modify the T

TARGET

as well as implement an Annual Catch Target (ACT) below the ACL. A full assessment and rebuilding analysis was conducted for cowcod. Because the model used in the assessment (XDB-SRA) is incompatible with spawning potential ratios, harvest control rules were translated into exploitation rates. The 10 mt ACLs proposed for 2015 and 2016 are based on an exploitation rate (catch over age 11+ biomass of 0.007) translated into an equivalent SPR harvest rate of 82.7 percent which results in a median time to rebuild and proposed new T

TARGET

of 2020. No other rebuilding plan parameter changes were recommended. The 4 mt ACTs proposed for 2015 and 2016 were recommended to accommodate extra mortality in research, which is a large source of uncertainty for cowcod because of the lack of data from the core habitat areas. The ACL contribution for the area north of Point Conception was calculated by using the fishing mortality rate from south of Point Conception applied to the biomass estimate for north of Point Conception from DB-SRA. The SSC recommended this method over the previous method of simply doubling the ACL from south of Pt Conception to calculate the ACL for the entire area because it is more scientifically justified.

Darkblotched Rockfish

The 2013 assessment indicates that darkblotched rockfish is showing steady progress towards rebuilding under the current rebuilding plan (50 CFR 660.40(d)) and is estimated to be rebuilt by the start of 2015. The SSC recommended maintaining the rebuilding plan for the 2015-2016 biennium until a full assessment can be done in 2015 to confirm this result. Because the stock is estimated to be rebuilt in 2015 no new rebuilding analysis was conducted. The proposed ACLs of 338 mt in 2015 and 346 mt in 2016 result from application of the SPR harvest rate of 64.9 percent to information from the 2013 stock assessment, and have a median time to rebuild of 2017, which is one year longer than T

F=0

. Because the rebuilding progress indicated in the 2011 assessment and rebuilding analysis was considered adequate, and supports our fundamental understanding of the stock, the Council recommendation was to maintain the rebuilding plan currently in the FMP and regulation (

i.e.,

no

modifications to T

TARGET

or SPR harvest rate).

Petrale Sole

The 2013 stock assessment and rebuilding analysis projected the petrale sole biomass to be at 22 percent of its unfished biomass and showing strong progress towards rebuilt status. The stock is predicted to be rebuilt by the start of 2014. The ACLs, derived by applying the 25-5 harvest control rule, proposed in this rule are 2,816 mt and 2,910 mt in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The ACLs derived from the 25-5 harvest control rule are projected to rebuild the stock by 2014, the same year as T

F=0

. Because the rebuilding progress was considered adequate, and the 2013 assessment supports our fundamental understanding of the stock, the Council recommendation was to maintain the rebuilding plan currently in the PCGFMP and at § 660.40(f) (

i.e.,

no modifications to T

TARGET

or harvest control rule).

POP

No new rebuilding analysis was conducted for POP. A catch reported was provided in 2013 that indicated 2010-2012 catches were below the ACL.

The Council has recommended maintaining the rebuilding strategy in the current rebuilding plan, with an SPR harvest rate of 86.4 percent, resulting in ACLs of 158 mt in 2015 and 164 mt in 2015. The proposed management measures and catch allocations for 2015-2016 are projected to result in POP total catch mortality less than the annual ACLs. Managing the fishery to a level that is less than the annual ACLs is intended to help ensure total mortality stays below the ACL, to allow the stock to rebuild faster, and to reduce the likelihood that inseason management changes will be needed to keep mortality within the ACL. The ACL for POP has the greatest effect on the northern trawl fishery (both the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors and the Shorebased IFQ Program).

Yelloweye Rockfish

No new rebuilding analysis was conducted for yelloweye rockfish. The 2011 rebuilding analysis was used to inform the rebuilding projections for the 2015-2016 biennium. The 2011 rebuilding analysis indicated that yelloweye rockfish is showing steady progress towards rebuilt status under the current rebuilding plan. The rebuilding analysis estimates that yelloweye rockfish will rebuild to B

MSY

seven years earlier than the T

TARGET

of 2074 specified in the current rebuilding plan if the existing harvest control rule (SPR=76.0 percent) remains in place. The proposed ACLs of 18 mt in 2015 and 19 mt in 2016 results from applying an SPR harvest rate of 76.0 percent to current biomass. Because rebuilding progress was considered adequate, and the 2011 assessment supports our fundamental understanding of the stock, the Council recommended maintaining the rebuilding plan currently in the PCGFMP and specified at § 660.40 (

i.e.,

no modifications to T

TARGET

or SPR harvest rate).

2. Non-Overfished Species ACLs for Individually Managed Stocks

For the following individually managed species the Council maintained the ACL policy from the last biennium to establish the 2015-2016 ACLs: arrowtooth flounder, black rockfish (WA, and OR-CA), cabezon (OR, CA), California scorpionfish, chilipepper south of 40°10′ N. lat., lingcod south of 40°10′ N. lat., longnose skate, Pacific cod, sablefish, splitnose south of 40°10′ N. lat., and starry flounder.

The Council considered new policies or information relative to the ACLs for the following healthy and precautionary zone species: Dover sole, English sole, lingcod south of 40°10′ N. lat. (specifically between 42° N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat.), longspine thornyhead, shortbelly, shortspine thornyhead, spiny dogfish, widow rockfish, and yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat.

Dover Sole

A Dover sole assessment was done in 2011, which indicated the stock was healthy with a 2011 spawning stock biomass depletion of 83.7 percent of unfished biomass. Rather than set the ACLs equal to the ABCs of 63,929 mt in 2015 and 56,615 mt in 2016, the proposed 2015 and 2016 ACLs maintain a strategy of setting a constant catch level below the ABC. Two ACL alternatives were considered for 2015-2016: 25,000 mt and 50,000 mt. The Council recommended ACLs of 50,000 mt for 2015 and 2016. The stock is projected to remain healthy while accommodating the current level of catch. Higher sablefish ACLs are proposed for 2015 and 2016 and, given that the trawl sablefish allocation can dictate the amount of Dover sole that can be accessed in the IFQ fishery, the Council recommended higher Dover sole ACLs. Additionally, the Council noted that most of the Dover sole catch is from the IFQ fishery, where stringent monitoring is in place to prevent exceeding the ACL.

English Sole

A new data-moderate English sole assessment was done in 2013, which indicated the stock was healthy with a 2013 spawning stock at 88 percent of its unfished biomass. The Council recommended the ACL be set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B

25

%

. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ACLs are 9,853 mt and 7,204 mt, respectively. Since the ACL is set equal to the ABC, proposed changes to how the English sole ABC is calculated, affect a change to the ACL policy. Proposed ABC calculations for English sole are describe above in “Non-overfished species ABCs for individually managed stocks”.

Lingcod

Lingcod are distributed coastwide with harvest specifications based on two area stock assessments that were conducted in 2009 for the areas north and south of the California-Oregon border at 42° N. lat. The stock assessments indicate west coast lingcod stocks are healthy with the stock depletion estimated for lingcod off Washington and Oregon to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass, and lingcod off California estimated to be at 74 percent of its unfished biomass at the start of 2009. As in 2013-2014, the lingcod ACLs for 2015-2016 are being proposed for the areas north and south of the current 40°10′ N. lat. management line rather than north and south of the California-Oregon border (42° N. lat.), which is where the stock assessment splits the stocks. The adjusted specifications for lingcod were based on the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center trawl survey. The swept area biomass estimates calculated annually (2003-2010) in the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center trawl survey indicated that 48 percent of the lingcod biomass for the stock south of 42° N. lat. occurred between 40°10′ N. lat. and 42° N. lat., and the specifications were adjusted accordingly. Because the stock in both areas is above its target biomass of B

40

%

the proposed 2015 and 2016 lingcod ACLs are set equal to the ABCs of 2,830 mt in 2015 and 2,719 mt in 2016 for the stock north of 40°10′ N. lat. and 1,004 mt in 2015 and 946 mt in 2016 for the stock south of 40°10′ N. lat. Since the ACLs are set equal to the ABCs, proposed changes to how the lingcod ABCs are calculated affect a change to the ACL policy. Proposed ABC calculations for lingcod are describe above in “Non-overfished species ABCs for individually managed stocks”.

