Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures, 28897-28909 [2011-12335]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28897-28909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12335]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 110311192-1279-02]
RIN 0648-BA01 and 0648-BA95


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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; Pacific whiting harvest specifications and tribal 
allocation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the 2011 fishery harvest 
specifications for Pacific whiting in the U.S. exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ) and state waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 
California, as authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). These specifications include the overfishing 
level (OFL), catch limits, and allocations for the non-tribal 
commercial sectors. This final rule also announces the tribal 
allocation of Pacific whiting for 2011.

DATES: This rule is effective May 16, 2011, and is applicable beginning 
May 15, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Duffy (Northwest Region, 
NMFS), phone: 206-526-4743, fax: 206-526-6736 and e-mail: 
kevin.duffy@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access

    This final rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the 
Federal Register's Web site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. 
Background information and documents are available at the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council's Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org/.
    Copies of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the 
2011-2012 Groundfish Specifications and Management Measures are 
available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 
97220, phone: 503-820-2280.
    Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also 
be obtained from the Council. Copies of the Record of Decision (ROD), 
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), and the Small Entity 
Compliance Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

Background

    On November 3, 2010, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement 
the 2011-2012 specifications and management measures for the Pacific 
Coast groundfish fishery (75 FR 67810). A final rule was published on 
May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27508) that responded to public comments and 
codified the specifications and management measures in the CFR (50 CFR 
part 660, subparts C through G), except for the final Pacific whiting 
harvest specifications because the information necessary for the annual 
updated stock assessment for Pacific whiting was not available until 
January or February, which necessarily delays the preparation of the 
stock assessment until February.
    Due to the inability to establish the final Pacific whiting harvest 
specifications during the preparation of the proposed and final rules, 
both rules announced a range of Pacific whiting harvest specifications 
that were being considered for 2011 and 2012, and also announced the 
intent to adopt final specifications for whiting on an annual basis 
after the Council's March 2011 and 2012 meetings. Because the stock 
assessment is now available, this final rule establishes the 2011 
harvest specifications for Pacific whiting. The Council's adoption of 
Pacific whiting harvest specifications in March is consistent with the 
U.S.-Canada agreement for Pacific whiting. The U.S.-Canada agreement 
for Pacific whiting was signed in November 2003. This agreement 
addresses the conservation, research, and catch sharing of Pacific 
whiting. Presently, both countries are taking steps to fully implement 
the agreement. Until full implementation occurs, the negotiators 
recommended that each country apply the agreed-upon provisions to their 
respective fisheries. In addition to the time frame in which stock 
assessments are to be considered and harvest specifications 
established, the U.S.-Canada agreement specifies how the catch is to be 
shared between the two countries. The Pacific whiting catch sharing 
arrangement provides 73.88 percent of the coastwide total catch to the 
U.S. fisheries, and 26.12 percent to the Canadian fisheries. This 
action accounts for this division of catch share allocation between the 
U.S. and Canada.
    This final rule also establishes the tribal allocation of Pacific 
whiting for 2011. NMFS issued a proposed rule for the allocation and 
management of the 2011 tribal Pacific whiting fishery on April 5, 2011 
(75 FR 18709). This action finalizes the allocation and management 
measures published in the April 5, 2011 proposed rule. A summary of the 
comments received during the comment period and NMFS' responses are 
provided below.

Pacific Whiting Stock Status

    The joint U.S.-Canada Stock Assessment Review (STAR) panel met 
February 7-11, 2011, in Seattle, Washington to review a draft stock 
assessment (Stewart et al., 2011) that had been prepared by the joint 
Canada-U.S. stock assessment team (STAT). Two draft stock assessment 
models were evaluated by the STAT: One prepared by Stewart (Stock 
Synthesis III model, 2011) and a second prepared by Martell (TINSS, 
2011). The Joint STAT and STAR Panel discussed features of the new 
TINSS and SS base models. Specifically, comparisons of the updated 
TINSS and SS model revealed that: (1) Agreement in fit to the acoustic 
survey biomass was better between the models than in previous years; 
(2) there was a closer alignment in the spawning biomass trajectories 
and their associated

