[Federal Register: March 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11181-11232]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07mr03-17]
[[Page 11181]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 660
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States and in
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual
Specifications and Management Measures; Final Rule
[[Page 11182]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 021209300-3048-02; I.D. 112502C]
RIN 0648-AQ18
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual
Specifications and Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the 2003 fishery
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and state waters off the coasts of
Washington, Oregon, and California. Final specifications include the
levels of the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and optimum yields
(OYs). Commercial OYs (the total catch OYs reduced by tribal
allocations and by amounts expected to be taken in recreational and
compensation fisheries) described herein are allocated between the
limited entry and open access fisheries. Management measures for 2003
are intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished species,
minimize incidental catch and discard of overfished and depleted
stocks, provide equitable harvest opportunity for both recreational and
commercial sectors, and, within the commercial fisheries, achieve
harvest guidelines and limited entry and open access allocations to the
extent practicable.
DATES: Effective March 1, 2003, until the 2004 annual specifications,
unless modified, superseded, or rescinded through a publication in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR
97220. Copies of the Record of Decision (ROD)final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are
available from D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region
(Regional Administrator), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1,
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne deReynier or Becky Renko
(Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736; and
e-mail: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov, becky.renko@noaa.gov or Svein
Fougner (Southwest Region, NMFS), phone: 562-980-4000; fax: 562-980-
4047; and e-mail: svein.fougner@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office
of the Federal Register's website at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_
docs/aces/aces140.htm.
Background information and documents are
available at the NMFS Northwest Region website at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm
and at the Council's website at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm and at the Council's website at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.pcouncil.org.
http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.pcouncil.org.
Background
A proposed rule to implement the 2003 specifications and management
measures for Pacific Coast groundfish was published on January 7, 2003
(68 FR 936). NMFS requested public comment on the proposed rule through
February 7, 2003. During the comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS
received five letters of comment, which are addressed later in the
preamble to this final rule. See the preamble to the proposed rule for
additional background information on the fishery and on this rule.
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires
that fishery specifications for groundfish be annually evaluated and
revised, as necessary, that OYs be specified for species or species
groups in need of particular protection, and that management measures
designed to achieve the OYs be published in the Federal Register and
made effective by January 1, the beginning of the fishing year. To
ensure that new 2003 fishery management measures were effective January
1, 2003, NMFS published an emergency rule announcing final management
measures for January-February 2003 (68 FR 908, January 7, 2003). Annual
specifications for 2003 and management measures for March-December 2003
were proposed in a separate rule, also published on January 7, 2003.
Specifications and management measures announced in this rule for
2003 are designed to rebuild overfished stocks through constraining
direct and incidental mortality, to prevent overfishing, and to achieve
as much of the OYs as practicable for more abundant groundfish stocks
managed under the FMP.
Comments and Responses
During the comment period for the 2003 specifications and
management measures, which ended on February 7, 2003, NMFS received
five letters of comment. These letters of comment were received
opposing different portions of the rule: two from non-governmental
organizations representing environmental interests, two from an
association of seafood processors, and one from the government of
Canada.
Comments on Harvest Specifications and Overfished Species Rebuilding
Comment 1: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that overfished species be rebuilt
within as short a time as possible. For a number of overfished West
Coast groundfish species, rebuilding periods have been designated as
the maximum time possible without any analysis as to why this time
frame is warranted. Further, the Council and NMFS are overdue in
preparing formal rebuilding plans (in the form of an FMP, an FMP
amendment, or Federal regulations) for the nine overfished groundfish
species.
Response: In relevant part, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
rebuilding periods be as short as possible, taking into account the
status and biology of the overfished stocks, and the needs of fishing
communities, and not exceed ten years except in cases where the biology
of the stock requires more time to rebuild (as is true of most of the
nine overfished groundfish stocks). Under the National Standard
Guidelines that implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the maximum times
to rebuild are: 1) for stocks that can be rebuilt within ten years with
no fishing, ten years, and 2) for stocks that cannot be rebuilt within
ten years with no fishing, the time to rebuild in the absence of
fishing, plus one mean generation. In establishing rebuilding periods,
the Council and NMFS endeavor to meet the conservation requirements
(National Standard 1) while taking into account the needs of fishing
communities (National Standard 8).
The proposed rule defined the rebuilding parameters for each
species, including: that portion of the stock that has been designated
as overfished; the biomass estimate from the most recent assessment;
the maximum allowable time to rebuild (TMAX); rebuilding target
(TTARGET) years (must have at
[[Page 11183]]
least a 50 percent probability of rebuilding within the specified
time); the probability of rebuilding within the maximum permissible
time period (PMAX); and the harvest measures that are being adopted to
keep the total fishing mortality (typically expressed as the fishing
mortality rate) within the specified OYs that will achieve TTARGET.
Policy makers only have control over three of these parameters:
TTARGET, PMAX and the fishing mortality rate. NMFS disagrees that
rebuilding periods have been designated as the maximum time possible.
With the exception of bocaccio rockfish (see response to Comment 2
regarding need for a sustainability analysis), there are no TTARGET
periods that are at or above TMAX for the overfished rockfish species.
The Council is currently preparing Amendment 16, which establishes
the process and standards for rebuilding plans and incorporates
rebuilding measures into the FMP. Overfished species are currently
managed under interim rebuilding strategies, and it is not expected
that the final rebuilding plans will differ substantially in their
basic biological parameters, taking into account any changes that would
be made as a result of new data on overfished stocks' parameters. Thus,
overfished species are not disadvantaged by not having formal
rebuilding plans at this time.
Comment 2: NMFS has proposed a 20 mt OY for the badly overfished
bocaccio rockfish. This harvest level fails to meet the rebuilding
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it would allow only a
50 percent chance of rebuilding bocaccio within 170 years. NMFS admits
that this bocaccio harvest level violates its National Standard
Guidelines and claims that the Guidelines do not address the bocaccio
situation. Although we believe that the National Standard Guidelines
themselves violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot simply dismiss
those Guidelines.
Response: In the revised bocaccio rebuilding analysis prepared
following the June 2002 Council meeting, the bocaccio stock failed to
have a 50 percent probability of rebuilding by TMAX, even in the
absence of fishing. NMFS subsequently prepared a sustainability
analysis for bocaccio rockfish to determine the fishing rates that
would lead to no further decline in abundance over a specified time
frame. The sustainability analysis shows that a harvest level of <=20
mt would provide a 50 percent probability for the stock to rebuild in
170 years, with a high probability (80 percent) of no
further decline in the spawning biomass over the next 100 years. The
southern bocaccio rockfish stock has suffered poor recruitment during
the warm water conditions that have prevailed off Southern California
since the late 1980s. If a period of good recruitment occurs, the stock
could be expected to rebuild much faster than estimated.
The National Standard Guidelines do not address the situation where
NMFS concludes that a stock cannot rebuild by TMAX, even with zero
fishing mortality. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the National
Standard Guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for the bocaccio
rockfish situation and instead has looked directly to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for guidance. Section 304(e)(4)(A)(i) states that a
rebuilding period shall ``be as short as possible, taking into account
the status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, the needs of
fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in
which the United States participates, and the interaction of the
overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem.''
NMFS believes that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the
Council and NMFS meet the conservation needs of the stock (National
Standard 1), and also consider the needs of fishing communities
(National Standard 8). In balancing these considerations NMFS has
determined that zero fishing mortality is not required for this
situation. Zero fishing mortality would seriously adversely affect
fishers and communities in California south of Cape Mendocino because
commercial fisheries (including fisheries for non-groundfish species)
and recreational fisheries that incidentally catch bocaccio would be
severely curtailed or closed altogether for many years into the future.
Comment 3: NMFS violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act by proposing the
same cowcod OY as in previous years. NMFS has not adequately assessed
whether the amount of cowcod discard that is occurring is above or
below the 4.8 mt OY. Finally, NMFS has failed to address the fact that
its prohibition of cowcod landing and retention is not being complied
with in practice the FEIS shows 0.8 mt of cowcod landed in 2001, the
first year in which cowcod retention and landings were prohibited.
Response: NMFS believes that the ABC/OY alternatives presented in
the FEIS represent a reasonable range of alternatives. Under each
alternative, a full suite of ABC/OYs for all managed species were
considered. For cowcod, where no new stock assessment information was
available, the outcome and projections from the previous assessments
(the best scientific information) and rebuilding analyses were carried
over into the new fishing year.
The cowcod OY is based on a constant fishing mortality rate
rebuilding strategy that is approximately 1 percent of the population
(See Council documents: Revised Rebuilding Plan for West Coast Cowcod
Exhibit C.10 Attachment 3, June 2001.) As new assessments are prepared
for cowcod and as the stock recovers, the annual OY will increase in
direct proportion to the biomass. These rates are consistent with the
long term rebuilding goals defined for the individual species and
recommended by the Council.
NMFS agrees that further analysis is needed to fully understand how
prohibiting bottom fishing activities in two Cowcod Conservation Areas
in the Southern California Bight (estimated to be the most important
habitats for cowcod) and no retention regulations coastwide affect the
total mortality of cowcod. Despite these uncertainties, NMFS
anticipates that efforts to minimize bocaccio fishing-related mortality
south of Cape Mendocino will provide further protection for cowcod,
which have a similar latitudinal and depth distribution and reside in
similar habitats as bocaccio. These measures include: the elimination
of all directed bocaccio rockfish retention; new depth based management
measures that will prohibit groundfish-directed bottom trawl; reduced
limited entry fixed gear and open access fishing opportunities in the
depths where bocaccio are most commonly found; and the closure of the
California recreational fisheries south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. from
January through June 2003.
Data collected by observers in the commercial fishery support this
opinion. From September 1, 2001 to August 31, 2002, prior to
implementing the rockfish conservation area, a total of 322 lb (146 kg)
of cowcod were weighed by NMFS observers on limited entry trawl trips,
south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., where some groundfish was retained. When
expanded to account for sub-sampling of some tows, the estimated total
cowcod catch on these observed trips is 751 lb (341 kg), in association
with 745,162 lb (338 mt) of retained groundfish. Using the average tow
depth recorded by the observers as the measure of fishing depth, 95
percent of the weighed cowcod and 93 percent of the expanded cowcod
catch occurred on tows within the depth ranges upon which the 2003
rockfish conservation area is based. No attempt has been made yet to
extrapolate these results to the
[[Page 11184]]
entire limited entry trawl fleet, in terms of either the total amount
or depth distribution of all cowcod bycatch. However, they may serve as
a general indicator of the depth-distribution of cowcod bycatch and the
potential effectiveness of the conservation area.
The source of all 1,764 lb (800 kg) of cowcod landings in 2001 is
unclear at this time. A small amount (100 lb, 45 kg) of the cowcod
appear to have been retained during NMFS survey cruises where research
catch is sold to offset the survey costs. The reminder is most likely
attributable to fishers mis-identifying the species and landing them as
part of other market categories. When those categories are sampled for
species composition and cowcod are found, the ratio of pounds of cowcod
to total pounds is then applied to the entire market category for that
sampling unit (gear/period/port group) to estimate the total amount of
cowcod that were landed. The cowcod landings in 2002 were further
reduced over 2001.
Comment 4: One commenter stated that the OY for darkblotched
rockfish was too low because it was based on an 80 percent probability
of rebuilding by Tmax, suggesting that a 60 percent probability of
rebuilding by that date was a reasonable standard for meeting
rebuilding requirements. Conversely, another commenter stated that the
OY level for darkblotched was too high because it is higher than catch
limits that were in force in 2001. This second commenter also notes
that the 2003 specifications claim a higher likelihood of rebuilding
than claimed in the 2002 specifications.
Response: The goals of rebuilding programs are to achieve the
population size and structure that will support MSY within a specified
time period while minimizing to the extent practicable, the social and
economic impacts associated with rebuilding, including adverse impacts
on fishing communities.
NMFS guidance on rebuilding plans specifies that the minimum
possible time to rebuild is the time to rebuild in the absence of
fishing. For darkblotched rockfish, the minimum time to rebuild is 14
years (2014). The mean generation time for darkblotched rockfish is 33
years, therefore the maximum allowable time to rebuild would be 47
years (2047). In determining the target rebuilding time period NMFS
guidance recommends that the target rebuilding time be shorter than the
maximum allowable time. The recommended default in section 3.4 of the
technical guidance document (Technical Guidance On the Use of
Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO- July 17, 1998) is that the
target rebuilding time not exceed the midpoint between the minimum and
maximum possible rebuilding times (Tmid).