Longspine Thornyhead

A new, full longspine thornyhead assessment was done in 2013 that indicated the stock was healthy with a 2013 spawning stock at 75 percent of its unfished biomass. The Council revised its ACL policy for longspine thornyhead and recommended the ACL be set equal to the ABC, but is recommending maintaining the Conception area management line at 34°27′ N. lat. because the stock is above its target biomass of B

40

%

and because ten more years of survey data were used to inform the new 2013 assessment.

Until 2013, the most recent stock assessment for longspine thornyhead was conducted in 2005. The ACL policy for longspine thornyhead in the last cycle took an additional precautionary adjustment (25 percent reduction north of 34°27′ N. lat. and 50 percent reduction south of 34°27′ N. lat.) to reduce the ACLs from the OFLs. This reduction was intended to address concerns that there was a limited amount of fishery independent data used to inform the 2005 assessment, particularly in the Conception area. For the 2005 assessment, the NWFSC combination shelf-slope survey had just begun in its current configuration, so the data from 2003-2004 were used. The NWFSC combination shelf-slope survey now has ten years of observations (2003-2012) incorporated into the 2013 assessments for longspine thornyhead.

As in previous cycles, the Council recommended apportioning the coastwide longspine thornyhead ACLs north and south of 34°27′ N. lat. based on the portion of the biomass estimated to occur north of Point Conception. Apportionment was based on the relative swept-area biomass estimates (2003-2012) from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey. The Council recommended longspine thornyhead ACLs of 3,170 mt north of 34°27′ N. lat. and 1,001 mt south of 34°27′ N. lat. for 2015 and 3,015 mt north of 34°27′ N. lat. and 952 mt south of 34°27′ N. lat. for 2016. These ACLs are set equal to the ABC and then apportioned north and south of south of 34°27′ N. lat.; 76 percent to the north and 24 percent to the south.

Shortspine Thornyhead

A new, full shortspine thornyhead assessment was done in 2013 that indicated the stock was healthy with a 2013 spawning stock at 74 percent of its unfished biomass. The Council revised its ACL policy for shortspine thornyhead and recommended the ACL be set equal to the ABC, but is recommending maintaining the Conception area management line at 34°27′ N. lat. because the stock is above its target biomass of B

40

%

and because ten more years of survey data were used to inform the new 2013 assessment (see longspine thornyhead discussion above).

Until 2013, the most recent stock assessment for these two stocks was conducted in 2005. The ACL policy for shortspine thornyhead in the last cycle took an additional precautionary adjustment (50 percent reduction south of 34°27′ N. lat.) to reduce the ACL from the OFL to address concerns that there was a limited amount of fishery independent data used to inform the 2005 assessment, particularly in the Conception area.

As in previous cycles, the Council recommended apportioning the coastwide ACL north and south of 34°27′ N. lat. based on the portion of the biomass estimated to occur north of Point Conception. Apportionment was based on the relative swept-area biomass estimates (2003-2012) from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey. The Council recommended shortspine thornyhead ACLs of 1,745 mt north of 34°27′ N. lat. and 923 mt south of 34°27′ N. lat. for 2015 and 1,726 mt north of 34°27′ N. lat. and 913 mt south of 34°27′ N. lat. for 2016. These ACLs are set equal to the ABC and then apportioned north and south of south of 34°27′ N. lat.; 65 percent to the north and 35 percent to the south.

Shortbelly

A non-quantitative assessment was done in 2007 for shortbelly. Although the assessment does not fully satisfy the Council's terms of reference for groundfish stock assessments, the SSC endorsed the assessment for management purposes. A full discussion of the 2007 assessment and its results is available in the proposed rule for the 2009-2010 biennium (73 FR 80516, December 31, 2008). Beginning in 2009 and continuing in 2015-2016, the Council recommended a constant catch strategy for shortbelly rockfish where the ACL is set well below the ABC since the stock is unexploited and to protect the stock's importance as a forage species in the California current ecosystem. The Council considered two alternative ACLs for 2015-2016: The first alternative maintains the 2014 ACL of 50 mt; and the second increases the ACL to 500 mt. The shortbelly rockfish stock would be expected to increase in abundance under both alternative ACLs. Due to ACL increases for widow rockfish and yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., the Council recommended a shortbelly ACL of 500 mt to accommodate incidental catch when fishing for these co-occurring healthy stocks, while maintaining the large precautionary reduction in the ACL from the ABC for shortbelly.

Spiny Dogfish

Spiny dogfish was assessed for the first time in 2011. The 2011 assessment indicated that the spiny dogfish stock was healthy with an estimated spawning biomass at 63 percent of its unfished biomass. In 2013-2014 spiny dogfish was managed within the Other Fish complex and did not have species-specific harvest specifications; the 2011 assessment was used to calculate the contribution of spiny dogfish biomass to the Other Fish complex and the sum of the contributing ABCs for stocks in the complex was equal to the ACL for the Other Fish complex. Beginning in 2015, the Council recommended revising the species composition of the Other Fish complex and recommended removing spiny dogfish from the complex to manage it with species-specific harvest specifications. The Council recommended setting the ACL equal to the ABC, as the stock is above its target biomass of B

40

%

. The proposed spiny dogfish ACLs are 2,101 mt in 2015 and 2,085 mt in 2016.

Widow Rockfish

Widow rockfish was assessed in 2011 and indicated the spawning stock biomass was at 51 percent of its unfished biomass at the start of 2011. As the stock status was above the rebuilding threshold, beginning in 2013 and 2014, widow rockfish was managed as a healthy stock. Although the base model is considered to be the best available science, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the new stock assessment's findings. As in 2013-2014, the Council took this into consideration when making the ACL recommendations for 2015-2016. Three ACL alternatives were considered for widow rockfish, all of which maintained a constant catch strategy where the ACL is set below the ABC: 1,500 mt, 2,000 mt, 3,000 mt. For 2015-2016, the Council recommended ACLs of 2,000 mt to accommodate increased opportunity in the Shorebased IFQ Program and the at-sea Pacific whiting fisheries while keeping the spawning stock biomass above the target B

40

%

level for the next 10 years according to the base model. The ACL of 2,000 mt maintains the strategy for more precautionary ACLs for widow rockfish, compared to the general policy of setting the ACL equal to the ABC for healthy stocks (ABC of 3,929 mt in 2015 and 3,790 mt in 2016). The Council

recommended a precautionary ACL given the uncertainty in the stock's estimated biomass, relative productivity, and other aspects of the stock's dynamics.

Yellowtail Rockfish North of 40°10′ N. Lat.

A new data-moderate yellowtail rockfish assessment was done in 2013 for the portion of the stock north of 40°10′ N. lat. The new assessment indicated the stock was healthy with a 2013 spawning stock at 69 percent of its unfished biomass. The Council recommended the ACL be set equal to the ABC because the stock is above its target biomass of B

40

%

. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ACLs are 6,590 mt and 6,344 mt, respectively. Since the ACL is set equal to the ABC, proposed changes to how the yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. ABC is calculated, affect a change to the ACL policy. Proposed ABC calculations for yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. are described above in “Non-Overfished Species ABCs for Individually Managed Stocks”.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

EP06JA15.000

EP06JA15.001

3. Stock Complex ACLs

Stocks may be grouped into complexes for various reasons including where stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot be targeted independent of one another and MSY cannot be defined on a stock-by-stock basis, where there is insufficient data to measure their stock status, or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish individual stocks among their catch. Most groundfish species managed in a stock complex are data-poor stocks without full stock assessments.

All of the ACLs for stock complexes are less than or equal to the summed ABC contributions of each component stock in each complex as described in the following paragraphs.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish North and South of 40°10′ N. Lat.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish are caught predominantly in the non-trawl fisheries (both commercial and recreational). Nearshore rockfish are primarily managed by each state. Annual state harvest guidelines (HGs) for Minor Nearshore Rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. are proposed for 2015 and 2016 and discussed in “Management Measures” below. Under the proposed action the Minor Nearshore Rockfish North ACL is a 22 percent reduction from the OFL.

