# 80 FR 678: Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 24

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30114

## Section

- **Citation:** 80 FR 678
- **Heading:** Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 24
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 80 / 80 FR 678

## Text

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
lete 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
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
fications 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
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
s 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
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
gnation 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
(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
For overfished stocks, in addition to any stock assessments or stock assessment updates, rebuilding analyses may also be prepared
ssessed 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
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
tober 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
15-2016 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
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
ackspotted 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
ged 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
t 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
ata-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
Ls 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
ish, 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
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
iomass 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
ns 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
( 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
twide 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 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
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
ckfish ( 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
. 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
ing 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 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
( 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
SSS 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
16, 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
ead 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
e 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 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
ontribution (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
e 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
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
ception 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
Lingcod
The Council recommended revising the P* values in 2015-2016 for lingcod between 42° and 40°10′ N
derate 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
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
om 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
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
4 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
5-2016 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
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 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
ed 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
uced 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
icies, 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
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
erfished 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
y 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
ommended 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
ed 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 TARGET or SPR harvest rate)
ssessment, 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 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
asures 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
or 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
Q 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
e 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
icy 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)
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)
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
wning 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)
d 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
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
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
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
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
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
ilar life history characteristics and varying v

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [80 FR 21 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hoquiam River, Hoquiam, WA](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30784.md)
- [80 FR 678 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 24](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30114.md)
- [80 FR 838 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Visibility Protection](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30716.md)
- [80 FR 926 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Rate Setting for Community-Rated Plans](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30633.md)
- [80 FR 1476 Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00199.md)
- [80 FR 1477 Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00234.md)
- [80 FR 1478 Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00263.md)
- [80 FR 1491 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for 21 Species and Proposed Threatened Status for 2 Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00259.md)
- [80 FR 1872 Clarification of Content Eligibility for Standard Mail Marketing Parcels](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00401.md)
- [80 FR 1873 Lead-Based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00473.md)
- [80 FR 1881 Pacific Island Fisheries; Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00444.md)
- [80 FR 2065 Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings for a New Subscription Service](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00203.md)
- [80 FR 2067 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants; Extension of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00461.md)
- [80 FR 2078 Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30777.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30114. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.