A draft rebuilding analysis was prepared in May 2001 and presented
to the Council at its June 2001 meeting. This draft analysis was
revised by NMFS in August 2001 and was adopted by the Council at its
September 2001 meeting. The new analysis indicated that the stock was
more depleted than originally estimated (12 percent vs 22 percent of
unfished biomass,) and that the stock could not be rebuilt within 10
years as was previously thought. Therefore, the OYs since 2002 reflect
an extended rebuilding trajectory.
The 2002 OY of 168 mt, was based on a 70 percent probability of
rebuilding the stock to MSY by TMAX. This is equivalent to a TTARGET of
2034. The 2003 OY of 172 mt is based on the rebuilding analysis, which
has a 80 percent probability of rebuilding the stock to MSY by TMAX.
This is equivalent to a TTARGET of 2030. The Council recommended and
NMFS agrees, that an OY of 172 mt for 2003 provides a reasonable
balance between the length of time for rebuilding the stock and the
adverse economic impacts to the limited entry trawl sector. The
projected darkblotched biomass increase results in a higher OY even
though the rebuilding time is shorter.
Comment 5: The OY for Pacific ocean perch (POP) is too low because
it was based on a 70 percent probability of rebuilding by Ttarget. A 60
percent probability of rebuilding by that date is a reasonable standard
for meeting rebuilding requirements.
Response: In 2001 the POP rebuilding analysis was updated with the
most recent scientific information. In 2002, the OY of 350 mt reflected
a 70 percent probability of rebuilding by the year 2042. For 2003,
three OYs based on the most recent rebuilding analysis and
corresponding to 50, 70, and 80 percent probabilities of rebuilding the
stock by the year 2041 were presented to the Council. The Council
recommended OY of 377 mt which corresponds to a 70 percent probability
of rebuilding the stock by 2041. This OY was chosen because it was
consistent with the interim rebuilding strategy adopted by the Council
in prior years.
NMFS agrees with the Council's recommendation, and believes that
increasing the OY for POP to a level that corresponds to a 60 percent
probability of rebuilding the stock by 2041 provides little if any
benefit to fishers. Because POP is a slope species and is found in
similar areas as darkblotched rockfish, measures to protect
darkblotched rockfish reduce the availability of POP to the commercial
fishery. The best available data on December 31, 2002 indicates that
only about 50 percent of the available OY for POP was landed in 2002.
With the 2003 conservation areas, there will likely be fewer
opportunities for vessels to directly or indirectly take POP, therefore
there would be no benefit to fishers from raising the OY.
Comment 6: The yelloweye rockfish OY is 63 percent higher than in
2002. While the agency suggests that yelloweye rockfish is in better
shape than it was a year ago, the higher OY results in a rebuilding
period that is 15 years longer than it would have been under 2002
harvest levels.
Response: For 2002, the ABC for yelloweye rockfish was set in
acknowledgment that this stock would be designated as overfished and
was based on the recommendation from the stock assessment author and
the Stock Assessment Review Panel that reviewed the assessment. The
Council adopted a total catch OY for yelloweye rockfish that was based
on a precautionary adjustment of 50 percent of the specified ABC.
On January 11, 2002, yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished (67
FR 1555). At the Council's June 2002 meeting, an initial yelloweye
rockfish rebuilding analysis, based on the 2001 assessment, was
prepared and presented. The development of rebuilding measures for
yelloweye rockfish was hampered in this process because this assessment
did not cover waters off the coast of Washington. In August 2002, an
updated assessment was completed in order to incorporate data from
Washington, an important area of yelloweye rockfish abundance, and to
incorporate newly available age data.
The assessment update concluded that the coastwide yelloweye
rockfish spawning female biomass was at 24.1 percent of its unfished
biomass at the beginning of 2002. This is in contrast to the 2001
assessment that estimated that yelloweye rockfish was at about 7
percent of its unfished biomass in waters off northern California and
at 13 percent of its unfished biomass in waters off Oregon. A new
rebuilding analysis was prepared following completion of the 2002
assessment. Due to the less depleted stock status and higher
productivity estimated by the updated assessment, the rebuilding period
is shorter than had been initially estimated. The estimated year to
rebuild
[[Page 11185]]
in the absence of fishing is 2027, while the target rebuilding year
associated with a 22 mt OY for 2003 is 2052(TMID). Selecting an OY that
corresponds to TMID is consistent with NMFS guidance on rebuilding
plans.
NMFS believes that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the
Council and NMFS meet the conservation needs of the stock (National
Standard 1), and also consider the needs of fishing communities
(National Standard 8). A lower rebuilding OY, which would further
reduce the potential income of the fishers is not required.
Comment 7: One commenter stated that the sablefish should be set
higher, at 8,187 mt, which would be based on recruitment changes
affected by environmental conditions, the default MSY proxy, and the
Council's harvest control rule. Failing to base the sablefish OY on
environmental conditions ignore the best available science, which show
that environmental conditions affect stock status. Conversely, another
commenter stated that the sablefish OY is 30 percent higher than that
recommended by the Council's Allocation Committee, saying that the
higher amount is not justified.
Response: The SSC indicated that the medium and high OYs were
relatively risk-prone and advised the Council that caution should be
used when setting the 2003 harvest levels. The 5,000 mt OY, as
recommended by the Council's ad hoc Allocation Committee, was
consistent with the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC)
recommendation because it addressed uncertainty in the assessment
relating to the different states of nature.
After deliberations, the Council recommended OY of 6,500 mt which
is a 7,455 mt OY, based on a 40/10 adjustment to the ABC, with an
additional 1,000 mt precautionary reduction. The Council based its
recommendation on the SSC's advice to be precautionary because of
assessment uncertainties, and because the sablefish biomass is within
the precautionary range. While the OY is higher than that recommended
by the Allocation Committee, this OY is still considered to be risk
averse rather than risk neutral. NMFS agrees with the Council's
recommendation.
Comment 8: One commenter stated that the whiting OY is too low and
is set at a harvest rate that is more conservative than the Council's
default rate, which is unjustified. Another commenter stated that the
OY is contrary to the scientific advice of the U.S. Canada Review
Panel. A third commenter stated that the whiting OY was higher than
recommended by the Council's SSC and that setting the higher OY was
unjustified.
Response: In estimating the current biomass, NMFS used a medium
level recruitment assumption of a recent (1999) large year class. The
medium recruitment level was considered to be risk neutral. The U.S.
ABC of 188,000 mt is 80 percent of the coastwide ABC. The U.S. whiting
OY is 148,200 mt which is 80 percent of the coastwide OY (185,325 mt)
and is based on the application of an F45% harvest rate, reduced by the
Council's default rebuilding 40-10 harvest rate policy. Under the 40-10
harvest rate policy, the OYs of stocks that are below B40% abundance
are set at increasingly more conservative rates the farther they are
below B40%.
The SSC advised the Council to be precautionary when setting the
Pacific whiting OY and not increase it over the 2002 harvest level
(U.S. OY for 2002 was 129,600 mt) until a new assessment was conducted.
However, the Council indicated that the medium harvest level, 148,200
mt (13 percent increase over 2002), based on the 2003 projected biomass
with an F45% harvest rate proxy was sufficiently precautionary, because
the risk neutral medium recruitment assumption and a more conservative
harvest rate proxy were applied. The ABC for a species or species group
is generally derived by multiplying the harvest rate proxy by the
biomass to forecast the amount of harvest available to the fishery.
Because of expected whiting biomass growth in the coming years, this
will result in a short-term increase in the OY. However, the more
precautionary harvest rate proxy is expected to increase the rebuilding
rate and reduce the risk of declining back into an overfished state
because whiting is a highly productive species.
The Joint Canada-U.S. Review Panel on the Stock assessment of the
Coastal Pacific Hake/Whiting stock met in February 2002 and prepared a
report, which was used by the Council and SSC in recommending the
Pacific whiting harvest levels for 2002. While both U.S. and Canadian
review panel members had a common interest in conducting sound
technical review, they had different responsibilities in terms of the
type of advice expected by the Council and Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Specifically, the review panel recommended
changing the harvest rate to an F45% harvest rate and selecting the
harvest level bounded by the low and medium recruitment scenarios for
the 1999 year-class. This was a risk adverse policy recommendation that
was not adopted by the Council for the reasons previously stated.
Comment 9: NMFS has failed to compensate for overharvest in past
years' fisheries in proposing harvest limits for 2003. In its proposed
rule at 68 FR 953, NMFS discussed overfishing that had occurred in
2001, but not in 2002, claiming that landings data was not available at
the time of the publication of the proposed rule. A full month has
passed since the end of 2002, therefore, NMFS will violate the
Magnuson-Stevens Act if it fails to consider 2002 catch data in making
its final decision on the 2003 specifications.
Response: Each year since 2000, NMFS has provided a brief report
within the preamble to the proposed rule on whether overfishing
occurred on any groundfish species in the last year for which data was
available. This report is not a required part of the preamble to the
specifications and is simply provided as an update for the public. The
commenter has taken a sentence from that report and revised its context
so as to accuse the agency of failing to consider 2002 data in crafting
specifications and management measures for 2003. The Council and its
participating state and Federal agencies consider all available data,
including catch data from the current fishing year when devising
specifications and management measures for the upcoming fishing year.
To the extent that they were available, data from fisheries
conducted during 2002 were used in evaluating 2003 management options
for all fleets targeting groundfish. Inseason comparison of trawl
bycatch projections with reported landings during the first four months
of 2002 resulted in adjustments to the expected target species landings
of vessels within the 2003 model. Additionally, because trawl landings
of bocaccio during the first four months exceeded the total bycatch
projected for that timespan, bocaccio bycatch rates were increased for
modeling the 2003 trawl fishery. Recommendations for management of the
fixed gear, daily trip limit fishery for sablefish also incorporated
landings during the first four months of 2002, in conjunction with
catch rates over the previous three years. Early season landings in the
recreational and commercial fixed gear fisheries for nearshore rockfish
were included in evaluating 2003 management, along with recent years'
landings. However, in the region north of 40[deg]10' N. lat.,
participation is usually low early in the year due to bad weather. As a
result, landings during this period are of
[[Page 11186]]
limited use in evaluating the overall adequacy of measures adopted for
the entire year. While recreational and commercial fixed gear vessels
are usually more active in the region south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. early
in the year, these groundfish fisheries were closed during two of the
first four months of 2002, restricting their usefulness. As data for
May and June became available during the summer, they were examined,
and incorporated into 2003 projections where appropriate.
In this letter of comment, the commenter refers to the Quota
Species Monitoring (QSM) system, asserting that this system collects
and reports data within about two weeks of landings and is used for
inseason management. This comment expresses a common confusion between
the best available science and the most recently available science. The
QSM system provides estimates of total landings for managed species
that are used for inseason fishery monitoring to show managers general
fishery trends, such as whether a particular species is being landed at
higher or lower amounts than the previous year or cumulative limit
period. QSM data is not used in stock assessments because assessments
require more accurate and specific landings data, data that comes from
fishtickets. Data from fishtickets is also needed and used to predict
individual vessel behavior within different management scenarios.
Information from fishtickets, which detail the landings of individual
vessels, is not available until several months after the landings
recorded by those fish tickets were made. Accurate landings data from
fishtickets represents the best available scientific information about
how landings of the different groundfish species are distributed
between various ports coastwide. Landings levels predicted by the QSM
system represent only the most recently available information on
general landings trends and cannot substitute for the accuracy and
specificity of fishticket landings data.
Stock assessments conducted during 2002 were initiated very early
in the year, and were completed by April. Catches are specified in the
models on an annual basis, and given the Council's ability to respond
to early trends through use of inseason adjustments, it would not have
been appropriate to have modified the models' assumptions regarding
expected 2002 catch, based on only 2 months of landings data.
Comment 10: We disagree with NMFS's statement that ``[N]ew
leglisative mandates . . . gave highest priority to preventing
overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks.'' National Standard 1
requires fisheries management measures to prevent overfishing ``while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery
for the United States fishing industry.''
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains ten National Standards
that characterize the nation's primary objectives for Federal fisheries
management. National Standard 1 reads as follows: ``Conservation and
management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United
States fishing industry.'' National Standard 8 reads as follows:
``Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A)
provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to
the extent practicable, minimize the adverse economic impacts on such
communities.'' Balancing these two national standards is at the heart
of the challenge faced by NMFS and the Council in managing West Coast
groundfish fisheries. National Standard 8 does recognize the importance
of fishing communities, but it makes that recognition while reminding
managers of their obligation to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks.