For Minor nearshore rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., the preferred 2015 and 2016 complex ACLs of 69 mt are set below the 77 mt ABCs each year. The ACLs are lower than the ABCs because the 40-10 adjustment was applied to the ABC contributions for blue rockfish in California and China rockfish. Then the ACLs were set equal to the 40-10 adjusted ABCs. The 2015 and 2016 complex ABC is the summed contribution of the component stocks' ABCs. For Minor nearshore rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat., the preferred 2015 and 2016 complex ACLs are less than the ABCs for the complex. In 2015 the Minor nearshore rockfish complex ABC is 1,169 mt, with an ACL of 1,114 mt, while in 2016 the ABC is 1,148 mt and the ACL is 1,006 mt. The ACLs are lower than the ABCs because the 40-10 adjustment was applied to the ABC contributions for blue rockfish north of 34°27′ N. lat. Then the ACLs were set equal to the 40-10 adjusted ABCs.

Minor Shelf Rockfish North and South of 40°10′ N. Lat.

For Minor shelf rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ACL of 1,944 mt is same as the ABC, while the 2016 ACL of 1,952 is lower than the ABC of 1,953. The ACL is set equal to the ABC after the 40-10 adjustment was applied to the ABC contributions for greenspotted rockfish in California (the 2015 ACL is slightly less than the 2015 ABC but rounds to the ABC value). For Minor shelf rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ACL of 1,624 mt is less than the ABC of 1,625 mt and the 2016 complex ACL of 1,625 mt is less than the ABC of 1,626 mt. The ACLs are lower than the ABCs because the 40-10 adjustment was applied to the ABC contributions for greenspotted rockfish. Then the ACLs were set equal to the 40-10 adjusted ABCs.

Minor Slope Rockfish North and South of 40°10′ N. Lat.

For Minor Slope Rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ACL of 1,693 mt is set equal to the ABC and the 2016 proposed ACL of 1,706 mt is set equal to the ABC, as none of the component stocks are in the precautionary zone. For Minor Slope Rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat., the proposed 2015 ACL of 693 mt is lower than the ABC of 705 mt and the 2016 ACL of 695 mt is lower than the ABC of 705 mt. The ACLs are lower than the ABCs because the 40-10 adjustment was

applied to the ABC contributions for blackgill rockfish. Then the ACLs were set equal to the 40-10 adjusted ABCs.

Other Flatfish

The proposed 2015 and 2016 ACLs of 8,749 mt and 7,243 mt, respectively, are equal to the 2015 and 2016 ABCs since all of the assessed stocks (

i.e.,

Pacific sanddabs and rex sole) were above their target biomass of B

25

%

.

Other Fish Complex

The Other Fish complex historically contained non-target species that occurred as bycatch (not retained, landed, sold, or kept for personal use) while targeting other species. For 2015-2016 the Council recommended reorganizing this complex, removing several species and designating them as EC species, and removing spiny dogfish and managing it with species-specific harvest specifications. For a discussion of EC species see “Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan” section.

The Other Fish complex is restructured to include the Washington, Oregon, and California kelp greenling stocks; the Washington cabezon stock; and leopard sharks. The proposed 2015 and 2016 ACLs of 242 mt and 243 mt are set equal to the complex ABCs.

EP06JA15.053

D. Stock Complexes

In preparation for the 2015-2016 biennium, the Council's Groundfish Management Team, with guidance from the Council's SSC, performed an analysis to assess whether any stocks were potentially at risk of experiencing catch in excess of their contribution OFLs within the current stock complexes. Informed by the work of its advisory bodies, staff, and the public, the Council considered whether to recommend any changes to the current stock complex configurations. Ultimately, as discussed further below, the Council recommended reorganizing the Other Fish complex because it contained species of dissimilar life history characteristics and varying vulnerabilities to the fishery. For rougheye/blackspotted and shortraker rockfish, which are managed within the Minor Slope Rockfish complexes, the Council recommended implementing a sorting requirement to improve data collection rather than restructuring the complexes at this time.

1. Minor Nearshore Rockfish Complex North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

China rockfish are included in the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complexes and are an important species in the nearshore recreational and nearshore commercial fisheries. China rockfish (south of 40°10′ N. lat.) is a healthy stock. In 2015 and 2016, when calculating the Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex harvest specifications, the 40-10 precautionary adjustment is applied to the China rockfish ABC contribution to determine the China rockfish contribution to the stock complex ACL. Based on the results of the data moderate assessment and concerns about the potential for catch to exceed China rockfish's OFL contribution to the Minor Nearshore Rockfish north OFL, the Council initially considered an analysis of state-specific or regional HGs of China rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. However, given the constraints posed on the fisheries from management at the species level and the availability of data to allow a full stock assessment to confirm trends identified in the data-moderate assessment, the Council recommended keeping China rockfish within the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex until a better understanding of the status of the stock can be determined through a full stock assessment (scheduled to occur in 2015). The reduction in the 2105-2016 Minor Nearshore Rockfish ACLs could result in a corresponding reduction to China rockfish mortality if measures taken to reduce catch of the complex level result in reduced targeting of China rockfish.

2. Minor Shelf Rockfish Complex North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

No changes to the Minor Shelf Rockfish complexes (north and south of 40°10′ N. lat.) are proposed in 2015-2016. The Council considered reorganization of the Minor Shelf Rockfish complexes, and found no compelling reason to reorganize these complexes, as the species within the complex are similar in life history and distribution, and none are currently at a risk of exceeding contribution OFLs (when combining north and south contributions for a given stock, per SSC guidance).

3. Minor Slope Rockfish Complexes North and South of 40°10′ N. lat.

The Council considered restructuring the Minor Slope Rockfish complexes by removing rougheye/blackspotted and shortraker rockfish and managing these stocks as a new rougheye/blackspotted/shortraker coastwide complex. Doing so might help to reduce any potential risk of exceeding contribution OFLs in the future, but extensive concern was expressed by industry and the Council that restructuring the Minor Slope Rockfish could disrupt limited entry trawl and fixed gear fisheries. Realizing the need to reduce rougheye/blackspotted catch, the Catcher/Processor sector of the Pacific whiting fishery began to pay heightened attention to rougheye/blackspotted catches by their fleet and move away from areas where higher rougheye/blackspotted bycatch was occurring in 2013. Total catch of rougheye/blackspotted in 2013 by the Catcher/Processor sector was 11.2 mt, down significantly from the high 2011 catch of 74.4 mt. Vessels targeting Pacific whiting with midwater trawl gear in the Mothership sector and the Shorebased IFQ Program may be able to enact similar strategies to reduce their impacts. Shortraker rockfish have exceeded their contribution OFLs in recent years, although the stock is on the southern outskirts of its predominant range. However, bottom trawl surveys have not produced sufficient samples of shortraker rockfish for a data moderate assessment, let alone a full stock assessment. Furthermore, NWFSC stock assessment staff are currently working to improve assessment methods for situations where the assessed area covers only a small portion of the stocks' predominant range (

i.e.,

shortraker rockfish).

Industry has also conducted extensive outreach among the various sectors (including bottom trawl and fixed gear sectors) to inform them of the need to reduce rougheye/blackspotted, and shortraker rockfish catch within their sectors. Industry representatives provided a report detailing ongoing voluntary measures to reduce catch of these species at the June 2014 Council meeting.

For 2015-2016 the Council recommended a sorting requirement for rougheye/blackspotted and shortraker for all commercial fisheries. The STAR panel recommended that the 2013 rougheye assessment treat rougheye/blackspotted as one stock due to limitations in available data sets, despite the fact that they are actually two different species. Therefore, fish of these stocks found off the U.S. west coast are assessed as a single “rougheye” unit. In 2015-2016, a sorting requirement is proposed to be implemented for rougheye/blackspotted rockfish (treated as a single unit) and for shortraker rockfish (treated as a separate unit). NMFS anticipates that the sorting requirements for rougheye/blackspotted, and shortraker rockfish will: Reduce ambiguity and species-specific assumptions of catch; aid in annual mortality tracking; aid in inseason catch monitoring; and, improve data available for future stock assessments.

Blackgill rockfish is managed within the Minor slope rockfish complexes. The 2011 assessment for the stock south of 40°10′ N. lat. indicated the stock was in the precautionary zone with spawning biomass depletion estimated to be 30 percent of its unfished biomass at the start of 2011. NMFS established 2013 and 2014 HGs equal to the ACLs calculated for the southern blackgill rockfish stock after the 40-10 adjustment was made. Species specific trip limits were implemented for commercial non-trawl fisheries, and current indications are that this action appears to have had the intended effect of reducing catch of blackgill rockfish. However, there is a limited ability in the current management structure to reduce targeting of blackgill rockfish in the IFQ fishery. The Council has begun considering removing blackgill rockfish from the Minor Slope Rockfish complex and re-evaluating the allocation structure for this species.