[[Page 28898]]

confidence intervals; (3) depletion at the beginning of the time series 
became closer (while depletion at the end of the time series became 
more divergent); (4) the agreement in the recruitment time series was 
much improved; (5) recruitment deviations in log space showed much 
closer agreement; and (6) the fishing intensity time series showed much 
closer agreement. Overall, it was observed that current spawning 
biomass estimates and the associated confidence intervals showed good 
agreement between the two models, although uncertainty remained large 
for both models. The Joint STAT and the STAR Panel generally concluded 
that the current configurations of the TINSS and SS models represented 
the best base-case models for development of management advice. There 
was recognition, however, that uncertainty in the strength of the 2008 
year class was very high and alternative model structures (such as 
parameterizations with time-varying selectivity) could be put forward 
that would very likely give less optimistic characterizations of 
current stock status.
    At the March 2011 Council meeting, the Council's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the Pacific whiting stock 
assessment, which was based on the two models identified above. The SSC 
recommended both model results as equally plausible and recommended key 
management quantities such as the maximum sustainable yield harvest 
level and stock depletion in 2011 (126 percent of virgin biomass) be 
derived using model-averaging with equal weight. Using this approach, 
the stock assessment estimated that the Pacific whiting biomass was at 
126 percent of its unfished biomass in 2011.

Harvest Specification Recommendations

    The U.S. harvest levels analyzed in the FEIS for 2011 and 2012 
specifications and management measures varied between a low of 96,969 
mt and a high of 290,903 mt. This range represents 50 to 150 percent of 
the 2010 U.S. Optimum Yield (OY) of 193,935 mt. These broad ranges in 
Pacific whiting harvest levels were analyzed in order to assess the 
potential range of the effects of the harvest of Pacific whiting on 
incidentally-caught overfished species, and the economic effects to 
coastal communities.
    The Council adopted the Pacific whiting stock assessment (Stewart 
et al., 2011) recommended by the STAR panel and the SSC. After 
consideration of additional input from Council advisory bodies and 
public comment, the Council adopted a coastwide (U.S. plus Canada) OFL 
of 973,700 mt for 2011 and a coastwide ACL of 393,751 mt.
    The final Overfishing Level (OFL) and ACL values recommended by the 
Council for 2011 are based on the new stock assessments, and are 
consistent with the U.S.-Canada agreement and the impacts considered in 
the FEIS for the 2011 and 2012 management measures.
    The U.S. share of the OFL is 719,370 mt (or 73.88 percent of the 
coastwide OFL). The U.S. share of the ACL is 290,903 mt (or 73.88 
percent of the coastwide ACL).

Tribal Fishery Allocations

    This final rule establishes the tribal allocation of Pacific 
whiting for 2011. Since 1996, NMFS has been allocating a portion of the 
U.S. OY of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery using the process 
established in 50 CFR 660.50(d)(1). The tribal allocation is subtracted 
from the total U.S. Pacific whiting OY before it is allocated to the 
non-tribal sectors. The tribal Pacific whiting fishery is a separate 
fishery, and is not governed by the limited entry or open access 
regulations or allocations. To date, only the Makah Tribe has 
prosecuted a tribal fishery for Pacific whiting. For 2011, both the 
Makah and Quileute have stated their intent to participate in the 
Pacific whiting fishery. The Quinault Nation has indicated that they do 
not plan to participate in the 2011 fishery, unless their circumstances 
change.
    This final rule is not intended to establish any precedent for 
future Pacific whiting seasons, or for the long-term tribal allocation 
of whiting. Based on the formula for the tribal allocation used in the 
proposed rule, and taking into account public comments received on the 
proposed rule, the tribal allocation of Pacific whiting in 2011 is 
[17.5 percent * (U.S. ACL)] + 16,000 mt. With a U.S. ACL of 290,903 mt, 
the tribal allocation for the 2011 tribal Pacific whiting fishery is 
66,908 mt.