Bycatch and Discard
Comment 11: The 2003 groundfish management measures are a complex
combination of trip limits and depth-based closures; however, the
agency lacks much of the scientific information needed to ensure the
success of this management scheme. The agency must establish an
accurate accounting system to measure total catch and must establish a
monitoring system to measure the depths at which the different species
are caught. We fully endorse the use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS)
to both enforce depth-based closures and to provide much-needed data on
the catch locations for particular species.
Response: NMFS agrees. The groundfish management measures are
certainly complex and will require monitoring systems to both enforce
regulations and to provide scientific information on the effectiveness
of the regulations at protecting overfished groundfish species. NMFS is
investigating VMS units and preparing its computer database facilities
for receiving and organizing VMS data. The agency expects to soon
publish a proposed rule that would set out requirements for all limited
entry vessels that fish for groundfish to carry VMS. These proposed
regulations would undergo public review and comment while the burden of
increased public reporting duties associated with VMS were also under
public review and Office of Management and Budget review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. If NMFS approves final VMS regulations for
implementation, the agency expects that this system would provide much-
needed data on the locations and depths at which vessels fish. Such
information would be subject to Magnuson-Stevens Act confidentiality
restrictions, but is expected to be very useful to NMFS enforcement and
science centers. Data from the groundfish observer program and from the
VMS program are expected to notably improve NMFS scientific information
on West Coast groundfish and groundfish fishing activities. Data from
the NMFS observer program will enhance the agency's ability to estimate
the total catch of not only bycatch species, but target species, as
well. Appropriate application of observer discard data to entire fleets
requires substantial data review and modeling; this work is now
underway.
Comment 12: Three commenters discussed the current model for
bycatch analysis and suggested that NMFS needs to update and improve
the data used in that analysis. In particular, the commenters were
critical of the use of trawl logbook data in the current bycatch
analysis, saying that the data is old and does not accurately reflect
current fishing patterns. Commenters also suggested that NMFS
incorporate observer data into its bycatch rate analyses, and use that
data to check its bycatch rate assumptions for 2003. One of these
commenters further noted that the bycatch model only addresses the
trawl fisheries and asked that NMFS conduct a review of its data
sources on fishing-related mortality and update the FMP to specify the
types of data needed to improve estimates of total mortality.
Response: NMFS agrees that the bycatch model needs to be updated
and needs to incorporate observer data, and the agency and the Council
are working toward those ends. On January 27-29, 2003, the Council's
SSC sponsored a workshop to review the bycatch model and the data
sources for that model. The SSC plans to evaluate the report of the
workshop review panel at its March 2003 meeting, which will be held
concurrently with the Council's March 9-14, 2003 in Sacramento,
California,
[[Page 11187]]
and provide the Council with its recommendations at the April 2003
Council meeting. NMFS believes that this SSC review is an important
step toward improving the bycatch model to better support groundfish
management.
NMFS agrees that observer data from the new NMFS West Coast
groundfish observer program needs to be incorporated into the bycatch
model. Before using the data for inseason management, NMFS must first
review the data for potential sources of bias and, in conjunction with
the SSC, determine the most appropriate methods for incorporating the
new data into the bycatch model. On January 30, 2003, NMFS released its
first report on observer program data. The observer program began in
August 2001 and this new report provides data from the August 2001
through August 2002 period. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center is
currently determining how best to integrate the new observer data into
the model. Results from the first year of the observer program's
activities are available online as the West Coast Groundfish Observer
Program Initial Data Report and Summary Analyses at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/
fram/ Observer/ datareport.htm.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/ Observer/ datareport.htm.
NMFS also agrees that logbook data should not be a primary data
source for the bycatch rates used in the model, although the agency
notes that logbook and fish ticket data are likely to remain integral
to projecting fleet behavior within the bycatch model. One commenter
noted that fishing strategies have changed since the 1999 logbook data
used in the model became available. While it is true that fishing
strategies have changed, the 1999 logbook data are used to show co-
occurrence between the more abundant targeted stocks and overfished
stocks during a period when fishing was less restricted. Fishery
managers need to know how co-occurrence ratios looked during less
restrictive fishing periods in order to better craft fishing
restrictions that will reduce interceptions of overfished species.
Another commenter noted that logbooks only show the beginnings of tow
locations, not the direction and duration of the tows. NMFS and the
Council need more accurate information on where trawl vessels are
fishing throughout their tows. However, individual trawl tows may last
for hours and encompass a wide range of depths. Consequently, even
complete information regarding the path of any tow would not eliminate
all ambiguity on where particular species were caught. NMFS also needs
more information on the fishing locations of the non-trawl and
recreational fleets in addition to improvements in trawl fishing
location data. If NMFS is able to approve the VMS system regulations
discussed above in the response to Comment 11, the agency expects that
its data on the locations and depths at which vessels fish will be
markedly improved. While the VMS regulations would initially apply to
limited entry vessels fishing for West Coast groundfish, NMFS
anticipates expanding these requirements to commercial passenger
fishing vessels (recreational charter boats) and to the open access
groundfish fleet.
NMFS agrees that the current bycatch model only addresses the
groundfish trawl fleet. During development of the model, bycatch rate
data were unavailable for other fleets that catch groundfish. The NMFS
observer program is collecting data from non-trawl fishery
participants. As more data become available, it is the agency's intent
to expand the bycatch model to include other gear types. With respect
to the comment that NMFS needs to conduct a review of its data sources
on fishing-related mortality, NMFS refers the public to the NMFS
Northwest Fisheries Science Center's 2002 Groundfish Research Plan in
2002, which is available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/
2002, which is available online at http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/
GFresearchplan.htm. Among other things, the Groundfish Research Plan
provides planning goals for investigating bycatch and discard, and how
these contribute to total groundfish mortality.
Comment 13: NMFS has refused to seriously consider the alternative
of managing the fishery under a system of discard caps, under which the
fishery would be closed if a certain amount of discard occurred.
Response: NMFS has refused to seriously consider the alternative of
managing the fishery under a system of discard caps, under which the
fishery would be closed if a certain amount of discard occurred.
``Discard caps'' generally refers to a management tool whereby an
entire fishery, or fishing by an individual vessel, is halted when
discard quotas for designated species are reached. Administration of
such a system requires real-time information on discards as the fishery
progresses, either through comprehensive, direct observation by fishery
observers, or by a combination of observer and landings data that can
be extrapolated to yield a reliable estimate of discards. While NMFS
has not ``refused to seriously consider'' managing the Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery with a discard caps program, there is no data
collection system in place, nor is there likely to be in the near
future, on which to base a system of discard caps. NMFS will be
analyzing discard caps more fully in its Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, a preliminary draft of which should be
available for public review in late summer 2003.
West Coast groundfish management uses a similar management tool
that has been adapted to account for the relatively data poor
conditions in the West Coast groundfish fishery. The bycatch model,
which is currently under scientific review as discussed earlier in this
section, estimates the amounts of overfished species that will be taken
in fisheries targeting more abundant stocks. These estimates are
stratified over the months of the year, because historic data has shown
that groups of groundfish species are taken in different combinations
at different times of the year. Estimated bycatch and discard of
overfished species is monitored through the catch and landings levels
of targeted species. For example, NMFS will monitor the amounts of
Dover sole and sablefish landed to estimate the amount of darkblotched
rockfish discard in that sector of the fishery. Darkblotched rockfish
is a deepwater rockfish species incidentally taken with Dover sole and
sablefish. The Council recommends adjustments to the trip limits and/or
closures of different sectors of the fishery if the OYs for overfished
species are estimated to be approached. In 2002, for example, the
Council learned at its June meeting that it had not accounted for
darkblotched rockfish taken south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. when it
developed the 2002 specifications and management measures. To prevent
the deepwater fisheries from exceeding the darkblotched rockfish OY,
the Council reduced trip limits for deepwater species in July and
August and recommended area closures in waters where darkblotched
rockfish is commonly found for September-December. NMFS implemented the
Council's July-August recommendation, but found in investigating its
September-December recommendation that darkblotched rockfish are more
likely to be taken by vessels targeting deepwater species in September
than in the summer or winter months. Thus, NMFS closed deepwater trawl
fisheries in September and implemented area closures for October-
December via an emergency rule.
NMFS began its observer program in August 2001 and, as mentioned
above,
[[Page 11188]]
has just reported its first results. However, the observer program does
not have the resources to provide observer data to managers for real-
time fishery management. The agency expects that integrating observer
data into the bycatch model and recalibrating the model with that data
will significantly improve NMFS and Council ability to estimate bycatch
and discard in the West Coast groundfish fishery. These changes will
still not allow NMFS to implement a discard cap management program,
which as mentioned earlier, requires real-time observer program data.
No one management tool is suitable for all fisheries, thus NMFS and the
Council must craft management tools suitable to the West Coast
groundfish fisheries and to the scientific information available on
West Coast groundfish and groundfish fisheries. As suggested by another
commenter in Comment 12, NMFS should be evaluating its data sources on
bycatch and discard and setting goals for improving both data gathering
and data evaluation through models like the bycatch model. In this
manner, the agency will improve its ability to craft management tools
specific to the groundfish fishery and its needs.
Comment 14: The same commenter that stated that NMFS had failed to
consider discard caps also stated that NMFS has failed to establish
adequate bycatch assessment requirements for the fishery. This
commenter noted that there are no bycatch assessment requirements
contained in the proposed specifications.
Response: The groundfish specifications and management measures
annually set harvest limits and management measures that constrain the
fisheries such that they are permitted to achieve harvest levels for
more abundant stocks while still ensuring that harvest levels for
protected stocks are not exceeded. As discussed earlier in this
section, OYs of more abundant stocks are often not reached because
harvest is constrained or closed to protect overfished stocks. In any
case, the annual specifications and management measures process is not
intended to address every aspect of groundfish fishery management.
However, it is incorrect to assert that NMFS has failed to address
bycatch assessment requirements altogether simply because bycatch
assessment requirements are not part of the annual specifications and
management measures regulatory package. Bycatch assessment requirements
are part of NMFS's permanent Federal regulations at 50 CFR part
660.360, implemented at 66 FR 20609, April 24, 2001, which provide
groundfish observer program requirements and regulations for the West
Coast groundfish fishery. For further information on the West Coast
groundfish observer program, the observer coverage plan, and the first
year of groundfish observer program data, please see: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/
fram/ observer/datareport.htm.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/ observer/datareport.htm.
Comment 15: One commenter stated that NMFS has failed to take
adequate account of the bycatch occurring in the pink shrimp and prawn
fisheries, in order to ensure that total mortality of overfished
groundfish species does not exceed the level necessary to meet
overfished species rebuilding requirements. A second commenter
expressed concern about the potential bycatch of several overfished
species in the spot prawn trawl fisheries. This commenter also noted
that these are not federally-managed species and that therefore, the
NMFS expectation that the spot prawn trawl fisheries will close in 2003
may not be correct. If the spot prawn trawl fisheries are not closed,
NMFS and the Council may have underestimated overfished species bycatch
in those fisheries.
Response: The second commenter is correct in saying that the pink
shrimp and spot prawn trawl fisheries are state-managed fisheries. Each
of the three coastal states has a seat on the Council, however, and is
an active partner in coastwide efforts to protect overfished groundfish
fisheries. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) (ODFW) has been
cooperating with the Oregon shrimp fleet to experiment with different
types of Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) since 1994. Vessels
participating in state pink shrimp trawl fisheries are now required to
carry BRDs to participate in those fisheries, significantly reducing
their groundfish and other finfish bycatch. NMFS particularly
appreciates the initiative the states and the pink shrimp industry have
taken to design and test these BRDs, allowing a lucrative fishery to
remain open while still reducing its bycatch of overfished groundfish
species.
In all three states, spot prawn is taken with pot gear, a gear with
very low bycatch rates, and has also been targeted with trawl gear.
Washington State has eliminated its spot prawn trawl fishery. Oregon
has three vessels participating in the spot prawn trawl fishery, which
it had allowed as an experimental fishery. ODFW employees have
indicated that this experimental use of trawl gear would end as of
January 1, 2004. NMFS understands that the California Fish and Game
Commission (Commission) is deliberating whether to continue to allow
spot prawn trawling. The possibility that California may not close its
spot prawn trawl fishery is of great concern to NMFS. NMFS has sent a
letter to the Commission reminding it that California Department of
Fish and Game employees participating in the Council process had
estimated California's commercial fishery catch of bocaccio on the
assumption that the spot prawn trawl fishery would no longer exist in
2003. In that letter, NMFS told the Commission that if it did not
prohibit fishing for spot prawns with trawl gear, NMFS and the Council
would be forced to consider additional constraints on California
groundfish fisheries to offset the bycatch expected if the spot prawn
trawl fishery continues. In addition, if the spot prawn trawl fishery
were to occur, it would be prohibited in the trawl Rockfish
Conservation Areas (RCAs).