Prior to the 2013 full assessment for aurora rockfish, previous biomass estimates were lower than the current, improved understanding of the stock. Under the previous biomass estimates, aurora rockfish harvests were in excess of the OFL contribution estimates. The full aurora rockfish assessment in 2013 found the stock to be in a healthy state outside of the precautionary zone, with recent mortality below the aurora rockfish OFL contribution to the complex.

4. Other Flatfish Complex

The Council considered reorganization of the Other Flatfish complex, and found no compelling reason to reorganize this complex, as species within the complex are similar in life history, and none are currently at a risk of overfishing.

5. Other Fish Complex

The Other Fish complex historically contained non-target species that occurred as bycatch (not retained, landed, sold, or kept for personal use) while targeting other species. Spiny dogfish were managed within the Other Fish complex in 2013 and 2014. For 2015 and 2016, spiny dogfish is proposed to be removed from the Other Fish complex and managed as a single coastwide management unit. Skates (Aleutian skate, Bering/sandpaper skate, roughtail/black skate, and all other

skates), Grenadiers (Pacific grenadier, giant grenadier, all other grenadiers), soupfin shark, spotted ratfish, and finescale codling, formerly managed within the Other Fish complex, are proposed for designation as Ecosystem Component (EC) species in 2015-2016. As proposed, the Other Fish complex is restructured to include the Washington, Oregon and California kelp greenling stocks; the Washington Cabezon stock; and leopard sharks. For further discussion regarding rationale for new EC designations of stocks previously managed within the Other Fish complex, see the “Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan” section below. Not all the stocks in the proposed complex contribute to the OFL calculations (See “Other Fish Complex” in the “Proposed OFLs for 2015 and 2016” section for more discussion on the OFL calculation). NMFS acknowledges that keeping leopard sharks in the Other Fish complex keeps a stock in the proposed complex with different life history characteristics than the other stocks. However, leopard shark is consistently at a low risk of overfishing, and catch is consistently below their contribution OFL to the Other Fish complex. NMFS notes that the proposed definition of “Other Fish” at § 660.11 removes Sebastes species not explicitly listed in the PCGFMP from the Other Fish complex and those species would not count towards the landings limits, when specified, for the Other Fish complex.

E. Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

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 the biennial management cycle process, updates to make the FMP consistent with SSC guidance on the F

MSY

proxy for elasmobranchs, and clarifications to definitions; and (3) addition of two rockfish species to the PCGFMP and the designation of EC species.

1. Default Harvest Control Rules, Clarifications, and Adding Species

Over the past three years, the Council has been examining the harvest specifications and management measures decision-making process, and related analytical requirements in an effort to simplify these processes. Several biennial harvest specifications cycles have not met their intended January 1st start date and it was thought that efficiencies could be gained by adjusting Council decision making and the analysis undertaken each biennial cycle. Therefore, the Council undertook Amendment 24 to examine ways to streamline the Council decision-making in each biennium to implement the harvest specifications and management measures. This resulted in several changes being proposed to how the Council will address harvest specifications beginning in the 2017-2018 biennium.

The use of default harvest control rules and their addition to the FMP is intended to simplify the Council's harvest specifications process and acknowledge that the Council generally maintains the policy choices from the previous biennium to annual catch limits for the next biennium. Under Amendment 24, the harvest control rules used to determine the previous biennium's harvest specifications (

i.e.,

OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs), would automatically be applied to the best scientific information available to determine the future biennium's harvest specifications. NMFS would implement harvest specifications based on the default harvest control rules unless the Council makes a different recommendation. Proposed regulations implementing the provisions related to the use of default harvest specifications at § 660.60(b) would not apply to ecosystem component species because they do not have OFLs, ABCs, or ACLs specified, or Pacific whiting because the harvest specifications for Pacific whiting are established annually through a bilateral treaty process with Canada. In addition to the use of defaults to simplify the harvest specifications process, Amendment 24 makes changes to the description of the type of management measures that may be addressed through the biennial process. Clarifying that the management measures should be (1) management measures to be classified as routine the first time these measures are used; (2) adjustments to current management measures that are classified as routine; and (3) new management measures, not previously analyzed. This clarifies the focus of management measures and is intended to simplify the management measures proposed through each biennial cycle.

The PCGFMP includes all species in the genera

Sebastes,

and specifically lists many of those species individually. Amendment 24 adds two

Sebastes

species to the list of PCGFMP species. The two species proposed to be added are sunset rockfish (

S. crocotulus

) and blackspotted rockfish (

S. melanostictus

). Sunset rockfish is added because best available scientific information indicates that vermillion rockfish (a species currently listed in the PCGFMP) is a stock actually made up of two species: Vermillion rockfish and sunset rockfish. Since these stocks are almost indistinguishable without very detailed examination, the 2013 draft vermillion rockfish stock assessment recommended treating them as a single stock, consisting of two distinct species. Adding sunset rockfish to the PCGFMP recognizes this new information. Blackspotted rockfish are being added to the PCGFMP because a sorting requirement is proposed for blackspotted/rougheye rockfish (See “Minor Slope Rockfish” under the section “Stock Complexes” for more discussion of blackspotted/rougheye rockfish).

2. Designation of Ecosystem Component Species

Finally, Amendment 24 designates several species and species groups as Ecosystem Component (EC) species. The concept of EC species was added to the PCGFMP under Amendment 23, which revised the PCGFMP to comply with the revised MSA National Standard 1 Guidelines. However, no species were designated as EC species at that time. The EC species designation is described in National Standard 1 Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(d)(5). Generally, EC species should be a non-target stock, not be subject to overfishing or determined to be overfished, or approaching an overfished condition and not likely to become so in the absence of management measures; and not generally retained for sale or personal use. Amendment 24 proposes to designate the following species, which were already in the PCGFMP, as EC species: big skate, California skate, Pacific grenadier, soupfin shark, spotted ratfish, and finescale codling. Additionally, the following species or species groups are proposed to be added to the PCGFMP as EC species: Aleutian skate, Bering/sandpaper skate, roughtail/black skate, all other skates, giant grenadier, and all other grenadiers. EC species are not considered “in the fishery”, and do not require harvest specifications (

e.g.

OFLs, ABCs and ACLs).

During development of the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures, the Council considered reorganizing the eight groundfish stock complexes (see “Stock Complex ACL” section). The SSC recommended that the Council prioritize the Other Fish complex for reorganization and an analysis was completed to look at

potential ways of restructuring that complex, including consideration of designating some of its species as EC species. That analysis concluded that many of the species that were in the Other Fish complex were good candidates for designation as EC species because they have an extremely low risk of catch exceeding contribution OFLs. The revised Other Fish complex would be composed of shallow-water species often caught within three miles of shore, in state waters. Removing the other species within the Other Fish complex and classifying them as an EC species reduces the risks to the species left in the complex (Cabezon off Washington, kelp greenling and leopard shark). The risk of overfishing is reduced for the remaining stocks because some of the recommended EC species were effectively inflator stocks to the Other Fish complex, with relatively larger OFL contributions. Removing inflator stocks reduces the risk of mortality exceeding contribution OFLs for the stocks managed in the reorganized Other Fish complex.

Species proposed for EC species designation are at a low risk of overfishing for various reasons, including: Best estimates of harvest are relatively low; best estimates of catch do not have an increasing trend; and geographic distribution of some of the species has only a small overlap with the geographic areas of the Pacific coast groundfish fisheries. The goal of designating EC species is to more appropriately categorize them based on their lack of fishing pressure, while acknowledging the limited interaction of these species with the groundfish fisheries and their role in the ecosystem. Catch of EC species will be monitored for increasing trends in landings, primarily through state landings in market categories. This monitoring may aid in identifying emerging fisheries that require evaluation for possible management or may identify potential conservation concerns.

NMFS acknowledges 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 2009-2011. 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 (

e.g.,

there are no trip limits that appear to affect catches of Pacific grenadier currently). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Pacific grenadier, and the other stocks proposed for EC classification, are not stocks in need of conservation and management. Rather than removing them from the PCGFMP entirely, designation as EC species ensures continued monitoring and evaluation of the stocks' classifications.