Non-Tribal Allocations

    The 2011 commercial (non-tribal) harvest guideline (HG) for Pacific 
whiting is 220,995 mt. This amount was determined by deducting from the 
total U.S. ACL of 290,903 mt, the 66,908 mt tribal allocation, along 
with 3,000 mt for research catch and bycatch in non-groundfish 
fisheries. These Pacific whiting fishery allocations are described in 
regulations at Table 1a to Part 660, subpart C, and footnote e/ and are 
being revised with this final rule. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.55(i)(2) 
allocate the commercial HG among the non-tribal catcher/processor, 
mothership, and shorebased sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery. The 
catcher/processor sector is allocated 34 percent (75,138 mt for 2011), 
the mothership sector is allocated 24 percent (53,039 mt for 2011), and 
the shorebased sector is allocated 42 percent (92,818 mt for 2011). The 
fishery south of 42[deg] N. lat. may not take more than 4,641 mt (5 
percent of the shorebased allocation) prior to the start of the primary 
Pacific whiting season north of 42[deg] N. lat.
    Regarding the shorebased sector, NMFS issued a temporary rule under 
emergency authority on December 30, 2010 (75 FR 82296) implementing 
interim measures for the Pacific coast groundfish fisheries beginning 
in January, 2011. The measures were necessary due to a delay in the 
finalization of the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management 
measures. As part of the December 30, 2010 emergency action, 18,467 mt 
of Pacific whiting was allocated to the shorebased sector. Therefore, 
this final rule provides an additional 74,351 mt of Pacific whiting to 
the shorebased sector, so that the total 2011amount is 92,818 mt.
    Allocations of Pacific Ocean perch, canary rockfish, darkblotched 
rockfish, and widow rockfish to the whiting fishery were published in 
the 2011-2012 Biennial Harvest Specifications and Management Measures 
Final rule, on May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27508). The Pacific whiting fishery 
allocations for these species are described in Sec.  660.55(c)(1)(i) 
and in Table 1b, subpart C.

Comments and Responses

    On April 5, 2011, NMFS issued a proposed rule for the allocation 
and management of the 2011 tribal Pacific whiting fishery (75 FR 
18709). The comment period on this proposed rule closed on April 19, 
2011. During the comment period, NMFS received four letters of comment. 
The U.S. Department of Interior submitted a letter of ``no comment'' 
associated with their review of the proposed rule. The Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, American Seafoods Company, and Pacific 
Whiting Conservation Cooperative also submitted comments. Comments 
received on the proposed rule for the allocation and management of the 
2011 tribal Pacific whiting fishery are addressed below.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Comment 1: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
expressed concern that the NMFS implementing regulations for

[[Page 28899]]

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Amendment 20, the trawl rationalization 
program, inadvertently removed the regulatory provisions allowing for 
the rollover of unused tribal whiting to the non-tribal whiting 
sectors. They state that the Council discussions regarding whiting 
rollover provisions during development of Amendment 20 focused solely 
on unused whiting among the non-tribal sectors, with the expectation 
that non-tribal whiting would be fully harvested under the trawl 
rationalization program.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the WDFW interpretation of events 
leading to regulations implementing FMP Amendment 20 that do not 
authorize ``reapportionment'' (regulatory term used historically) of 
whiting between the tribal sector and the non-tribal sector. This issue 
was broadly addressed in Appendix B of the Amendment 20 FEIS (Section 
B-1.2, p. B-15), which describes two options in front of the Council.
    Option 1 stated that there would not be a rollover of unused 
whiting from one sector to another. Option 2 described how each year, 
rollovers to other sectors may occur if sector participants are 
surveyed by NMFS and no participants intend to harvest remaining sector 
allocations in that year. Option 2 would have maintained existing 
provisions for NMFS to reallocate unused sector allocations of whiting 
from sectors no longer active in the fishery to other sectors still 
active in the fishery. This option included reference to the 
regulations at former 50 CFR 660.323(c) on reapportionments, which 
stated ``[t]hat portion of a sector's allocation that the Regional 
Administrator determines will not be used by the end of the fishing 
year shall be made available for harvest by the other sectors, if 
needed, in proportion to their initial allocations, on September 15 or 
as soon as practicable thereafter. NMFS may release whiting again at a 
later date to ensure full utilization of the resource. Whiting not 
needed in the fishery authorized under 50 CFR 660.324 may also be made 
available.'' The regulations at former 50 CFR 660.324, Pacific Coast 
treaty Indian fisheries, included the tribal whiting fishery. However, 
the Council chose Option 1, which did not include a rollover or 
reapportionment mechanism. NMFS concluded that this Council decision 
included the tribal sector as well, since reapportionment from the 
tribal to the non-tribal sector was included in Option 2. In addition, 
the regulations implementing Amendment 20 were deemed as necessary and 
appropriate under the MSA through the Council process, with many 
industry and agency representatives reviewing the regulations in great 
detail, paragraph by paragraph.
    Comment 2: WDFW states that the roll-over or reapportionment unused 
tribal whiting to the non-tribal fishery allows for full utilization of 
the harvestable yield, consistent with the groundfish FMP and National 
Standards. WDFW also expresses a desire for a mechanism for ``fixing'' 
the rollover issue by the fall of 2011.
    Response: As described above, the Council adopted a motion during 
the process of adopting Amendment 20 that there would be no rollover of 
whiting between sectors. NMFS interpreted the motion to include the 
tribal fishery and worked through a very public process, which included 
representatives from the whiting sectors, for the Council to deem the 
regulations not including reapportionment between the tribal and non-
tribal fisheries. If the Council decides to recommend a reapportionment 
mechanism through the Council process, the regulations may be modified 
if appropriate.
    Comment 3: WDFW expresses concern about lack of communication on 
the part of NMFS with WDFW regarding tribal whiting set asides, fishing 
plans and bycatch avoidance measures.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that interagency communications can be 
improved, and will work towards establishing more frequent and 
effective dialogue. NMFS, the treaty tribes, and the States of 
Washington and Oregon have initiated a process to determine a potential 
long term tribal allocation of Pacific whiting, and NMFS anticipates 
improved communications with all parties as that process moves forward.