Comment 16: For several fisheries, NMFS and the Council have
underestimated the amount of bocaccio bycatch that may be expected to
occur, particularly: the open access fisheries, the California set
gillnet fisheries, the limited entry flatfish trawl fishery, and the
California halibut trawl fishery.
Response: The commenter details several points where data on the
above-listed fisheries may be insufficient to properly estimate bycatch
or where historic bycatch estimates are higher than the bycatch levels
expected in 2003. In discussing the open access fisheries, the
commenter notes that bocaccio landings by the open access fleet were
higher in 1999 (22.8 mt) than estimated for all fisheries in 2003.
Bocaccio were declared overfished in March 1998, with the first
management measures to reduce bocaccio take introduced in 2000. Since
bocaccio was declared overfished along with lingcod and Pacific ocean
perch, six other West Coast groundfish species have been declared
overfished. West Coast groundfish management in 2003 is radically
different from that of 1999. NMFS has used 1999 logbook data as a
reference to how overfished species interact with more abundant species
during a relatively less restrictive fishing regime. The 2003 fishery
management regime is considerably more restrictive than that of 1999
and 1999 bocaccio landings are not an accurate estimate of bocaccio
harvest expected to occur in 2003. Limited entry and open access
commercial fisheries and recreational groundfish fisheries have been
under ever more restrictive management regimes in each year since 1999,
such that 2003 management measures include more restrictive trip
[[Page 11189]]
limits for co-occurring species, shorter season lengths, higher bycatch
rate assumptions, and large-scale RCAs where groundfish fishing is
prohibited or otherwise restricted.
In the commenter's discussion of the California set gillnet
fishery, the commenter assumes higher bycatch levels than those
estimated by NMFS by comparing historic fishery data (1996-1999) with
those estimates. As the commenter notes, several new fishery
restrictions have been implemented by California and by NMFS since
those years. It is not reasonable to expect that overfished species
catch and discard levels will be the same under the 2003 management
regime as they were under the significantly less restrictive management
regimes of the late 1990s.
In discussing the limited entry flatfish trawl fishery, the
commenter compares estimates of bocaccio bycatch from a California
application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to estimates of the
bocaccio bycatch in the limited entry flatfish trawl fishery.
California has decided not to pursue this EFP. Nonetheless, estimates
of overfished species bycatch for EFPs are intended to be some
relatively high, liberal amount that would allow the EFP to remain open
for as long as possible without jeopardizing rebuilding and do not
necessarily reflect expected bycatch amounts. Estimates of bycatch in
directed fisheries are based on the bycatch model, which looks at
historical co-occurrence rates between the more abundant targeted
stocks and overfished species. Further, directed limited entry trawling
would occur within a more restricted area than had been planned for the
flatfish EFP, which would tend to lower bycatch rates for that directed
fishery.
The commenter's concerns with the California halibut fishery are of
interest to NMFS and the Council. The Council has received conflicting
reports on the type and level of bycatch occurring in this fishery.
NMFS notes that California halibut trawling would be under the same
conservation area restrictions as limited entry trawling, which are
designed to move trawlers away from areas where bocaccio commonly
occur. These area restrictions are expected to result in lower
incidental bocaccio take in the California halibut trawl fisheries. In
its review of bycatch and discard data sources, NMFS will be looking at
information on all fisheries in which groundfish are taken, including
the California halibut open access trawl fisheries.
Comments on Fisheries Regulations
Comment 17: One commenter stated that the groundfish conservation
areas are not closed to all fishing, providing the example that some
trawling is allowed in the trawl RCAs and that some nontrawl gear
fishing is allowed in the nontrawl gear RCAs. This commenter stated
that NMFS has failed to justify providing these exceptions to the
conservation area restrictions. Another commenter wrote to support
depth-based management in general.
Response: NMFS appreciates the opportunity to clarify this
situation. The State of California has created the California Rockfish
Conservation Area (CRCA), which is an area south of 40[deg]10' N. lat.
that is closed to fishing for groundfish between 50 fm (91 m) and 150
fm (274 m). The CRCA has several exceptions for different gears in
different areas and an additional closure in the northern portion of
the CRCA to protect darkblotched rockfish north of 38[deg] N. lat.
California proposed this CRCA to the Council and the Council adopted
the regulatory provisions of the CRCA for recommendation to NMFS as
part of its 2003 groundfish management measures package. NMFS felt that
a large closed area with several open areas inside it would be both
confusing to the public and inconsistent with the Council's management
recommendations for waters north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Thus, NMFS has
implemented a trawl-specific rockfish conservation area (RCA) that is
bounded between 50 and 250 fm (91 and 457 m) from 40[deg]10' N. lat.
south to 38[deg] N. lat., between 50 fm and 150 fm (91 and 274 m) from
38[deg] N. lat. south to 34[deg]27 N. lat., and between 100 fm and 150
fm (183 and 274 m)from 34[deg]27 south to the U.S. border with Mexico.
Within that Federal RCA, the only trawling permitted is pink shrimp
trawling with BRDs. These regulations have the same effect as the
California recommendation to close all trawling south of 40[deg]10' N.
lat., except that pink shrimp trawling with BRDs would be allowed and
that trawling inshore of 50 fm (91 m) would be allowed between
40[deg]10' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. and inshore of 100 fm (183 m)
south of 34[deg]27' N. lat, and except that trawling would further be
prohibited between 150 fm (274 m) and 250 fm (457 m) between 40[deg]10'
N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. The NMFS regulations for conservation areas
south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. are consistent with those for north of
40[deg]10' N. lat. in that the regulations implement different closed
areas for trawl and nontrawl vessels.
The commenter correctly notes that some nontrawl gear fishing is
permitted in nontrawl gear conservation areas. Albacore and salmon
fishing with hook-and-line gear are permitted in the conservation
areas. Bottom longline fisheries like the nontreaty halibut fishery,
where overfished groundfish species are more likely to be taken, will
be prohibited within the nontrawl conservation areas. The conservation
areas are not closed areas wherein all fishing of any type is
prohibited; rather, they are conservation areas wherein fishing
activities expected to take overfished species are prohibited or
restricted.
Comment 18: We object to fisheries regulations that prohibit the
possession of fish in excess of trip limits and that force vessels to
continuously offload their catch. Prohibiting the possession of fish in
excess of trip limits puts processors in jeopardy of citation.
Processors must often offload fish in order to determine whether trip
limits have been exceeded and how to deal with that excess fish. We
suggest that possession of fish in excess of trip limits be permitted
in cases where state or Federal officials are alerted to that
possession within 96 hours of the start of the possession.
Response: Federal groundfish regulations have prohibited the
``taking and retaining, possessing or landing'' of groundfish in excess
of trip limits since the 1980s. Federal regulations do not require
vessels to continuously offload their catch; rather, the regulations
require that once offloading is begun, all fish on board the vessel be
recorded on the same landings receipt and/or fish ticket. Processors
are not in any more jeopardy of prosecution for possession of trip
limit overages than they ever have been. NMFS and state enforcement
officers will continue to expect fishers and processors to report trip
limit overages and to forfeit those overages to the state in which they
are landed. Possession of trip limit overages, whether reported or not,
is a violation of Federal law, but enforcement of that prohibition is
dealt with far differently for those persons who are found to have
possessed such overages without reporting them. NMFS and state
enforcement continue to need an avenue for prosecuting fishers and
processors that retain trip limit overages without reporting and
forfeiting those overages. Although the agency appreciates the
commenter's concern for the ability of processors to comply with
Federal law, NMFS will not be loosening this Federal restriction.
Comment 19: The trawl trip limit table for north of 40[deg]10' N.
lat. lists an incorrect trip limit for yellowtail rockfish when taken
as bycatch in the
[[Page 11190]]
flatfish fisheries. The currently listed limit of 3,000 lb (1,361 kg)
per month should be 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per month. Trip limit tables
discussed and adopted at the Council's September meeting showed
incidental yellowtail rockfish catch levels of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg)
per month. NMFS changed this catch limit after the Council meeting with
no public scrutiny and no economic analysis of the effects of the
change.
Response: In its motion on groundfish management measures, the
Council adopted the limited entry trawl trip limits shown in the
Council's Exhibit C.3.v., Supplemental GMT report, at pages 4-5.
Unfortunately, that table is unclear on the trip limit for yellowtail
rockfish when taken as bycatch in the flatfish fisheries. The table
shows the yellowtail rockfish limit when taken in the flatfish
fisheries as ``3,000?'' The Council never clarified this limit in its
motion, but the Council's post-meeting newsletter mistakenly listed the
limit as 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per month, perhaps based on the 2002
yellowtail rockfish limit in the winter flatfish fisheries, which was
30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per 2 months.
NMFS has reviewed January-April 2002 trawl vessel-month landings of
yellowtail rockfish in combination with flatfish. A vessel-month
represents the landings activities of a single vessel in a single
month. In 97 percent of the vessel-months in which flatfish were landed
during January-April 2002, the amount of yellowtail rockfish associated
with those flatfish landings was less than 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) and it
was zero pounds (0 kg) over 80 percent of the time. Given the lack of
clarity in the table the Council used for its recommendations and the
fact that the 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per month limit accommodated 97
percent of all yellowtail landings in association with flatfish in
January-April 2002, NMFS does not believe that an increase to 30,000 lb
(13,608 kg) per month is warranted at this time. The Council will have
an opportunity to review groundfish trip limits and other management
measures at its April 7-11, 2003 meeting in Vancouver, Washington.
Comment 20: The management measures authorize considerable midwater
trawling, but NMFS has failed to explain which overfished species may
be negatively affected by midwater trawling and what those effects
might be. Apparently the agency believes that midwater trawling will
not increase the mortality of overfished species beyond the levels
necessary to rebuild those species as quickly as possible.
Response: As detailed in the Council's FEIS for this action, the
vast majority of midwater trawling for groundfish off the West Coast
targets Pacific whiting. Other than Pacific whiting, there are small
allowances for yellowtail and widow rockfish when taken with midwater
gear in association with Pacific whiting. There may also be directed
yellowtail and widow rockfish fisheries with midwater gear in November-
December 2003, if total catch estimates for these and associated stocks
show that these fisheries may be held without risk of exceeding the OYs
of any species. These fisheries will not proceed if there are not
sufficient portions of the OYs remaining to accommodate expected catch.
NMFS does expect that midwater trawling will result in widow rockfish,
an overfished species, being caught and landed. However, NMFS does not
expect that the take of widow rockfish in the midwater trawl fisheries
will jeopardize the rebuilding plan for widow rockfish because
management measures for 2003 have been designed to keep estimated total
widow rockfish mortality in directed fisheries and as bycatch below the
widow rockfish OY.
NMFS regularly documents bycatch in the midwater trawl fisheries.
The total catch by species in the at-sea whiting fishery has been
monitored by observers since 1991. Each vessel currently carries two
observers, so virtually all hauls are directly sampled and are figured
into the total catch estimates. NMFS provides an aggregation of at-sea
whiting bycatch in an annual report provided to the public at the April
Council meeting. EFPs are used in the shorebased whiting fishery and
the vast majority of shorebased landings are landed unsorted, with a
census of the catch taken upon landing. Port samplers also monitor
shorebased whiting processing facilities. The State of Oregon reports
on bycatch in the coastwide shorebased whiting fishery in an annual
report, which is available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/ odfw/
finfish/ wh/index.html. As documented in these reports, bycatch of
overfished species other than widow rockfish is at trace levels (fewer
than 0.01 kg per mt of whiting taken.)
Comment 21: NMFS failed to consider an obvious management measure
to ban the use and carrying of large footrope trawl gear, rather than
simply banning the landing of shelf rockfish by vessels carrying that
gear. Large footrope trawl gear may affect deeper-water species, which
may be low-mobility, long-lived species that are more vulnerable to the
acute and chronic physical disturbance of trawling. NMFS has failed to
support its implicit conclusion that large footrope trawling will not
impact deeper-water overfished species such as darkblotched rockfish.
Response: The commenter has incorrectly characterized NMFS
regulations. Large footrope gear may be used only seaward of the trawl
RCAs and vessels are prohibited from taking, retaining, possessing or
landing shelf and nearshore rockfish and/or lingcod when large footrope
gear is on board the vessel. While prohibiting the use of large
footrope gear even seaward of the conservation areas could improve
enforceability of the regulations, NMFS concluded that the benefit
provided by allowing the harvest of Dover sole, sablefish, and
thornyheads in areas of lowest bycatch of overfished species outweighed
enforcement difficulties.
NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the agency has
implicitly concluded that large footrope trawling in deeper waters will
not impact deeper-water species. NMFS fully expects that fishing
activities in deeper waters will result in deeper water species being
harvested. This expectation is illustrated by the trip limits provided
for deepwater species such as Dover sole, sablefish, and thornyheads.
NMFS has been clear and open in stating its expectation that fishing
activities will result in fish harvest. In fact, the series of trip
limits and area management implemented by this rule are intended to
control where and when that harvest occurs. NMFS has also been clear in
its intent to manage deepwater fisheries so that their interaction with
overfished deepwater species, darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean
perch, is minimized. As discussed at length in the preamble to the
proposed rule for this action, the northern trawl RCA in particular was
designed to move fishing away from depths where these two species
congregate, which is why it extends out to 250 fm (457 m) from 38[deg]
N. lat. to the U.S. border with Canada.
Comment 22: We oppose the new management measure that prohibits
vessels from having more than one type of trawl gear on board and from
having both trawl gear and nontrawl gear on board. This prohibition is
costly, duplicative, and unnecessary because there are already
groundfish landings limits based on the types of trawl gear on board.
Response: NMFS discussed this public request with representatives
from the Council's Enforcement Consultants, who had originally
requested the measure to restrict vessels to carrying only a single
gear type on board. The Enforcement Consultants concluded
[[Page 11191]]
that the combination of restrictions on the species of groundfish that
could be landed with small versus large footrope gear and the
requirement that vessels fishing with large footrope gear operate
offshore of the 250 fm (457 m) depth contour would remove opportunities
and incentives for vessels to fish for small footrope species with
large footrope gear. NMFS and Enforcement Consultants representatives
also agreed with the commenter that there was likely no enforcement
benefit in prohibiting the carrying of both trawl and non-trawl gear on
board at the same time. However, NMFS and the Enforcement Consultants
representatives were still concerned about allowing vessels to carry
trawl gear permitted for use within the conservation areas on board
with trawl gear prohibited from use within the conservation areas,
primarily because these gears are indistinguishable by enforcement
officers flying over vessels fishing within the conservation areas.
Therefore, the prohibition against more than one type of trawl gear on
board has been modified such that vessels fishing within a conservation
area with allowable trawl gear may not carry any other type of trawl
gear on board.
Comment 23: The proposed rule incorrectly states that the
California recreational fisheries south of 40[deg]10' N. lat will be
closed entirely from January through June 2003, when in fact they will
be open in January and February for California scorpionfish from shore
to the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour. Bocaccio may be caught incidentally
in these fisheries for California scorpionfish, thus recreational
fishery management measures should account for this potential mortality
source.
Response: NMFS agrees that the preamble to the proposed rule
incorrectly stated that all recreational groundfish fisheries would be
closed January-June, neglecting to mention the January-February opening
for California scorpionfish. The agency's mis-statement in the proposed
rule preamble, however, does not indicate new and/or unaccounted-for
recreational fishing activity because this scorpionfish fishing
activity was accounted for in the Council's development of recreational
fisheries restrictions.
The commenter raises an issue that is of concern to NMFS, improving
estimates of catch and discard in the recreational fisheries. In 2000-
2002, California's recreational fisheries management measures were not
restrictive enough to adequately constrain the fishery's bocaccio
catch. In all three years, commercial fisheries had to be closed or
severely limited in order to limit the overall take of bocaccio.
Neither NMFS nor the State of California now have a recreational
fishery catch monitoring system that satisfactorily characterizes
catches in these fisheries to allow inseason monitoring and regulations
revisions. However, NMFS is working with all three states to revise the
current Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey so that it is
more responsive to fishery management needs.
Changes from the Proposed Rule
This final rule is revising Pacific Coast Groundfish Specifications
and Management Measures for March-December 2003 set forth in the
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003 (68
FR 936). This final rule includes changes made in a correction notice
to the Specifications and Management Measures implemented via emergency
rule for January-February 2003 (FR 68 4719, January 30, 2003). Changes
to the emergency rule included: clarification of commercial and
recreational trip limits, a re-ordering of Yelloweye Rockfish
Conservation Area coordinates, and revisions to Rockfish Conservation
Area boundary coordinates. Because vessels may now, in some
circumstances, have more than one type of trawl gear on board, NMFS is
reinstating the 2002 regulation that provides that the most
constraining trip limit for the gear on board applies to landings made
on that trip.
In addition, this final rule makes changes as a result of public
comments. In response to public comments, NMFS has revised the
prohibition set out in the proposed rule against the carrying of more
than one type of trawl gear and/or trawl gear and non-trawl gear on
board at the same time. Under modified (14)(b)(iv), vessels will be
permitted to carry both trawl and non-trawl gear on board at the same
time, but when fishing within a conservation zone with allowable trawl
gear will not be permitted to carry any other type of trawl gear on
board. Vessels fishing offshore or shoreward of the conservation areas
will be permitted to carry both small footrope and large footrope
bottom trawl gear on board at the same time.
Tables 3-5 have been modified to provide minor editorial revisions
and also clarifications to: the trawl trip limit for yellowtail
rockfish; the allowance for mid-water trawl vessels to fish for whiting
in the conservation area during the primary whiting season; the minor
slope rockfish limit in the North so that splitnose rockfish is clearly
incorporated within that complex. Regulations for open access exempted
trawl fisheries have been revised to clarify that no trawling for spot
prawn may take place within the trawl RCAs, regardless of whether
groundfish is retained during fishing.
Recreational fisheries regulations have been revised to better
clarify that bocaccio, cowcod, canary, and yelloweye rockfish are
prohibited species south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. and to more clearly tie
recreational fishing regulations to Federal regulations designating the
coordinate boundaries of the Cowcod Conservation Areas. Federal
recreational fisheries regulations for California north of 40[deg]10'
N. lat. have been revised to match more restrictive state recreational
regulations for bocaccio. In particular, minimum size limits for the
total length and filet length of retained bocaccio were added. The
California state regulation has minimum size limits for bocaccio that
did not change between 2002 and 2003. Federal recreational regulations
for bocaccio in the north had the same minimum size limits as
California for 2002, but neglected to include those size limits in the
2003 proposed recreational regulations. These size limits are included
in this final rule. A limited recreational fishery for bocaccio may
exist north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. because the bocaccio stock north of
40[deg]10' N. lat. is genetically distinct from the overfished bocaccio
stock south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. as detailed in the 1999 stock
assessment by McCall et al.
The Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.302 provide definitions for
different terms used in groundfish regulation and management. In this
final rule, NMFS is revising the definition of ``Trip Limit,'' so that
the definition at 50 CFR 660.302 better matches the definition at
Section IV.A.(1) of this document. NMFS has also added new definitions
for the terms ``Trawl Fishing line'' and ``Footrope'' to clarify gear
regulations at 50 CFR 660.322, which discuss trawl footrope
restrictions.
At 50 CFR 660.304(d), the coordinates listed in the proposed rule
for the Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area were correct but were
listed in the incorrect order such that they did not form a
recognizable ``C'' shape as described. For the final rule, NMFS has re-
ordered the coordinates so that they correctly outline this
conservation area.
The States of Washington and California submitted revisions to the
coordinates designating the boundary lines to the trawl and non-trawl
RCAs. Changes effective with the correction document to the emergency
rule affected the following boundary lines:
[[Page 11192]]
50 fm (91 m) depth contour between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 34[deg]27'
N. lat., 60 fm (110 m) depth contour between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and
34[deg]27' N. lat., 100 fm (183 m) depth contour north of 40[deg]10' N.
lat., 100 fm (183 m) depth contour south of 34[deg]27' N. lat., 150 fm
(274 m) depth contour south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., and the Winter
Petrale Boundary. NMFS is implementing additional changes to RCA
boundary coordinates through this final rule. The following boundary
lines are affected by these revisions: 60 fm (110 m) depth contour
between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat., 75 fm (137 m) depth
contour north of 40[deg]10' N. lat., 100 fm (183 m) depth contour north
of 40[deg]10' N. lat., 150 fm depth contour south of 40[deg]10' N.
lat., 150 fm (274 m) depth contour between 46[deg]16' N. lat. and
38[deg] N. lat. which may be implemented inseason during 2003, and 250
fm (457 m) depth contour north of 38[deg] N. lat. used during
cumulative periods 2-5. Additionally, the State of California plans to
submit revisions to the boundary line coordinates for the line
approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth contour south of 40[deg]10' N.
lat. and to the Winter Petrale Boundary north of 40[deg]10' N. lat.
These changes to boundary coordinates were intended to make the
boundary lines more closely approximate the depth contours they are
intended to designate. Regulatory language describing the RCAs has been
revised to better emphasize that while RCAs are generally described by
fathom lines, the actual boundaries are defined by latitude-longitude
coordinates. When fishing off the West Coast, fishers must comply with
the boundaries of the RCAs as designated by the coordinates, not the
fathom curves.
I. Final Specifications
Final fishery specifications include ABCs, the designation of OYs
(which may be represented by harvest guidelines (HGs) or quotas for
species that need individual management), and the allocation of
commercial OYs between the open access and limited entry segments of
the fishery. These specifications include fish caught in state ocean
waters (0-3 nautical miles (nm) offshore) as well as fish caught in the
EEZ (3-200 nm offshore).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
[[Page 11193]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.002
[[Page 11194]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.003
[[Page 11195]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.004
[[Page 11196]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.005
[[Page 11197]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.006
[[Page 11198]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.007
[[Page 11199]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.008
[[Page 11200]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.009
[[Page 11201]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.010
II. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Since 1994, the non-tribal commercial groundfish fishery has been
divided into limited entry and open access sectors, each with its own
set of allocations and management measures. Species or species group
allocations between the two sectors are based on the relative amounts
of a species or species group taken by each component of the fishery
during the 1984-1988 limited entry permit qualification period (50 CFR
660.332). The FMP allows suspension of this allocation formula for
overfished species when changes to the traditional allocation formula
are needed to better protect overfished species (FMP, section 5.3.2).
Historically, groundfish species and/or species groups have not
been allocated between the commercial and recreational fisheries.
Fishery managers instead estimated the amount that would be taken in
the recreational fisheries and set that amount aside before determining
the allowable harvest for the non-tribal commercial sectors. For 2003,
the Council has recommended adopting nearshore groundfish allocations
between the recreational and commercial fisheries. These allocations
were proposed by the States of Oregon and California for waters off
their coasts north and south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. and are intended to
maintain the ratio between recreational and commercial landings 2000.
Most of the fish subject to the allocation will be taken in state
waters, but state-Federal management of these nearshore species is
coordinated through the Council. Commercial groundfish fishing is
prohibited in Washington State waters.
Groundfish species or species group allocations and set asides for
the tribal and non-tribal sectors, and between the different non-tribal
commercial and recreational sectors, are detailed in Tables 1a and 1b.
All OYs, allocations and set asides are expressed in terms of total
catch. The limited entry/open access allocations for bocaccio, canary,
darkblotched, yelloweye rockfish, and the nearshore rockfish species
group would be suspended to allow the Council to better develop
management measures that provide harvest opportunity for more abundant
stocks while protecting overfished stocks. Estimates of trip-limit
induced discards are taken ``off the top'' and in accordance with the
bycatch and discard analysis described in the proposed rule for this
action at 68 FR 953 (January 7, 2003) before setting the non-tribal
sector allocations, except for estimates of sablefish discards as
explained in the footnotes to Table 1a. Landed catch equivalents are
the harvest goals used when adjusting trip limits and other management
measures during the season. Estimated bycatch of yellowtail, widow,
canary, and darkblotched rockfish in the offshore whiting fishery is
also deducted from the limited entry allocations before determining the
landed catch equivalents for the target fisheries for widow and
yellowtail rockfish.
III. 2003 Management Measures
Management measures for the limited entry fishery are found in
Section IV. Boundary line coordinates for the RCAs are designated at
paragraph IV.A.(19). Most cumulative trip limits, size limits, and
seasons for the limited entry fishery are set out in Tables 3 and 4.
However, the limited entry nontrawl sablefish fishery, the midwater
trawl fishery for whiting, and the hook-and-line fishery for black
rockfish off Washington are managed separately from the majority of the
groundfish species and are not fully addressed in the tables. The
management structure for these fisheries has not changed since 2002,
except for the level of trip limits for sablefish and whiting, which
are described in paragraphs IV.B.(2) through (4). Similarly, management
measures for the open access exempted trawl fisheries (California
halibut, sea cucumber, pink shrimp, spot and ridgeback prawns) are
described in paragraph IV.C.(2), separately from the open access
fisheries trip limits set out in Table 5.