For a discussion of how existing fishery management measures do or do not apply to EC species see the “Management Measures” section below. The Notice of Availability for the FMP was published on November 26, 2014 (79 FR 70497).

F. Management Measures

New management measures being proposed for the 2015-2016 biennial cycle would work in combination with current management measures to control fishing. This management structure should ensure that the catch of overfished groundfish species does not exceed the rebuilding ACLs while allowing harvest of healthier groundfish stocks to occur to the extent possible. Routine management measures are used to modify fishing behavior during the fishing year. Routine management measures for the commercial fisheries include trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size limits, and gear restrictions. Routine management measures for the recreational fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area closures. The groundfish fishery is managed with a variety of other regulatory requirements that are not routinely adjusted, many of which are not changed through this rulemaking, and are found at 50 CFR 660, subparts C through G. The regulations at 50 CFR 660, subparts C through G, include, but are not limited to, long-term harvest allocations, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, monitoring requirements, license limitation programs, and essential fish habitat (EFH) protection measures. The routine management measures, specified at 50 CFR 660.60 (c), in combination with the entire collection of groundfish regulations, are used to manage the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery during the biennium to achieve harvest guidelines, quotas, or allocations, that result from the harvest specifications identified in this proposed rule, while protecting overfished and depleted stocks.

In addition to changes to routine management measures, this section describes biennial fishery allocations and set-asides, and new management measures proposed for 2015-2016 including: Changes to latitude and longitude coordinates that define the boundaries of the Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs); new sorting requirements; and changes to canary sub bag limits in the Oregon recreational fisheries, among others.

The management measures being proposed reflect the Council's recommendations from its June 2014 meeting, as transmitted to NMFS. At its November 2014 meeting, the Council recommended three changes that may be included in the final rule for this action and therefore NMFS is specifically seeking public comment on these items.

First, the Council took final action on the Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for the 2015 halibut fisheries. Included in the recommendations was a modification to the CSP that would allow retention of flatfish species (other than halibut) in certain recreational fisheries when halibut are onboard. This change was recommended for the sport fishery in the Columbia River subarea and the Oregon Central Coast subarea. Because this change effects groundfish retention, regulations would be modified to add flatfish, in addition to sablefish and Pacific cod, to the list of species at 660.360(c)(2)(iii)(D) for Washington and at 660.360(c)(1)(i)(D)(3) for Oregon.

Additionally, the Council received reports from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding higher than expected catches of black rockfish and California scorpionfish and recommended two changes to the 2015 California recreational regulations. First, the Council recommended adding a five fish black rockfish sub-bag limit within the ten fish rockfish, cabezon and greenling limit, which would modify regulations at 660.360(c)(3)(v)(A). Second, the Council recommended prohibiting the retention of California scorpionfish in the California recreational fishery from September through December 2015, which would modify regulations at 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B). NMFS is considering the Council's recommendations and welcomes public comment on the potential changes that may be incorporated in the final rule.

1. Management Measures and Ecosystem Component Species

As described above at “Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan”, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing to designate EC species in the PCGFMP. Proposed regulations at § 660.11 define the species and species groups that are being designated as EC species as “Groundfish”. By defining EC species as “Groundfish”, Federal regulations that apply to groundfish in general would apply to EC species. In this section, we discuss in more detail how the existing fishery management structure may, or may not, apply to these species and species groups that are not considered to be “in the fishery” but are still defined as a “groundfish” species.

Many regulations at 50 CFR 660, subparts C through G, including, but not limited to, time/area closures, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, monitoring requirements, license limitation programs, and essential fish habitat (EFH) protection measures would apply to vessels taking and retaining any EC species or species groups, even if that is the only groundfish species on board. This is because they are proposed to be defined as a group of species within the more general definition of “groundfish”. Since most of the species proposed to be designated as EC species are largely discarded (

i.e.

low levels of retention and landing) and are currently in the PCGFMP (

i.e.

already subject to groundfish regulations as part of the Other Fish complex), retaining the application of most management measures to EC species is not anticipated to impose many, if any, new restrictions to vessels fishing in groundfish fisheries. The following are some specific examples of general fishery regulations that apply to groundfish, and would, therefore, also apply to species and species groups proposed to be designated as EC species: Fishing must occur with legal gear types and in areas where fishing for groundfish with that gear type is not prohibited; fishing for EC species that occurs when the vessel is registered to a permit, including limited entry permits and exempted fishing permits, must be done in compliance with the regulations that apply to that vessel's fishing activities because it is registered to a Federal permit; Federal regulations applying to groundfish, including EC species, would not supersede more restrictive state regulations; vessel must provide departure or cease fishing reports, when required to do so; vessel must carry an observer, when required to do so.

The only instance in which regulations would become applicable to additional fishing vessels is if those vessels are taking and retaining species or species groups that are being brought more explicitly into the PCGFMP for the first time with their designation as EC species (

e.g.

all grenadiers besides Pacific grenadier, and all skates besides longnose skate, big skate and California skate), and those vessels that are not otherwise fishing groundfish species currently in the PCGFMP. For example, if a vessel wants to retain giant grenadier in Federal waters, it is required to have an active vessel monitoring system mobile transceiver until (VMS MTU) on board the vessel prior to departing on a fishing trip where groundfish would be retained. The requirement for a VMS MTU when retaining giant grenadier in Federal waters would not have applied to this vessel in 2013-2014 unless they were retaining other groundfish species.

No new management measures are proposed specifically for EC species because these species are not at risk of overfishing. Some groundfish regulations apply to specific sectors, gear types, species, or species groups. In those cases where regulations do not generally apply to `groundfish' but apply to specific species, gear types, species groups, or fisheries, it is not anticipated that taking and retaining EC species, alone, would trigger those types of regulations. For example, EC species are not required to be sorted because they do not meet any of the requirements described at § 660.12(a)(8), EC species do not count toward any cumulative or trip limit because no cumulative or trip limits are being established for EC species or species groups at this time. If ever a cumulative limit were established for EC species or species groups, the requirement for sorting of that species or species group would be triggered.

At the start of the Shorebased IFQ Program and during development of the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management measures, NMFS added the ability to implement trip limits, sub-limits, or aggregate limits for species in the Other Fish complex, some of which are now proposed to be designated as EC species, as a routine measure for the Shorebased IFQ Program. The proposed EC species designations are not intended to change the ability to routinely implement trip limits, sub-limits, or aggregate limits to these EC species for the Shorebased IFQ Program, as described at § 660.60(c)(1)(i). The proposed EC species designations are not intended to require those species be discarded by fishing vessels participating in otherwise legal groundfish fisheries.

As described in the “Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan” section, no harvest specifications or management reference points are required for EC species; however, there is a monitoring requirement to determine changes in their status or their vulnerability to the fishery. If new information shows that an EC species' vulnerability to overfishing has increased, the stock should be reclassified as “in the fishery” through an FMP amendment. As described above, catch of EC species would be subject to the same monitoring requirements as are generally applicable to all groundfish species or species groups. Those monitoring requirements include but are not limited to: Landing receipts and documentation of discards by observers in maximized retention fisheries, among other state requirements.

2. Deductions From the ACLs

Before allocations are made to groundfish fisheries, deductions are made from ACLs to set fish aside fish for certain types of activities. The deductions from the ACL are associated with four distinct sources of groundfish mortality: Harvest in Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal fisheries; harvest in scientific research activities; harvest in non-groundfish fisheries; and harvest that occurs under exempted fishing permits (EFPs). These deductions from the ACL are described at § 660.55(b) and specified in the footnotes to Tables 1a and 2a to subpart C.

The Council's recommended ACL for cowcod in 2015-2016 is discussed above in “Overfished Species ACLs” section. The Council decided to set an ACT for cowcod in 2015-2016. An Annual Catch Target (ACT) is an accountability measure that is set below the annual catch limit in cases where there is uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring. The goal of using an ACT is to ensure against exceeding an annual catch limit. Since the annual catch target is a target and not a limit it can be used in lieu of harvest guidelines or strategically to accomplish other management objectives. Sector-specific annual catch targets can also be specified to accomplish management objectives.