American Seafoods Company

    Comment 4: American Seafoods states that the 66,908 mt tribal 
allocation amount identified in the proposed rule is approximately 
50,000 mt higher than the actual 2010 tribal harvest of Pacific 
whiting. American Seafoods states that the agency should conduct a 
good-faith evaluation of the realistic harvest by the tribes in 2011 in 
order to avoid unnecessarily limiting the allocation to the non-tribal 
whiting fishery.
    Response: The tribal allocation identified in the proposed rule was 
based on the specific requests from the Makah and Quileute tribes. No 
comments were received from the two tribes during the comment period, 
and therefore NMFS has concluded that the tribal requests for 2011 have 
not changed. The allocation in the proposed rule is 23 percent of the 
U.S. OY. The proposed allocation, although higher than the absolute 
amounts of prior tribal allocations, is well within the range of past 
percentages (12.08-36.78 percent). While further negotiation on the 
long-term tribal allocation of Pacific whiting will occur among NMFS, 
the states, and the treaty Indian tribes, NMFS believes that current 
knowledge on the distribution and abundance of the coastal Pacific 
whiting stock supports a conclusion that the proposed tribal allocation 
of 66,908 mt lies within the range of the tribal treaty right to 
Pacific whiting.
    The harvest of Pacific whiting by the Makah Tribe in 2010 was 
18,255 mt. Although the final tribal allocation for 2011 is 
significantly higher than the 2010 harvest by the Makah tribe, there is 
no available information on which to base a conclusion that the 2011 
tribal harvests, assuming participation by both the Makah and Quileute 
tribes, will be similar to the 2010 tribal whiting harvest.
    Comment 5: American Seafoods also notes that the ability to 
rollover unused tribal whiting to the non-tribal sector was eliminated 
in the rulemaking process for FMP Amendments 20 and 21. They urge NMFS 
to promptly reinstate its rollover authority, stating their belief that 
there was no intent by the Council to remove that authority.
    Response: See response to comments 1 and 2 above.
    Comment 6: The combination of the proposed tribal allocation for 
2011 and lack of a rollover procedure almost guarantees that the 
fisheries, collectively, will not achieve optimum yield. American 
Seafoods disagrees with NMFS' preliminary determination that management 
measures for the tribal fishery are consistent with MSA National 
Standards and other applicable laws. They state the proposed allocation 
and removal of rollover authority violates National Standards 1 and 8, 
preventing overfishing while achieving optimum yield, and taking into 
account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. NMFS is obligated to 
establish a tribal allocation that is consistent with treaty rights as 
well as MSA national standards. As discussed in the proposed rule 
preamble, the tribal allocation in this rule is based on tribal 
requests and is within the likely amount of the total treaty right 
based on the best available scientific information regarding the 
migration of whiting through the tribes' usual and accustomed fishing 
grounds. NMFS believes that the tribal allocation in this final rule 
reflects a reasonable balance