IV. NMFS Actions
For the reasons stated above, the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (Assistant Administrator), concurs with the Council's
recommendations and announces the following management actions for
2003, including measures that are unchanged from 2002 and new measures.
A. General Definitions and Provisions
The following definitions and provisions apply to the 2003
management measures, unless otherwise specified in a subsequent Federal
Register document:
(1) Trip limits. Trip limits are used in the commercial fishery to
specify the amount of fish that may legally be taken and retained,
possessed, or landed, per vessel, per fishing trip, or cumulatively per
unit of time, or the number of landings that may be made from a vessel
in a given period of time, as follows:
(a) A per trip limit is the total allowable amount of a groundfish
species or species group, by weight, or by percentage of weight of
legal fish on board, that may be taken and retained, possessed, or
landed per vessel from a single fishing trip.
(b) A daily trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken and
retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in 24 consecutive hours,
starting at 0001 hours local time (l.t). Only one landing of groundfish
may be made in that 24-hour period. Daily trip limits may not be
accumulated during multiple day trips.
(c) A weekly trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken and
retained, possessed, or landed per
[[Page 11202]]
vessel in 7 consecutive days, starting at 0001 hours l.t. on Sunday and
ending at 2400 hours l.t. on Saturday. Weekly trip limits may not be
accumulated during multiple week trips. If a calendar week includes
days within two different months, a vessel is not entitled to two
separate weekly limits during that week.
(d) A cumulative trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken
and retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in a specified period of
time without a limit on the number of landings or trips, unless
otherwise specified. The cumulative trip limit periods for limited
entry and open access fisheries, which start at 0001 hours l.t. and end
at 2400 hours l.t., are as follows, unless otherwise specified:
(i) The 2-month periods are: January 1-February 28, March 1-April
30, May 1-June 30, July 1-August 31, September 1-October 31, and,
November 1-December 31.
(ii) One month means the first day through the last day of the
calendar month.
(iii) One week means 7 consecutive days, Sunday through Saturday.
(e) As stated at 50 CFR 660.302 (in the definition of ``landing''),
once the offloading of any species begins, all fish aboard the vessel
are counted as part of the landing and must be reported as such.
(f) The cumulative trip limits in Section IV B. and C., including
Tables 3-5, of this rule must not be exceeded.
(2) Fishing ahead. Unless the fishery is closed, a vessel that has
landed its cumulative or daily limit may continue to fish on the limit
for the next legal period, so long as no fish (including, but not
limited to, groundfish with no trip limits, shrimp, prawns, or other
nongroundfish species or shellfish) are landed (offloaded) until the
next legal period. Fishing ahead is not allowed during or before a
closed period (see paragraph IV.A.(7)). See paragraph IV.A.(9) for
information on inseason changes to limits.
(3) Weights. All weights are round weights or round-weight
equivalents unless otherwise specified.
(4) Percentages. Percentages are based on round weights, and,
unless otherwise specified, apply only to legal fish on board.
(5) Legal fish. ``Legal fish'' means fish legally taken and
retained, possessed, or landed in accordance with the provisions of 50
CFR part 660, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, any document issued under part
660, and any other regulation promulgated or permit issued under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(6) Size limits and length measurement. Unless otherwise specified,
size limits in the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries
apply to the ``total length,'' which is the longest measurement of the
fish without mutilation of the fish or the use of force to extend the
length of the fish. No fish with a size limit may be retained if it is
in such condition that its length has been extended or cannot be
determined by these methods. For conversions not listed here, contact
the State where the fish will be landed.
(a) Whole fish. For a whole fish, total length is measured from the
tip of the snout (mouth closed) to the tip of the tail in a natural,
relaxed position.
(b) ``Headed'' fish. For a fish with the head removed (``headed''),
the length is measured from the origin of the first dorsal fin (where
the front dorsal fin meets the dorsal surface of the body closest to
the head) to the tip of the upper lobe of the tail; the dorsal fin and
tail must be left intact.
(c) Filets. A filet is the flesh from one side of a fish extending
from the head to the tail, which has been removed from the body (head,
tail, and backbone) in a single continuous piece. Filet lengths may be
subject to size limits for some groundfish taken in the recreational
fishery off California (see paragraph IV. D.(1)). A filet is measured
along the length of the longest part of the filet in a relaxed
position; stretching or otherwise manipulating the filet to increase
its length is not permitted.
(d) Sablefish weight limit conversions. The following conversions
apply to both the limited entry and open access fisheries when trip
limits are effective for those fisheries. For headed and gutted
(eviscerated) sablefish:
(i) The minimum size for headed sablefish, which corresponds to 20
inches (51 cm) total length for whole fish, is 14 inches (36 cm).
(ii) The conversion factor established by the State where the fish
is or will be landed will be used to convert the processed weight to
round weight for purposes of applying the trip limit. (The conversion
factor currently is 1.6 in Washington, Oregon, and California. However,
the State conversion factors may differ; fishers should contact fishery
enforcement officials in the State where the fish will be landed to
determine that State's official conversion factor.)
(e) Lingcod size and weight conversions. The following conversions
apply in both limited entry and open access fisheries.
(i) Size conversion. For lingcod with the head removed, the minimum
size limit is 19.5 inches (49.5 cm), which corresponds to 24 inches (61
cm) total length for whole fish.
(ii) Weight conversion. The conversion factor established by the
State where the fish is or will be landed will be used to convert the
processed weight to round weight for purposes of applying the trip
limit. (The States' conversion factors may differ, and fishers should
contact fishery enforcement officials in the state where the fish will
be landed to determine that State's official conversion factor.) If a
state does not have a conversion factor for headed and gutted lingcod,
or lingcod that is only gutted; the following conversion factors will
be used. To determine the round weight, multiply the processed weight
times the conversion factor.
(A) Headed and gutted. The conversion factor for headed and gutted
lingcod is 1.5.
(B) Gutted, with the head on. The conversion factor for lingcod
that has only been gutted is 1.1.
(7) Closure. ``Closure'', when referring to closure of a fishery,
means that taking and retaining, possessing, or landing the particular
species or species group is prohibited. (See 50 CFR 660.302.) Unless
otherwise announced in the Federal Register, offloading must begin
before the time the fishery closes. The provisions at paragraph
IV.A.(2) for fishing ahead do not apply during a closed period. It is
unlawful to transit through a closed area with any prohibited species
on board, no matter where that species was caught, except as provided
for in the CCA at IV. A.(19).
(8) Fishery management area. The fishery management area for these
species is the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California
between 3 and 200 nm offshore, bounded on the north by the Provisional
International Boundary between the United States and Canada, and
bounded on the south by the International Boundary between the United
States and Mexico. All groundfish possessed between 0-200 nm offshore
or landed in Washington, Oregon, or California are presumed to have
been taken and retained from the EEZ, unless otherwise demonstrated by
the person in possession of those fish.
(9) Routine management measures. Most trip, bag, and size limits,
and area closures in the groundfish fishery have been designated
``routine,'' which means they may be changed rapidly after a single
Council meeting see 50 CFR 660.323(b). Council meetings in 2003 will be
held in the months of March, April, June, September, and November.
Inseason changes to routine management measures are announced in the
Federal Register. Information concerning changes to routine
[[Page 11203]]
management measures is available from the NMFS Northwest and Southwest
Regional Offices (see ADDRESSES). Changes to trip limits are effective
at the times stated in the Federal Register. Once a change is
effective, it is illegal to take and retain, possess, or land more fish
than allowed under the new trip limit. This means that, unless
otherwise announced in the Federal Register, offloading must begin
before the time a fishery closes or a more restrictive trip limit takes
effect.
(10) Limited entry limits. It is unlawful for any person to take
and retain, possess, or land groundfish in excess of the landing limit
for the open access fishery without having a valid limited entry permit
for the vessel affixed with a gear endorsement for the gear used to
catch the fish (50 CFR 660.306(p)).
(11) Operating in both limited entry and open access fisheries. The
open access trip limit applies to any fishing conducted with open
access gear, even if the vessel has a valid limited entry permit with
an endorsement for another type of gear. A vessel that operates in both
the open access and limited entry fisheries is not entitled to two
separate trip limits for the same species. If a vessel has a limited
entry permit and uses open access gear, but the open access limit is
smaller than the limited entry limit, the open access limit cannot be
exceeded and counts toward the limited entry limit. If a vessel has a
limited entry permit and uses open access gear, but the open access
limit is larger than the limited entry limit, the smaller limited entry
limit applies, even if taken entirely with open access gear.
(12) Operating in areas with different trip limits. Trip limits for
a species or a species group may differ in different geographic areas
along the coast. The following ``crossover'' provisions apply to
vessels operating in different geographical areas that have different
cumulative or ``per trip'' trip limits for the same species or species
group. Such crossover provisions do not apply to species that are
subject only to daily trip limits, or to the trip limits for black
rockfish off Washington (see 50 CFR 660.323(a)(1)). In 2003, the
cumulative trip limit periods for the limited entry and open access
fisheries are specified in paragraph IV.A(1)(d), but may be changed
during the year if announced in the Federal Register.
(a) Going from a more restrictive to a more liberal area. If a
vessel takes and retains any groundfish species or species group of
groundfish in an area where a more restrictive trip limit applies
before fishing in an area where a more liberal trip limit (or no trip
limit) applies, then that vessel is subject to the more restrictive
trip limit for the entire period to which that trip limit applies, no
matter where the fish are taken and retained, possessed, or landed.
(b) Going from a more liberal to a more restrictive area. If a
vessel takes and retains a groundfish species or species group in an
area where a higher trip limit or no trip limit applies, and takes and
retains, possesses or lands the same species or species group in an
area where a more restrictive trip limit applies, that vessel is
subject to the more restrictive trip limit for the entire period to
which that trip limit applies, no matter where the fish are taken and
retained, possessed, or landed.
(c) Operating in two different areas where a species or species
group is managed with different types of trip limits. During the
fishing year, NMFS may implement management measures for a species or
species group that set different types of trip limits (for example, per
trip limits versus cumulative trip limits) for different areas. If a
vessel fishes for a species or species group that is managed with
different types of trip limits in two different areas within the same
cumulative limit period, then that vessel is subject to the most
restrictive overall cumulative limit for that species, regardless of
where fishing occurs.
(d) Minor rockfish. Several rockfish species are designated with
species-specific limits on one side of the 40[deg]10 N. lat. management
line, and are included as part of a minor rockfish complex on the other
side of the line.
(i) If a vessel takes and retains minor slope rockfish north of
38[deg] N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain,
possess or land splitnose rockfish up to its cumulative limit south of
38[deg] N. lat., even if splitnose rockfish were a part of the landings
from minor slope rockfish taken and retained north of 38[deg] N. lat.
[Note: A vessel that takes and retains minor slope rockfish on both
sides of the management line in a single cumulative limit period is
subject to the more restrictive cumulative limit for minor slope
rockfish during that period.]
(ii) If a vessel takes and retains minor slope rockfish south of
38[deg] N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain,
possess or land POP up to its cumulative limit north of 38[deg] N.
lat., even if POP were a part of the landings from minor slope rockfish
taken and retained south of 38[deg] N. lat. [Note: A vessel that takes
and retains minor slope rockfish on both sides of the management line
in a single cumulative limit period is subject to the more restrictive
cumulative limit for minor slope rockfish during that period.]
(iii) If a vessel takes and retains minor shelf rockfish south of
40[deg]10' N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain,
possess, or land yellowtail rockfish up to its cumulative limits north
of 40[deg]10' N. lat., even if yellowtail rockfish is part of the
landings from minor shelf rockfish taken and retained south of
40[deg]10' N. lat. Widow rockfish is included in overall shelf rockfish
limits for all gear groups. [Note: A vessel that takes and retains
minor shelf rockfish on both sides of the management line in a single
cumulative limit period is subject to the more restrictive cumulative
limit for minor shelf rockfish during that period.]
(e) ``DTS complex.'' For 2003, there are differential trip limits
for the ``DTS complex'' (Dover sole, shortspine thornyhead, longspine
thornyhead, sablefish) north and south of the management line at
40[deg]10' N. lat. Vessels operating in the limited entry trawl fishery
are subject to the crossover provisions in this paragraph IV.A.(12)
when making landings that include any one of the four species in the
``DTS complex.''