The Council acknowledged a need for scientific research to inform future stock assessments and management strategies for cowcod and recommended that groundfish fisheries be subject to a lower harvest target set well-below the

ACL. To accomplish this management objective, the Council recommended that the deductions for harvest in Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal fisheries, non-groundfish fisheries, harvest that occurs under EFPs, and mortality from scientific research activities, be deducted from the 10 mt cowcod ACL. The Council then set an ACT of 4 mt for 2015-5016 to use it in a similar way as the fishery harvest guideline; the ACT would be the amount that would be allocated across the groundfish fisheries. If additional harvest of cowcod occurs in scientific research activities, NMFS and the Council have the flexibility to account for that mortality with little risk of exceeding the ACL, because the ACT is set below the ACL. This accounting scheme also mitigates adverse impacts to groundfish fisheries if higher than expected cowcod catch occurs in 2015-2016 scientific research activities.

3. Biennial Fishery Allocations

Two-year trawl and nontrawl allocations are decided during the biennial process for those species without long-term allocations or species where the long-term allocation is suspended because the species was declared overfished. For all species, except sablefish north of 36° N. lat., allocations for the trawl and nontrawl sectors are calculated from the fishery harvest guideline. The fishery harvest guideline is the tonnage that remains after subtracting from the ACL harvest in Tribal fisheries, scientific research activities, non-groundfish fisheries and some activities conducted under exempted fishing permits. The two-year allocations and recreational harvest guidelines are designed to accommodate anticipated mortality in each sector as well as to accommodate variability and uncertainty in those estimates of mortality. Allocations described below are specified in the harvest specification tables appended to part 660, subpart C.

Bocaccio

The following are the Council's recommended allocations for bocaccio in 2015: Limited entry trawl, 81.9 mt; limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 79.1 mt; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 1.0 mt; and California recreational 178.8 mt. The following are the Council's recommended allocations for bocaccio in 2016: Limited entry trawl, 85.0 mt; limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 82.1 mt; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 1.0 mt; California recreational 185.6 mt. These allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of bocaccio, by sector, in 2015-2016 and maintain a similar allocation scheme as in 2014.

Canary Rockfish

The following are the Council's recommended allocations for canary rockfish in 2015: Shorebased IFQ Program, 43.3 mt; at-sea sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery, 13.7 mt (catcher/processor 8.0 mt and mothership 5.7 mt); limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 3.8 mt; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 6.7 mt; Washington recreational, 3.4 mt; Oregon recreational 11.7 mt; and California recreational 24.3 mt. The following are the Council's recommended allocations for canary rockfish in 2016: Shorebased IFQ Program, 44.5 mt; at-sea sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery, 14.0 mt (catcher/processor 8.2 mt and mothership 5.8 mt); limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 3.9 mt; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 6.9 mt; Washington recreational, 3.5 mt; Oregon recreational 12.0 mt; and California recreational 25.0 mt. These allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of canary rockfish, by sector, in 2015-2016 and maintain a similar allocation scheme as in 2014.

Cowcod

For 2015-2016, the Council recommended setting a cowcod ACT at 4 mt and having it function in a similar way as the fishery harvest guideline; it is the amount that would be allocated across groundfish fisheries. The cowcod allocation is proposed to be 34 percent (1.4 mt) trawl and 66 percent (2.6 mt) non-trawl for 2015-2016. NMFS anticipates the proposed allocation structure will keep catch below the 2015-2016 cowcod ACTs without having to make changes to fishery management measures and maintains the same allocation scheme as in 2014.

Petrale Sole

For petrale sole, 35 mt is allocated to the nontrawl fishery and the remainder of the fishery HG is allocated to the trawl fishery. This maintains the same allocation scheme that was in place for petrale sole since 2011.

Yelloweye Rockfish

The following are the Council's recommended allocations for yelloweye rockfish in 2015: Limited entry trawl, 1 mt; limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 0.6; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 1.7; Washington recreational, 2.9; Oregon recreational 2.6 mt; and California recreational 3.4 mt. The following are the Council's recommended allocations for yelloweye rockfish in 2015: Limited entry trawl, 1.1 mt; limited entry and open access non-nearshore fixed gears, 0.7; limited entry and open access nearshore fixed gear, 1.8; Washington recreational, 3.1; Oregon recreational 2.8 mt; and California recreational 3.7 mt. These allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of yelloweye by sector in 2015-2016 and maintain the same allocation scheme that was in place for yelloweye rockfish in 2014.

Black Rockfish off Oregon and California

Oregon and California will continue to have state-specific HGs for black rockfish in 2015-2016. Oregon has a harvest guideline equal to 58 percent of the fishery harvest guideline (579 mt) and California has a harvest guideline equal to 42 percent of the fishery harvest guideline (420 mt), and is apportioned based on black rockfish landings in each state for years leading up to the 2003 black rockfish assessment. This is the same allocation scheme that was in place for black rockfish in Oregon and California since 2004.

Longnose Skate

The Council recommended a two-year trawl and nontrawl HG for longnose skate of 90 percent to the trawl fishery and 10 percent to the nontrawl fishery. The allocation percentages reflect historical catch of longnose skate between the two sectors. This maintains the same allocation scheme that was in place for longnose skate in 2014.

Minor Nearshore Rockfish

California will continue to have a state-specific harvest guideline for blue rockfish. The blue rockfish harvest guideline for the area south of 42° N. lat. is equivalent to: (1) The ABC contribution for the portion of the stock north of 34°27′ N. lat., reduced by the 40-10 adjustment because the stock is in the precautionary zone, plus (2) the ABC contribution for the unassessed portion of the stock south of 34°27′ N. lat.

Beginning in 2015, the states will be monitoring and managing catches of Minor Nearshore Rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. according to newly established HGs. Harvest specifications for Minor Nearshore Rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat. are approximately 27 percent lower in 2015-2016 (69 mt) than in 2014 (94 mt). The states intend

to manage catch using state-specific harvest guidelines: 10.5 mt for Washington; 48.4 mt for Oregon, and 23.7 mt for California north of 40°10′ N. lat. However, instead of implementing state specific harvest guidelines in Federal regulations, the state Council representatives from Oregon and Washington committed to heightened inseason communication regarding catches of species managed in the complex relative to the harvest guidelines. Upon attainment of 75 percent of their respective harvest guidelines, the states of Washington and Oregon would consult and decide whether inseason action was needed. In the event inseason action is needed, the states of Washington and Oregon would take action through state regulation. The states of Washington and Oregon can take inseason expeditiously, regardless of whether the harvest guideline is specified in Federal regulations. California will have a Federal harvest guideline for this complex from 42° N. lat. to 40°10′ N. lat. to facilitate inseason action if needed, and has committed to increased catch reporting at Council meetings. In California, the HG of 23.7 mt would be specified in Federal regulation and apply only in the area between 40°10′ N. lat. and 42° N. lat. California, through the Council, could propose changes through Federal regulations. Under state management, landed component species within the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex must be sorted to species. Because the states may also take inseason action independent of NMFS, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in exceeding the complex ACL in 2015-2016.

Although the Minor Nearshore Rockfish North ACL attainment has been high in recent years, reaching 100 percent in 2011, management measures have prevented the ACL from being exceeded. State nearshore management plans and policies mitigate the risk of overfishing. State HGs and a federal HG for Minor Nearshore Rockfish in the area between 40°10′ and 42° N. lat. under the proposed action will reduce the risk of exceeding the complex ACL.

Minor Shelf Rockfish

Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish are recommended by the Council each biennial cycle. For Minor Shelf Rockfish north of 40°10′ N. lat., 1,127 mt (60.2 percent of the fishery harvest guideline) is allocated to the trawl fishery and 745 mt (39.8 percent of the fishery harvest guideline) is allocated to the nontrawl fishery for 2015. For Minor Shelf Rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat., 192 mt (12.2 percent of the fishery harvest guideline) is allocated to the trawl fishery and 1,383 mt (87.8 percent of the fishery harvest guideline) is allocated to the nontrawl fishery for 2015. For 2016, the same percentages are applied resulting in allocations of 1,132 mt to the trawl fishery and 748 mt to the nontrawl fishery north of 40°10′ N. lat. and 192 mt to the trawl fishery and 1,384 mt to the nontrawl fishery south of 40°10′ N. lat. This maintains the same allocation percentages as were in place for the Minor Shelf Rockfish complexes since 2011.