[[Page 28900]]

that provides for the tribes' exercise of their treaty right and 
complies with the MSA national standards. NMFS is not ``limiting'' the 
non-tribal harvest by allowing a higher tribal allocation in 2011 than 
in the past.
    Comment 7: American Seafoods disagrees with the values of whiting 
NMFS used in the proposed rule ($160.00/mt), stating that Pacific 
whiting produces gross revenue of $1,000/mt. They state that if the 
tribal harvest remains similar to 2010, up to 50,000 mt of Pacific 
whiting would go unharvested, resulting in a direct revenue loss to the 
nation of approximately $50 million.
    Response: American Seafoods is a major at-sea catcher-processor 
company. This response is tailored to some of the issues with 
establishing an ex-vessel price for at-sea companies and recognition 
that ex-vessel prices do not reflect wholesale or export prices. In the 
economic analysis to support this rulemaking, ex-vessel values were 
used to establish the value of the fishery. This is a fairly standard 
practice for Pacific Fishery Management Council economic analyses, as 
well as other documents. For example, the following is taken from a 
report by Northern Economics, Inc. ``The Seafood Industry in Alaska's 
Economy'' prepared for the Marine Conservation Alliance, At-Sea 
Processors Association, and Pacific Seafood Processors Association 
(January 2009.) ``Ex-vessel value: This term nominally means the value 
of harvested but unprocessed fish as it transferred off of the 
harvesting vessel. Typically the ex-vessel value equals the amount of 
money that fishing vessels receive for unprocessed fish or shellfish; 
ex-vessel value is equal to the quantity of fish or shellfish retained 
for processing multiplied by the ex-vessel (dockside) per-unit price. 
Catcher processors do not technically generate an ex-vessel value, but 
a value may be imputed from catcher processor harvested fish.'' 
Elsewhere this report states ``Catcher processors, because their fish 
are fed directly into their on-board processing lines do not generate a 
financial transaction in which fish are bought or sold. Technically, 
therefore, there is no ex-vessel price associated with the raw/
unprocessed fish. In order to account for the value of this fish, so 
that it can be compared to other fisheries, an ex-vessel value is often 
imputed for them. The imputed ex-vessel value is equal to the price per 
pound of shore based fish of the same species caught in a similar 
location with a similar gear multiplied by the amount of catcher 
processor harvests.'' However, the commenter is correct in that use of 
ex-vessel values understates the total sales values (domestic or 
export). To impute a total sales value, several types of data are 
needed, including: total production of finished product by finished 
product; the average amount of raw fish used to make finished product 
(product recovery rate), and the average price of the finished product. 
For example, during 2010, according to U.S. foreign trade statistics, 
approximately 36,197 mt of headed and gutted product was exported at a 
value of $73.8 million. If the product recovery rate is 0.65 percent (1 
lb of raw fish yields 0.65 lbs of finished product), 55,688 mt of raw 
hake yields 36,197 mt of headed and gutted product. (Headed and gutted 
fish is a major hake item. Unfortunately, export prices for surimi and 
fillets, the other major hake products, cannot be estimated as U.S. 
trade statistic categories on surimi and fillets do not distinguish 
between hake and other species such as pollock.) With a total finished 
value of $73.8 million, the imputed export price per ton of raw fish 
processed is $1,325 per mt ($73,800/55,688 mt).
    At this time NMFS does not have very good data on the amount of 
finished products by sector (shoreside, tribal, mothership, and 
catcher-processor) or wholesale values and product recovery rates by 
finished product (headed and gutted, surimi, or fillets). NMFS 
anticipates that the industry will provide, possibly through the 
economic data collection processes associated with Amendment 20 to the 
Pacific Fishery Groundfish FMP, the data needed to develop wholesale 
values of industry production. For now, using the above example, NMFS 
will revise its analysis to include a statement that indicates that the 
use of ex-vessel values understates the total wholesale or export 
values associated with Pacific whiting products.

Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (PWCC)