(f) Flatfish complex. For 2003, there are differential trip limits
for the flatfish complex (butter, curlfin, English, flathead, petrale,
rex, rock, and sand soles, Pacific sanddab, and starry flounder) north
and south of the management line at 40[deg]10' N. lat. Vessels
operating in the limited entry trawl fishery are subject to the
crossover provisions in this paragraph IV.A.(12) when making landings
that include any one of the species in the flatfish complex.
(13) Sorting. It is unlawful for any person to ``fail to sort,
prior to the first weighing after offloading, those groundfish species
or species groups for which there is a trip limit, size limit, quota,
or commercial OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area during a
time when such trip limit, size limit, commercial optimum yield, or
quota applied.'' This provision applies to both the limited entry and
open access fisheries. (See 50 CFR 660.306(h).) The following species
must be sorted in 2003:
(a) For vessels with a limited entry permit:
(i) Coastwide--widow rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, minor nearshore
rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, minor slope rockfish, shortspine and
longspine thornyhead, Dover sole, arrowtooth flounder, rex sole,
petrale sole, arrowtooth flounder, other flatfish, lingcod, sablefish,
and
[[Page 11204]]
Pacific whiting [Note: Although both yelloweye and darkblotched
rockfish are considered minor rockfish managed under the minor shelf
and minor slope rockfish complexes, respectively, they have separate
OYs and therefore must be sorted by species.]
(ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, and,
for fixed gear, black rockfish and blue rockfish;
(iii) South of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--minor shallow nearshore
rockfish, minor deeper nearshore rockfish, chilipepper rockfish,
bocaccio rockfish, splitnose rockfish, and Pacific sanddabs.
(b) For open access vessels (vessels without a limited entry
permit):
(i) Coastwide--widow rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish, minor shelf
rockfish, minor slope rockfish, Dover sole, arrowtooth flounder,
petrale sole, rex sole, other flatfish, lingcod, sablefish, Pacific
whiting, and Pacific sanddabs;
(ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--black rockfish, blue rockfish,
Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail rockfish;
(iii) South of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--minor shall nearshore rockfish,
minor deeper nearshore rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, bocaccio
rockfish, splitnose rockfish;
(iv) South of Point Conception--thornyheads.
(14) Trawl Gear Restrictions. Limited entry trip limits may vary
depending on the type of trawl gear that is on board a vessel during a
fishing trip: large footrope, small footrope, or midwater trawl gear.
(a) Types of trawl gear. Large footrope, small footrope, and
midwater or pelagic trawl gears are defined at 50 CFR 660.302 and
660.322(b). Trawl vessels may include: those vessels registered to a
limited entry permit with a trawl endorsement; any vessel using trawl
gear, including exempted trawl gear used to take pink shrimp, spot and
ridgeback prawns, California halibut, or sea cucumber; or any tribal
vessel using trawl gear.
(b) Cumulative trip limits and prohibitions by limited entry trawl
gear type--(i) Large footrope trawl. If Table 3 does not provide a
large footrope trawl cumulative or trip limit for a particular species
or species group, it is unlawful to take and retain, possess or land
that species or species group if large footrope gear is on board. It is
unlawful for any vessel using large footrope gear to exceed large
footrope gear limits for any species or to use large footrope gear to
exceed small footrope gear or midwater trawl gear limits for any
species. It is unlawful for any vessel using large footrope gear or
that has large footrope trawl gear on board to fish for groundfish
shoreward of the RCAs defined at paragraph (19) of this section. The
presence of rollers or bobbins larger than 8 inches (20 cm) in diameter
on board the vessel, even if not attached to a trawl, will be
considered to mean a large footrope trawl is on board.
(ii) Small footrope or midwater trawl gear. Cumulative trip limits
for canary rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail
rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish, and lingcod,
as indicated in Table 3 to section IV, are allowed only if small
footrope gear or midwater trawl gear is used, and if that gear meets
the specifications in paragraphs IV.A.(14).
(iii) Midwater trawl gear. Higher yellowtail and widow rockfish
cumulative trip limits are available for limited entry vessels using
midwater trawl gear. Each landing that contains yellowtail or widow
rockfish is attributed to the gear on board with the most restrictive
trip limit for those species. Landings attributed to small footrope
trawl must not exceed the small footrope limit, and landings attributed
to midwater trawl must not exceed the midwater trawl limit. If a vessel
has landings attributed to both types of trawls during a cumulative
trip limit period, all landings are counted toward the most restrictive
gear-specific cumulative limit.
(iv) More than one type of trawl gear on board. The cumulative trip
limits in Table 3 must not be exceeded. A vessel may have more than one
type of limited entry bottom trawl gear on board, but the most
restrictive trip limit associated with the gear on board applies for
that trip and will count toward the cumulative trip limit for that
gear. [Example: If a vessel has large footrope gear on board, it cannot
land yellowtail rockfish, even if the yellowtail rockfish is caught
with a small footrope trawl.] A vessel that is trawling within a GCA
with trawl gear authorized for use within a GCA may not have any other
type of trawl gear on board.
(c) State landing receipts. Washington, Oregon, and California will
require the type of trawl gear on board to be recorded on the State
landing receipt(s) for each trip or on an attachment to the State
landing receipt.
(d) Gear inspection. All trawl gear and trawl gear components,
including unattached rollers or bobbins, must be readily accessible and
made available for inspection at the request of an authorized officer.
No trawl gear may be removed from the vessel prior to offloading. All
footropes shall be uncovered and clearly visible except when in use for
fishing.
(15) Platooning--limited entry trawl vessels. Limited entry trawl
vessels are automatically in the ``A'' platoon, unless the ``B''
platoon is indicated on the limited entry permit. If a vessel is in the
``A'' platoon, its cumulative trip limit periods begin and end on the
beginning and end of a calendar month as in the past. No more than one
trawl permit may be registered to a vessel unless a permit is endorsed
for both trawl and either longline or pot gear and is being stacked
under Sec. 660.335(c) for use in the limited entry fixed gear primary
sablefish fishery. If a vessel is registered for use with more than one
permit with a trawl endorsement through the fixed gear permit stacking
program, then the vessel owner must designate one trawl-endorsed permit
as his base trawl permit and may only fish in the platoon associated
with that base trawl permit. If a limited entry trawl permit is
authorized for the ``B'' platoon, then cumulative trip limit periods
and the periods for which RCAs are applied will begin on the 16th of
the month (generally 2 weeks later than for the ``A'' platoon), unless
otherwise specified.
(a) For a vessel in the ``B'' platoon, cumulative trip limit
periods and periods for which RCAs are applied begin on the 16th of the
month at 0001 hours, l.t., and end at 2400 hours, l.t., on the 15th of
the month. Therefore, the management measures announced herein that are
effective on January 1, 2003, for the ``A'' platoon will be effective
on January 16, 2003, for the ``B'' platoon. The effective date of any
inseason changes to the cumulative trip limits or RCA boundary line
coordinates also will be delayed for 2 weeks for the ``B'' platoon,
unless otherwise specified.
(b) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon may take
and retain, but may not land, groundfish from January 1, 2003, through
January 15, 2003.
(c) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon will have
the same cumulative trip limits and RCAs for the November 16, 2003,
through December 31, 2003, period as a vessel operating in the ``A''
platoon has for the November 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 period.
(a) For a vessel in the ``B'' platoon, cumulative trip limit
periods begin on the 16th of the month at 0001 hours, l.t., and end at
2400 hours, l.t., on the 15th of the month. Therefore, the management
measures announced herein that are effective on January 1, 2003, for
the ``A'' platoon will be effective on January 16, 2003, for the ``B''
platoon. The effective date of any inseason changes to the cumulative
trip limits also will be delayed for 2 weeks
[[Page 11205]]
for the ``B'' platoon, unless otherwise specified.
(b) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon may take
and retain, but may not land, groundfish from January 1, 2003, through
January 15, 2003.
(c) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon will have
the same cumulative trip limits for the November 16, 2003, through
December 31, 2003, period as a vessel operating in the ``A'' platoon
has for the November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003 period.
(16) Permit transfers. Limited entry permit transfers are to take
effect no earlier than the first day of a major cumulative limit period
following the day NMFS receives the transfer form and original permit
(50 CFR 660.335(e)(3)). Those days in 2003 are January 1, March 1, May
1, July 1, September 1, and November 1, and are delayed by 15 days
(starting on the 16th of a month) for the ``B'' platoon.
(17) Exempted fisheries. U.S. vessels operating under an exempted
fishing permit (EFP) issued under 50 CFR part 600 are also subject to
these restrictions, unless otherwise provided in the permit. EFPs may
include the collecting of scientific samples of groundfish species that
would otherwise be prohibited for retention.
(18) Application of requirements. Paragraphs IV.B. and IV.C.
pertain to the commercial groundfish fishery, but not to Washington
coastal tribal fisheries, which are described in Section V. The
provisions in paragraphs IV.B. and IV.C. that are not covered under the
headings ``limited entry'' or ``open access'' apply to all vessels in
the commercial fishery that take and retain groundfish, unless
otherwise stated. Paragraph IV.D. pertains to the recreational fishery.
(19) Rockfish Conservation Areas. For 2003, the Council has
introduced several RCAs and a YRCA and has retained the CCAs used in
2001 and 2002. Collectively, any closed area intended to protect a
particular groundfish species or species group or intended to protect a
complex of species is referred to as a Groundfish Conservation Area.
The YRCA, the CCAs, and the larger depth-based RCAs are Groundfish
Conservation Areas. Larger RCAs intended to protect a complex of
species, such as overfished shelf rockfish species, have boundaries
defined by a series of latitude and longitude coordinates. The
boundaries are intended to approximate particular depth contours, such
as 100 fm (183 m), 150 fm (274 m), 250 fm (457,) etc. Different gear
types or fishing sectors may have RCAs with differing boundaries.
(a) Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area. The latitude and
longitude coordinates defining the boundaries of the YRCA are defined
at Sec. 660.304(d). Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited
within the YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to
take, retain, possess, or land groundfish inside the YRCA.
(b) Cowcod Conservation Areas. The coordinates of the Cowcod
Conservation Areas (CCAs) are defined at Sec. 660.304(c). Recreational
and commercial fishing for groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs,
except that recreational and commercial fishing for rockfish and
lingcod is permitted in waters inside 20 fathoms (36.9 m). It is
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish inside the
CCAs, except for rockfish and lingcod taken in waters inside the 20-
fathom (36.9 m) depth contour, when those waters are open to fishing.
Commercial fishing vessels may transit through the Western CCA with
their gear stowed and groundfish on board only in a corridor through
the Western CCA bounded on the north by the latitude line at
33[deg]00'30'' N. lat., and bounded on the south by the latitude line
at 32[deg]59'30'' N. lat.
(c) Limited Entry Groundfish Trawl Coastwide and Open Access
Exempted Trawl South of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Rockfish Conservation Area.
(i) The trawl RCA is closed to limited entry groundfish trawl fishing
coastwide and to open access exempted trawl fishing (except for pink
shrimp trawling) south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Fishing with limited entry
groundfish trawl gear is prohibited within the trawl RCA north of
40[deg]10' N. lat. and fishing with any trawl gear is prohibited within
the trawl RCA south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., unless that vessel is
trawling for pink shrimp. Coastwide, it is unlawful to take and retain,
possess, or land groundfish taken with limited entry groundfish trawl
gear in the trawl RCA. South of 40[deg]10' N. lat., it is unlawful to
take and retain, possess, or land any species of fish taken with any
type of trawl gear in the trawl RCA. Trawl vessels may transit through
the trawl RCA, with or without groundfish on board, provided all
groundfish trawl gear is stowed either: (1) below deck; or (2) if the
gear cannot readily be moved, in a secured and covered manner, detached
from all towing lines, so that it is rendered unusable for fishing; or
(3) remaining on deck uncovered if the trawl doors are hung from their
stanchions and the net is disconnected from the doors. The above
restrictions in this paragraph do not apply to vessels fishing with
midwater trawl gear for Pacific whiting during the primary season, or
to taking and retaining yellowtail rockfish or widow rockfish in
association with Pacific whiting caught with midwater trawl gear during
the primary whiting season, or to taking and retaining yellowtail or
widow rockfish with midwater trawl gear when trip limits are authorized
for those species (November-December 2003.) If a vessel fishes in an
RCA, it may not participate in any fishing on that trip that is
inconsistent with the restrictions that apply within the RCA. For
example, if a vessel participates in the pink shrimp fishery within the
RCA, the vessel cannot on the same trip participate in the DTS fishery
outside of the RCA. Nothing in these Federal regulations supercede any
State regulations that may prohibit trawling shoreward of the 3 nm
State waters boundary line.