Minor Slope Rockfish

Minor Slope Rockfish were allocated between the trawl and nontrawl fisheries in PCGFMP Amendment 21. This action applies those Amendment 21 allocation percentages to the updated 2015-2016 fishery harvest guidelines. Blackgill rockfish in California was assessed in 2011 and has continued to be managed within the Minor Slope Rockfish complex, but with a species-specific HG south of 40°10′ N. lat. beginning in 2013. For 2015-2016 the Council recommended a blackgill rockfish harvest guideline equal to the ABC contribution for the portion of the stock south of 40°10′ N. lat., reduced by the 40-10 adjustment because the stock is in the precautionary zone. South of 40°10′ N. lat., the blackgill rockfish harvest guideline is 114 mt in 2015 and 117 mt in 2016.

4. Modifications to the Boundaries Defining RCAs

RCAs are large area closures intended to reduce the catch of a species or species 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. A set of coordinates define lines that approximate various depth contours. These sets of coordinates, or lines, in and of themselves, are not gear or fishery specific, but are used in combination to define an area. That area may then be described with fishing restrictions implemented for a specific gear and/or fishery.

For the 2015-2016 cycle, changes to refine selected coordinates are being proposed for: The 200 fm line, modified with areas to allow fishing for petrale sole, off Oregon; the 60 fm line off San Diego California, and the 50 fm line in the Northern Channel Islands. Changes to the 200 fm line, modified with areas to allow fishing for petrale sole, are intended to bring the coordinates for this line in the area off Heceta and Stonewall Bank into alignment with the un-modified 200 fm line in the same area.

Changes to the 50 fm line in the Northern Channel Islands were requested by industry and further refined during development of the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures. The Council-recommended changes to the 50 fm line in the Northern Channel Islands are intended to open a small amount of additional fishing area when this line is used as the seaward boundary of the recreational RCA (

e.g.

no recreational fishing for groundfish deeper than the 50 fm line when fishing around the Northern Channel Islands) and to more closely approximate the 50-fm isobath surrounding the Northern Channel Islands. Changes to the 60 fm line west of San Diego, California were requested by industry to allow better access to the tip of a reef that lies shallower than the 60 fm isobath. The Council-recommended changes to the 60 fm line west of San Diego are intended to open additional fishing area when this line is used as the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA (

e.g.

no fishing for groundfish with non-trawl gear deeper than the 60 fm line) and to more closely approximate the 60 fm isobath in that area. While the proposed changes to the 50 fm line and the 60 fm line would open additional fishing area, the proposed changes would maintain a boundary line that approximates the 50-fm and 60 fm isobath, respectively. These changes would not allow an extension of fishing effort into deeper habitat where overfished groundfish species encounters might be higher. Opening additional fishing areas where there is little information to inform area-specific bycatch rates poses a risk of increased bycatch of overfished species, however, it is unlikely that catch would be much higher because the proposed changes to the latitude/longitude coordinates that define the 50 fm line in the Northern Channel Islands or the 60 fm line west of San Diego are not opening large areas and are not opening depths deeper than the 50-fm isobath or the 60 fm isobath, respectively. The proposed changes to latitude/longitude coordinates that define these three boundary lines approximating depth contours makes no regulatory changes to how, or for which fisheries, those lines may be used.

5. Sorting Requirements

In the non-whiting groundfish fishery, catch is sorted to species or species group in order to account for catch against the various harvest specifications and management measures that are specific to those

species or species groups. Except for vessels participating in the Pacific whiting fishery (see § 660.130(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)), groundfish regulations require that species or species groups with a trip limit, size limit, scientific sorting designation, quota, harvest guideline, ACT, or ACL, be sorted (see § 660.12(a)(8)). Except for a new scientific sorting requirement for shortraker rockfish and rougheye/blackspotted rockfish (described in “Stock Complexes” above), the sorting requirements applicable to the groundfish fisheries are unchanged from 2014.

6. Limited Entry Trawl

Limited Entry Trawl Fishery Management Measures

Since the start of 2011, the limited entry trawl fishery has been divided into three distinct sectors (shoreside, mothership, and catcher/processor). An individual fishing quota (IFQ) program was created for the shoreside sector and cooperatives were created for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors. The Council recommended several changes to trawl management measures for the 2015-2016 biennium. In 2013-2014 spiny dogfish did not have species-specific harvest specifications and was managed within the Other Fish complex; at that time, the at-sea set-aside for Other Fish was specified to control catch of spiny dogfish in the at-sea fishery in the absence of species-specific harvest specifications. The Other Fish complex is proposed to be reorganized through this action and no longer includes spiny dogfish. The proposed Other Fish complex for 2015-2016 is comprised of nearshore species that are not caught by the at-sea sector, and so no longer requires a set-aside. Given the low risk of exceeding the spiny dogfish ACL, the Council did not recommend spiny dogfish set-asides nor did they recommend spiny dogfish GCAs for the at-sea sectors. Species being managed under trip limits and without trawl and non-trawl allocations are: Shortbelly rockfish, longspine thornyhead south of 34°27′ N. lat., black rockfish (Washington-Oregon), California scorpionfish, cabezon (California only), spiny dogfish, and the Other Fish complex.

Incidental Trip Limits for IFQ Vessels

For vessels fishing IFQ, with either groundfish trawl gear or non-trawl gears, the following incidentally caught species are managed with trip limits: Minor nearshore rockfish north and south, black rockfish, cabezon (46°16′ to 40°10′ N. lat. and south of 40°10′ N. lat.), spiny dogfish, shortbelly rockfish, Pacific whiting, and the Other Fish complex. No changes to trip limits in the IFQ fishery are proposed for the start of the 2015-2016 biennium; however, changes to trip limits are considered a routine measure under § 660.60(c) and may be implemented or adjusted, if determined necessary, through inseason action.

RCA Configurations for Vessels Using Groundfish Trawl Gear

Based on analysis of West Coast Groundfish Observer Data and vessel logbook data, the boundaries of the RCAs were developed to prohibit groundfish fishing within a range of depths where encounters with overfished species were most likely to occur. The lines that approximate depth contours are defined by latitude and longitude coordinates and may be used to define any of the depth-based area closures, primarily RCAs. The choice of which depth-based line(s) to use to define the RCA boundaries varies by season, latitude, and gear group. Boundaries for limited entry trawl vessels are different from those for the limited entry fixed-gear and open access gears. The trawl RCAs apply to vessels fishing with groundfish trawl gear. The non-trawl RCAs apply to the limited entry fixed-gear and open access gears other than non-groundfish trawl. The non-groundfish trawl RCAs are fishery-specific.

Under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP, quota pounds associated with a limited entry trawl permit may be harvested with either trawl gear or legal fixed gear. Groundfish regulations specify both trawl and non-trawl RCAs. The type of gear employed determines the applicable gear-specific RCA. As such, vessels that harvest IFQ species with groundfish trawl gear would continue to be regulated by the trawl RCA requirements while vessels that harvest IFQ species with fixed gear would continue to be regulated by the non-trawl RCA requirements.

For 2015-2016 the Council recommended the trawl RCA boundaries that were in place in May 2014 be continued through the biennium except for a modification to the seaward boundary of the trawl RCA between 40°10′ N. lat. and 45°46′ N. lat. from 200 fathoms to the 200 “modified (with petrale cutouts)” year-round. Currently, these areas are intermittently open throughout the year. The goal of this change is to allow greater access to petrale. Because this area is currently open to the trawl fishery intermittently, impacts to benthic habitat associated with allowing year round access are anticipated to be minimal. As the IFQ fishery proceeds and if catch data supports reconsideration of the RCAs, the Council could revise the RCA boundaries through inseason measures.

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

Management measures for the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (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 and trip limits in these non-trawl fisheries, are generally designed to allow harvest of target species while keeping catch of overfished species low. For 2015-2016, changes to management measures include increased sablefish trip limits due to the higher sablefish ACL for the area north of 36° N. lat., opening of lingcod retention in the winter months which have previously been closed, increases in lingcod trip limits, increases in Minor Shelf and bocaccio trip limits in the area south of 34°27′ N. lat., and a change to the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA. The Council also considered the tradeoffs in area restrictions compared to trip limit restrictions for the non-trawl fishery that is prosecuted shoreward of the non-trawl RCA.