    Comment 8: The PWCC urges NMFS to develop a remedy for 2011 that 
provides regulatory authority to reapportion unharvested whiting from 
the tribal to the non-tribal fishery, stating that Council intent 
during the Amendment 20 trawl rationalization process was that the 
decision to not allow reapportionment was applied solely to the non-
tribal fishery. They feel that Council intent, past NMFS practice, and 
recent experience where tribal whiting has been stranded creates a 
situation where authority to reapportion potentially unharvested 
whiting should be reinstituted. They suggest action by NMFS to reassert 
and/or reinstitute its reapportionment authority.
    Response: See response to comments 1 and 2 above.
    Comment 9: PWCC urges NMFS to work with the states of Oregon, 
Washington, and the coastal treaty tribes, as well as consult with the 
fishing industry, to develop a long-term tribal whiting set aside.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this suggestion, and intends to continue 
work on development of a long-term tribal whiting allocation for the 
future.
    Comment 10: PWCC believes the proposed 2011 tribal whiting set 
aside is too high. PWCC points out that the proposed rule acknowledged 
that the tribal whiting set aside can unnecessarily limit the non-
tribal fishery if set too high. Given past performance and lack of 
demonstrated fishing operations from the Quileute and Quinault tribes, 
whiting will be stranded, potentially foregoing tens of millions of 
dollars in gross revenue, in contravention of MSA National Standard 1. 
They suggest a realistic 2011 tribal whiting set aside.
    Response: NMFS is obligated to establish a tribal allocation that 
is consistent with treaty rights as well as MSA national standards. 
NMFS believes that the tribal allocation in this final rule reflects a 
reasonable balance that provides for the tribes' exercise of their 
treaty right while maintaining compliance with the MSA national 
standards. See also response to comment 6 above.
    Comment 11: PWCC acknowledges the Makah tribe's history in the 
fishery, including management plans, monitoring, and enforcement 
mechanisms, as compared to the Quileute and Quinault tribes, which have 
no experience or management plans. NMFS has provided no evidence that 
the Quileute and Quinault will have viable fishing operations with 
management plans addressing their potential fisheries, including plans 
for how bycatch and impacts on protected species will be minimized. 
PWCC suggests tangible fishing plans from each tribe.
    Response: As discussed above, NMFS based its decision regarding the 
tribal allocation on the tribes' requests and statements of intent 
regarding participation in the fishery. During late 2010 and early 
2011, NMFS held individual meetings with the Quileute and Makah tribes, 
as well as the Quinault Indian Nation. NMFS has discussed the tribes' 
fishing plans and preparations with them and understands that both the 
Makah and Quileute tribes have fishing plans that

[[Page 28901]]

address operations, bycatch management, and catch reporting.