(ii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 40[deg]10' N. lat.,
the trawl RCA is defined along its eastern, inshore boundary by
latitude and longitude coordinates approximating 100 fm (183 m) in
January through June and October through December, and approximating 75
fm (137 m) in July and August. Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and
34[deg]27' N. lat., the trawl RCA is defined along its eastern, inshore
boundary by coordinates approximating 50 fm (91 m) in January and
February and 60 fm (110 m) in March through December. Between
34[deg]27' N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, along the mainland
coast of California, the trawl RCA is defined along its eastern,
inshore boundary by coordinates approximating 100 fm (183 m) throughout
the year. Between 34[deg]27' N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico,
adjacent to the islands offshore of California, the trawl RCA is
defined along its inshore boundary by coordinates approximating 20 fm
(37 m) throughout the year. Specific coordinates that define the
eastern inshore boundaries of the trawl RCA are provided below at
paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 38[deg] N. lat., the
trawl RCA is defined along its western, offshore boundary by latitude
and longitude coordinates approximating 250 fm (457 m) in March through
October, and by coordinates approximating 250 fm (457 m) with some
modifications to provide open areas to allow winter petrale sole
fishing in January, February, November, and December. Between 38[deg]
N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, the trawl RCA is defined along
its western, offshore boundary by coordinates approximating 150 fm (274
m) throughout the year. Specific boundary coordinates that define the
western, offshore boundaries of the trawl RCA
[[Page 11206]]
are provided below at paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) Non-Trawl Gear (Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access
Nontrawl Gears) Rockfish Conservation Area. (i) The non-trawl gear RCA
is closed to fishing for groundfish using non-trawl gear (limited entry
or open access longline and pot or trap, open access hook-and-line, jig
gear, pot or trap, gillnet, set net, trammel net and spear). Fishing
with non-trawl gear is prohibited within the non-trawl gear RCA. It is
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with
non-trawl gear in the non-trawl gear RCA. Limited entry fixed gear and
open access non-trawl gear vessels may transit through the non-trawl
gear RCA, with or without groundfish on board. These restrictions do
not apply to vessels fishing for species other than groundfish with
non-trawl gear. If a vessel fishes in an RCA, it may not participate in
any fishing on that trip that is inconsistent with the restrictions
that apply within the RCA. For example, if a vessel participates in the
salmon troll fishery within the RCA, the vessel cannot on the same trip
participate in the sablefish fishery outside of the RCA.
(ii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 46[deg]16' N. lat.,
the non-trawl gear RCA extends to the shoreline. Between 46[deg]16' N.
lat. and 40[deg]10' N. lat., the non-trawl gear RCA is defined along
its eastern, inshore boundary by latitude and longitude coordinates
approximating 27 fm (49 m) throughout the year. Between 40[deg]10' N.
lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, the non-trawl gear RCA is defined
along its eastern, inshore boundary by latitude and longitude
coordinates approximating 20 fm (37 m) throughout the year, except as
provided for between Point Fermin (33[deg]42' 30'' N. lat.; 118[deg]17'
30'' W. long.) and the Newport South Jetty (33[deg]35' 37'' N. lat.;
117[deg]52' 50'' W. long.) Between a line drawn due south from Point
Fermin (33[deg]42' 30'' N. lat.; 118[deg]17' 30'' W. long.) and a line
drawn due west from the Newport South Jetty (33[deg]35' 37'' N. lat.;
117[deg]52' 50'' W. long.,) vessels fishing with hook-and-line and/or
trap (or pot) gear may operate from shore to a boundary line defined by
coordinates approximating 50 fm (91 m) in the months of July and
August. Specific coordinates that define the eastern, inshore
boundaries of the non-trawl gear RCA are provided below at paragraph
(e) of this section.
(iii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 40[deg]10' N. lat.,
the non-trawl gear RCA is defined along its western, offshore boundary
by latitude and longitude coordinates approximating 100 fm (183 m)
throughout the year. Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and the U.S. border
with Mexico, the non-trawl gear RCA is defined along its western,
offshore boundary by coordinates approximating 150 fm (274 m)
throughout the year. Specific coordinates that define the western,
offshore boundaries of the non-trawl gear RCA are provided below at
paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) RCA Boundary Coordinates. Coordinates for the specific
boundaries that approximate the depth contours selected for both trawl
and non-trawl gear RCAs are provided here.
(i) The 27 fm (49 m) depth contour used between 46[deg]16' N. lat.
and 40[deg]10' N. lat. as an eastern boundary for the non-trawl RCA is
defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the
order stated:
(1) 46[deg]16.00' N. lat., 124[deg]12.39' W. long.;
(2) 46[deg]14.85' N. lat., 124[deg]12.39' W. long.;
(3) 46[deg]03.95' N. lat., 124[deg]03.64' W. long.;
(4) 45[deg]43.14' N. lat., 124[deg]00.17' W. long.;
(5) 45[deg]23.33' N. lat., 124[deg]01.99' W. long.;
(6) 45[deg]09.54' N. lat., 124[deg]01.65' W. long.;
(7) 44[deg]39.99' N. lat., 124[deg]08.67' W. long.;
(8) 44[deg]20.86' N. lat., 124[deg]10.31' W. long.;
(9) 43[deg]37.11' N. lat., 124[deg]14.91' W. long.;
(10) 43[deg]27.54' N. lat., 124[deg]18.98' W. long.;
(11) 43[deg]20.68' N. lat., 124[deg]25.53' W. long.;
(12) 43[deg]15.08' N. lat., 124[deg]27.17' W. long.;
(13) 43[deg]06.89' N. lat., 124[deg]29.65' W. long.;
(14) 43[deg]01.02' N. lat., 124[deg]29.70' W. long.;
(15) 42[deg]52.67' N. lat., 124[deg]36.10' W. long.;
(16) 42[deg]45.96' N. lat., 124[deg]37.95' W. long.;
(17) 42[deg]45.80' N. lat., 124[deg]35.41' W. long.;
(18) 42[deg]38.46' N. lat., 124[deg]27.49' W. long.;
(19) 42[deg]35.29' N. lat., 124[deg]26.85' W. long.;
(20) 42[deg]31.49' N. lat., 124[deg]31.40' W. long.;
(21) 42[deg]29.06' N. lat., 124[deg]32.24' W. long.;
(22) 42[deg]14.26' N. lat., 124[deg]26.27' W. long.;
(23) 42[deg]04.86' N. lat., 124[deg]21.94' W. long.;
(24) 42[deg]00.10' N. lat., 124[deg]20.99' W. long.;
(25) 42[deg]00.00' N. lat., 124[deg]21.03' W. long.;
(26) 41[deg]56.33' N. lat., 124[deg]20.34' W. long.;
(27) 41[deg]50.93' N. lat., 124[deg]23.74' W. long.;
(28) 41[deg]41.83' N. lat., 124[deg]16.99' W. long.;
(29) 41[deg]35.48' N. lat., 124[deg]16.35' W. long.;
(30) 41[deg]23.51' N. lat., 124[deg]10.48' W. long.;
(31) 41[deg]04.62' N. lat., 124[deg]14.44' W. long.;
(32) 40[deg]54.28' N. lat., 124[deg]13.90' W. long.;
(33) 40[deg]40.37' N. lat., 124[deg]26.21' W. long.;
(34) 40[deg]34.03' N. lat., 124[deg]27.36' W. long.;
(35) 40[deg]28.88' N. lat., 124[deg]32.41' W. long.;
(36) 40[deg]24.82' N. lat., 124[deg]29.56' W. long.;
(37) 40[deg]22.64' N. lat., 124[deg]24.05' W. long.;
(38) 40[deg]18.67' N. lat., 124[deg]21.90' W. long.;
(39) 40[deg]14.23' N. lat., 124[deg]23.72' W. long.; and
(40) 40[deg]10.00' N. lat., 124[deg]17.22' W. long.;
(ii) The 75 fm (137 m) depth contour used north of 40[deg]10' N.
lat. as an eastern boundary for the trawl RCA in the months of July and
August is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following
points in the order stated:
(1) 48[deg]16.08' N. lat., 125[deg]34.90' W. long.;
(2) 48[deg]14.50' N. lat., 125[deg]29.50' W. long.;
(3) 48[deg]12.08' N. lat., 125[deg]28.00' W. long.;
(4) 48[deg]09.00' N. lat., 125[deg]28.00' W. long.;
(5) 48[deg]07.80' N. lat., 125[deg]31.70' W. long.;
(6) 48[deg]04.28' N. lat., 125[deg]29.00' W. long.;
(7) 48[deg]02.50' N. lat., 125[deg]25.70' W. long.;
(8) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]20.19' W. long.;
(9) 48[deg]21.70' N. lat., 125[deg]17.56' W. long.;
(10) 48[deg]24.69' N. lat., 125[deg]05.55' W. long.;
(11) 48[deg]23.05' N. lat., 124[deg]48.80' W. long.;
(12) 48[deg]17.10' N. lat., 124[deg]54.82' W. long.;
(13) 48[deg]05.10' N. lat., 124[deg]59.40' W. long.;
(14) 48[deg]04.50' N. lat., 125[deg]02.00' W. long.;
(15) 48[deg]04.70' N. lat., 125[deg]04.08' W. long.;
(16) 48[deg]05.20' N. lat., 125[deg]04.90' W. long.;
[[Page 11207]]
(17) 48[deg]06.80' N. lat., 125[deg]06.15' W. long.;
(18) 48[deg]05.91' N. lat., 124[deg]08.30' W. long.;
(19) 48[deg]07.00' N. lat., 124[deg]09.80' W. long.;
(20) 48[deg]06.93' N. lat., 124[deg]11.48' W. long.;
(21) 48[deg]04.98' N. lat., 124[deg]10.02' W. long.;
(22) 47[deg]54.00' N. lat., 125[deg]04.98' W. long.;
(23)47[deg]44.52' N. lat., 125[deg]00.00' W. long.;
(24)47[deg]42.00' N. lat., 124[deg]58.98' W. long.;
(25)47[deg]35.52' N. lat., 124[deg]55.50' W. long.;
(26)47[deg]22.02' N. lat., 124[deg]44.40' W. long.;
(27)47[deg]16.98' N. lat., 124[deg]45.48' W. long.;
(28)47[deg]10.98' N. lat., 124[deg]48.48' W. long.;
(29)47[deg]04.98' N. lat., 124[deg]49.02' W. long.;
(30)46[deg]57.98' N. lat., 124[deg]46.50' W. long.;
(31)46[deg]54.00' N. lat., 124[deg]45.00' W. long.;
(32)46[deg]48.48' N. lat., 124[deg]44.52' W. long.;
(33)46[deg]40.02' N. lat., 124[deg]36.00' W. long.;
(34)46[deg]34.09' N. lat., 124[deg]27.03' W. long.;
(35)46[deg]24.64' N. lat., 124[deg]30.33' W. long.;
(36)46[deg]19.98' N. lat., 124[deg]36.00' W. long.;
(37) 46[deg]18.14' N. lat., 124[deg]34.26' W. long.;
(38) 46[deg]18.72' N. lat., 124[deg]22.68' W. long.;
(39) 46[deg]14.64' N. lat., 124[deg]22.54' W. long.;
(40) 46[deg]11.08' N. lat., 124[deg]30.74' W. long.;
(41) 46[deg]04.28' N. lat., 124[deg]31.49' W. long.;
(42) 45[deg]55.97' N. lat., 124[deg]19.95' W. long.;
(43) 45[deg]44.97' N. lat., 124[deg]15.96' W. long.;
(44) 45[deg]43.14' N. lat., 124[deg]21.86' W. long.;
(45) 45[deg]34.44' N. lat., 124[deg]14.44' W. long.;
(46) 45[deg]15.49' N. lat., 124[deg]11.49' W. long.;
(47) 44[deg]57.31' N. lat., 124[deg]15.03' W. long.;
(48) 44[deg]43.90' N. lat., 124[deg]28.88' W. long.;
(49) 44[deg]28.64' N. lat., 124[deg]35.67' W. long.;
(50) 44[deg]25.31' N. lat., 124[deg]43.08' W. long.;
(51) 44[deg]17.15' N. lat., 124[deg]47.98' W. long.;
(52) 44[deg]13.67' N. lat., 124[deg]54.41' W. long.;
(53) 43[deg]56.85' N. lat., 124[deg]55.32' W. long.;
(54) 43[deg]57.50' N. lat., 124[deg]41.23' W. long.;
(55) 44[deg]01.79' N. lat., 124[deg]38.00' W. long.;
(56) 44[deg]02.16' N. lat., 124[deg]32.62' W. long.;
(57) 43[deg]58.1