Non-Trawl RCAs

The non-trawl RCA applies to vessels that take, retain, possess, or land groundfish using non-trawl gears, unless they are incidental fisheries that are exempt from the non-trawl RCA (

e.g.

the pink shrimp non-groundfish trawl fishery). The seaward and shoreward boundaries of the non-trawl RCAs vary along the coast, and are divided at various commonly used geographic coordinates, defined in § 660.11, subpart C. In 2009, the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA was established based on fishery information indicating that fishing in some areas in the non-trawl fishery have higher yelloweye rockfish bycatch than in others, and the RCA boundaries were adjusted to reduce mortality of yelloweye rockfish in these areas.

The non-trawl RCA boundaries proposed for 2015-2016 are the same as those in place for the non-trawl fisheries in 2013-2014, except for the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA off northern California. The shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA, between 42° N. lat. (Oregon/California border) and 40°10′ N. lat. (North/South Management line), is proposed to be

shifted seaward from 20 fm to 30 fm, to open some additional areas to fishing close to shore and make the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA consistent along Oregon and through California to 40°10′ N. lat. These changes allow for some additional fishing opportunity while keeping the mortality of canary and yelloweye rockfish within their nearshore fishery contributions. Opening this area may also increase catch of Minor Nearshore Rockfish north complex which has a decreasing ACL from 2014 to 2015. However, the projected catch of the complex with the increased fishing area is projected to be less than the complex ACL. Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing to shift the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl RCA, between 42° N. lat. and 40°10 N. lat., from the line approximating the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour to the line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour. These boundary lines are defined by latitude and longitude coordinates found at § 660.71, subpart C. The change to the non-trawl RCA boundary in this area opens areas that have been closed since 2009, and may increase fishing efficiency and reduce gear conflicts by spreading the nearshore fleet over a larger fishing area. Opening this area is anticipated to increase overall landings of both target and bycatch species, but mortality is anticipated to be below the allocations or harvest limits for all species.

Non-Trawl Fishery Trip Limits

Trip limits proposed for the non-trawl fisheries in 2015-2016 are similar to those that applied to these fisheries in since 2011. To help achieve but not exceed the allocations of sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries, proposed trip limits for sablefish in these fisheries are different between 2015 and 2016, with slightly higher limits in 2016 because of the higher sablefish ACL. Changes are also proposed in the limited entry and open access fixed gear fisheries for lingcod, Minor Shelf Rockfish south of 34°27′ N. lat., and bocaccio south of 34°27′ N. lat. Proposed 2015-2016 trip limits for these changes are specified in Table 2 (North), Table 2 (South) to subpart E and in Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to subpart F.

Primary Sablefish Fishery Tier Limits

Some limited entry fixed gear permits are endorsed to receive annual sablefish quota, or “tier limits,” and vessels registered with one, two, or up to three of these permits may participate in the primary sablefish fishery, described at § 660.231. Tier limits proposed for the limited entry fixed gear primary sablefish fleet are higher than in 2013-2014, reflecting the higher sablefish harvest specifications for 2015-2016. The proposed tier limits are as follows: In 2015, Tier 1 at 41,175lb (18,676 kg), Tier 2 at 18,716 lb (8,489 kg), and Tier 3 at 10,695 lb (4,851 kg). For 2016, Tier 1 at 45,053 lb (20,435 kg), Tier 2 at 20,479 lb (9,289 kg), and Tier 3 at 11,702 lb (5,307 kg). These tier limits are found in groundfish regulations at § 660.231.

Lingcod Trip Limits and Retention in Periods 1, 2, and 6

This rule proposes to allow lingcod retention in the limited entry and open access fixed gear fisheries during the previously closed months from December to April (cumulative limit Periods 1, 2, and 6). The original intent of the closure was to minimize impacts on lingcod when it was overfished because lingcod spawn from December to April. Lingcod has been declared rebuilt and removing the closure will allow greater access to the stock.

For the limited entry fishery in the area north of 40°10′ N. lat. this rule proposes several changes. First, periods 1 and 2 (January-April) and the month of December are proposed to be opened; periods 1 and 2 are proposed with a 200 lb per 2 month limit; December is proposed to have a 200 lb per month limit. Second, the trip limit in periods 3, 4 and 5 (May-October), is proposed to be increased from 800 lb per 2 months to 1,200 lb per 2 months. Finally this rule proposes to increase the November trip limit from 400 lb a month of 600 lb a month. For the limited entry fishery in the area south of 40°10′ N. lat., period 1 (January-February) and the month of December are proposed to be opened; period 1 is proposed to have a 200 lb per 2 month limit; and December is proposed with a 200 lb per month limit. For the open access fishery in the area north of 40°10′ N. lat., periods 1 and 2 (January-April) and the month of December are proposed to be open with a 100 lb per month limit. The trip limit in period 3, 4, and 5 (May-October) and the month of November are proposed to be increased from 400 lb per month to 600 lb per month. For the open access fishery south of 40°10′ N. lat. period 1 and the month of December are proposed to be open with 100 lb per month limits. Trip limit increases in combination with newly open periods are anticipated to more fully utilize the lingcod ACL, which has not been fully utilized in recent years. Total mortality of lingcod in the area north of 42° N. lat. was 25 percent of the 2011 ACL, 34 percent of the 2012 ACL, and 28 percent of the 2013 ACL. In the area south of 42° N. lat. total mortality was 13 percent of the 2011 ACL, 16 percent of the 2012 ACL, and 39 percent of the 2013 ACL. While the lingcod ACL is decreasing from 2014 to 2015, the increase in catch is projected to remain under the proposed ACL. The new trip limits are proposed to minimize impacts to co-occurring overfished species and are designed to reduce discarding but not result in targeting.

Minor Shelf Rockfish South of 34°27′ N. lat.

Specifications for the complex are established for the area south of 40°10′ N. lat. however the changes proposed in this rule are only for the area south of 34°27′ N. lat. This increase is intended to provide greater access to a small number of commercial vessels in this area. This rule proposes increases to trip limits in both the limited entry and open access fixed gear fisheries as a result of an increase in the non-trawl allocation from 587 mt in 2014 to 1,383 mt in 2015.

Bocaccio South of 34°27′ N. lat.

This rule proposes increases to the bocaccio trip limits in both the limited entry and open access fixed gear fisheries resulting from an increase in the non-trawl harvest guideline from 249.6 mt in 2014 to 258.8 mt in 2015. Most bocaccio landings in this area are from sablefish targeted trips. While increasing trip limits may increase impacts to bocaccio the impacts are not expected to delay rebuilding under the current rebuilding plan or come close to the harvest guideline. As this stock rebuilds encounters are likely to increase and increasing the trip limits may help to turn discards into retained fish, increasing landings. While the non-trawl allocation is for the area south of 40′10° N. lat., trip limit increases are only for the area south of 34°27′ N. lat. because bocaccio is managed within the trip limits for the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex in the area from 40°10′ N. lat.-34°27′ N. lat.

8. Recreational Fisheries Management Measures

This section describes the recreational fisheries management measures proposed for 2015-2016. Most of the changes to recreational management measures are modification to existing measures. Changes to recreational management measures are discussed below for each state and include: (1) Modifications of recreational season structures in all states; (2) new 1 canary

rockfish sub-bag limit in Oregon; (3) removal of the cabezon seasonal sub-bag limit in Oregon, (4) modification of a lingcod closure area in Washington; (5) elimination of the lingcod retention prohibition in Washington; (6) allowance of retention of bottom fish during all depth recreational halibut seasons in Washington and Oregon; (7) changes in the California Southern Management Area seaward boundary line; and, (8) changes to the lingcod bag limit in California.

Recreational fisheries management measures are designed to limit catch of overfished species and provide fishing opportunity for anglers targeting nearshore groundfish species. Overfished species that are taken in recreational fisheries include bocaccio, cowcod, canary, and yelloweye rockfish. Because sport fisheries are more concentrated in nearshore waters, the 2015-2016 recreational fishery management measures are intended to constrain catch of nearshore species such as Minor Nearshore Rockfish, black rockfish, blue rockfish, and cabezon. These protections are particularly important for fisheries off California, where the majority of West Coast recreational fishing occurs. Depth restrictions and GCAs are the primary tools used to keep overfished species impacts under the prescribed harvest levels for the California recreational fishery.

Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, and the Council recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area closures, and size limits, to best fit the requirements to rebuild overfished species found in their regions, and the needs and constraints of their particular recreational fisheries.

Recreational fisheries management measures for Washington, Oregon, and California in 2015-2016 are proposed to be similar to the recreational f

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.