Classification

    The final Pacific whiting specifications and management measures 
for 2011 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and the Pacific Whiting Act of 
2006, and are in accordance with 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, 
the regulations implementing the FMP. The Administrator, Northwest 
Region, NMFS, has determined that this rule is consistent with the 
national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable 
laws.
    Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 
NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the 
2011 Pacific whiting specifications as delaying this rule would be 
contrary to the public interest. The FMP requires that fishery 
specifications be evaluated periodically using the best scientific 
information available. The annual harvest specifications for Pacific 
whiting must be implemented by the start of the primary Pacific whiting 
season, which begins on May 15, 2011 or the primary whiting season will 
effectively remain closed. Pacific whiting differs from other 
groundfish species in that it has a shorter life span and the 
population fluctuates more swiftly. Thus, it is important to use the 
most recent stock assessment for Pacific whiting when determining OFLs 
and ACLs.
    Every year, NMFS conducts a Pacific whiting stock assessment in 
which U.S. and Canadian scientists cooperate. The 2011 stock assessment 
for Pacific whiting was prepared in early 2011, which is the optimal 
time of year to conduct stock assessments for this species because the 
new 2010 data for the assessment are not available until January, 2011. 
The new data that were analyzed in the assessment include: Updated 
total catch; length and age data from the U.S. and Canadian fisheries; 
and biomass indices from the Joint U.S.-Canadian acoustic/midwater 
trawl surveys. Because of the delay in obtaining the new data and 
conducting the assessment, the results of Pacific whiting stock 
assessments are not available for use in developing the new harvest 
specifications until just before the Council's annual March meeting.
    The primary Pacific whiting season begins on May 15, 2011. Because 
of the delay in obtaining the best available data for the assessment, 
it was not possible to provide for notice and comment before the start 
of the Pacific whiting season on May 15.
    A delay in implementing the higher Pacific whiting harvest 
specifications to allow for notice and comment would shorten the 
primary whiting season and could prevent the tribal and non-tribal 
fisheries from attaining their higher 2011 allocations, and thus would 
result in unnecessary short-term adverse economic effects for the 
Pacific whiting fishing vessels and the associated fishing communities.
    NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in 
effectiveness 2011 Pacific whiting specifications and the 2011 tribal 
allocation of Pacific whiting pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). A delay 
in implementing the higher Pacific whiting harvest specifications to 
allow for the 30-day delay in effectiveness would further shorten the 
primary whiting season and could prevent the tribal and non-tribal 
fisheries from attaining their higher 2011 allocations, and thus would 
result in unnecessary short-term adverse economic effects for the 
Pacific whiting fishing vessels and the associated fishing communities. 
For these reasons, this final rule is made effective upon publication.
    The environmental impacts associated with the Pacific whiting 
harvest levels that are adopted by this action are within the impacts 
in the FEIS for the 2011-2012 specification and management measures. In 
approving the 2011-2012 groundfish harvest specifications and 
management measures, NMFS issued a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD 
was signed on April 27, 2011. Copies of the FEIS and the ROD are 
available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
and FRFA for the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management 
measures. These analyses included the regulatory impacts of this action 
on small entities. The IRFA was summarized in the proposed rule 
published on November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67810). A summary of the FRFA 
analysis, which covers the entire groundfish regulatory scheme of which 
this is a part, was published in the final rule on May 11, 2011. An 
IRFA was also prepared for the proposed rule on the tribal fishery for 
Pacific whiting in 2011. This proposed rule was published on April 5, 
2011 (76 FR 18709). A FRFA for that rule was also prepared, and a 
summary of that FRFA is contained below. A copy of this analysis is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The need for and objectives of 
this final rule are contained in the SUMMARY and in the Background 
section under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    The final 2011-2012 specifications and management measures were 
intended to allow West Coast commercial and recreational fisheries 
participants to fish the harvestable surplus of more abundant stocks, 
while also ensuring that those fisheries do not exceed the allowable 
catch levels intended to rebuild and protect overfished stocks. The 
harvest specifications are consistent with and based on the guidance of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Standard guidelines, and the FMP 
for protecting and conserving fish stocks. Fishery management measures 
include trip and bag limits, size limits, time/area closures, gear 
restrictions, and others intended to allow year-round West Coast 
groundfish landings, without compromising overfished species rebuilding 
measures.
    In recent years, the number of participants engaged in the Pacific 
whiting fishery has varied with changes in the Pacific whiting OY and 
economic conditions. Pacific whiting shoreside vessels (26 to 29), 
mothership processors (4 to 6), mothership catcher vessels (11-20), 
catcher/processors (5 to 9), Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers 
(8-16), and five tribal trawlers are the major units of this fishery. 
Additional tribal trawlers may enter the fishery. NMFS records suggest 
the gross annual revenue for each of the catcher/processor and 
mothership operations on the Pacific coast exceeds $4,000,000. 
Therefore, they are not considered small businesses. NMFS records also 
show that 10-43 catcher vessels have taken part in the mothership 
fishery yearly since 1994. These companies are all assumed to be small 
businesses as defined by the RFA (although some of these vessels may be 
affiliated with larger processing companies). Since 1994, 26-31 catcher 
vessels participated in the shoreside fishery annually. These companies 
are all assumed to be small businesses, although some of these vessels 
may be affiliated with larger processing companies. This is the first 
year of the new trawl rationalization program where: The shorebased 
trawler sector is managed by an individual fishing quota program; the 
catcher-processor sector will continue to be managed by a co-op; and 
all participants in the mothership program will be fishing under a 
single mothership co-op. Therefore, it is expected that through 
rationalization, the number of participants in these sectors will 
decrease from previous levels. Based on a review of the available data, 
tribal trawlers impacted by this rule are small

[[Page 28902]]

entities, and the Tribes are small government jurisdictions.
    Pacific whiting has grown in importance, especially in recent 
years. Through the 1990s the volume of Pacific whiting landed in the 
fishery increased. In 2002 and 2003, landings of Pacific whiting 
declined due to information showing the stock was depleted and the 
subsequent regulations that restricted harvest in order to rebuild the 
species. Over the years 2003-2007 estimated Pacific whiting ex-vessel 
values averaged about $29 million. In 2008, these participants 
harvested about 248,000 mt of whiting worth about $63 million in ex-
vessel value, based on shoreside ex-vessel prices of $254 per mt--the 
highest ex-vessel revenues and prices on record. In comparison, the 
2007 fishery harvested about 224,000 mt worth $36 million at an average 
ex-vessel price of about $160 per mt. In 2009, tribal and non-tribal 
fleets harvested about 122,000 mt of whiting worth about $14 million. 
During 2009, ex-vessel prices declined to about $119 per mt, presumably 
due to the worldwide recession. For 2010, the preliminary ex-vessel 
price returned to $160 per mt, leading to about $27 million in revenues 
in 2010, based on a total harvest of 170,000 mt. All sectors should see 
increased revenues as the total allowable level of harvest has 
increased from 193,935 mt in 2010 to 290,903 mt in 2011.
    However, the use of ex-vessel values as a means to impute the value 
of the fishery does not take into account the wholesale or export value 
of the fishery or the costs of harvesting and processing whiting into a 
finished product. NMFS does not have adequate data to make a full 
assessment of these values. However, there are two indicators that show 
current trends: The export price of headed and gutted whiting and the 
price of fuel. Seafood processors convert Pacific whiting into surimi, 
fillets, fish meal, and headed and gutted products. Besides high OY 
levels in recent years, increased prices for headed and gutted Pacific 
whiting have contributed to the increase in ex-vessel revenues. From 
2004-2007, wholesale prices for headed and gutted Pacific whiting 
product increased from about $1,200 per mt to $1,600 per mt. In 2008, 
wholesale prices averaged $1,980 per mt, according to U.S. Export Trade 
statistics, and in 2009, prices fell slightly to $1,950 per mt. In 
2010, prices increased to almost $2,040 per mt. Fuel prices, a major 
expense for Pacific whiting vessels, also increased dramatically. For 
example, at the start of the primary fishery in June 2008 fuel prices 
were about $4.30 per gallon, compared to June 2007 levels of $2.70 per 
gallon. However, by 2009, these prices fell from their June, 2008 high 
to about $2.32 per gallon. As indicated by Newport, Oregon fuels 
prices, prices are increasing. In July of 2009, Newport, Oregon fuel 
prices were about $2.20 a gallon. In July of 2010 they increased to 
$2.50 per gallon, and as of April 2011, the price of fuel is $3.75 per 
gallon.
    The fisheries' ability to harvest the entire 2011 Pacific whiting 
ACL will depend on how well the industry limits the bycatch of 
overfished species, as well as the ability of each sector to harvest 
their Pacific whiting allocation. For example, in 2008 the Pacific 
whiting shoreside fishery was closed prematurely because of overfished 
species bycatch issues, leaving a major portion of its allocation 
unharvested. Although NMFS transferred the unharvested allocations to 
the other nontribal fleets, by year's end, 7 percent of the 2008 
Pacific whiting OY remained unharvested. Under this final rule, there 
is no legal mechanism to reapportion any sector's unutilized 
allocation. (See response to Comment 1.)
    NMFS did not consider a broad range of alternatives to the tribal 
allocation because the allocation is based primarily on the requests of 
the tribes for a level of participation in the fishery that will allow 
them to exercise their treaty right to fish for whiting. Consideration 
of amounts lower than the tribal requests is not appropriate here, 
where based on the information available to NMFS the requested amount 
appears to be within the amount to which the tribes are entitled. A 
higher amount would arguably be within the scope of the treaty right, 
but would unnecessarily limit the non-tribal fishery. A no action 
alternative was considered, but the regulatory structure provides for a 
tribal allocation on an annual basis only. Therefore, no action would 
result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the tribal sector in 
2011, inconsistent with NMFS' obligation to manage the fishery 
consistent with the tribes' treaty rights. Given that the Makah and 
Quileute tribes have made specific requests for allocations in 2011, 
this alternative received no further consideration.
    With the implementation of Fishery Management Plan amendments 20 
and 21, the ability to reapportion Pacific whiting from tribal to non-
tribal fisheries was eliminated. Similarly, unharvested whiting 
allocated to the non-tribal shoreside, mothership, and catcher-
processor sectors cannot be reapportioned among these sectors. So, 
unlike 2010, the regulations do not provide NMFS a specific mechanism 
to reapportion unharvested tribal whiting to the non-tribal sectors, 
and will not be able to reapportion among the non-tribal sectors. 
Pending markets, available bycatch, and the ability of tribal fleets to 
develop the capacity to harvest the tribal allocation may result in 
unharvested Pacific whiting because there is no regulatory mechanism to 
reapportion. Similarly, there may be unharvested Pacific whiting in the 
other sectors as well.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this action was developed after 
meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from 
the area covered by the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Council must be a 
representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing 
rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, 
regulations implementing the FMP establish a procedure by which the 
tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the FMP 
request, in writing, new allocations or regulations specific to the 
tribes before the first of the two meetings at which the Council 
considers groundfish management measures. Both the Makah and Quileute 
Tribes requested a Pacific whiting allocation for 2011. The regulations 
at 50 CFR 660.50(d)(2) further state that, ``the Secretary will develop 
tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation 
with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal 
consensus.'' Over the last eight months, NMFS has met with each of the 
tribes and have had additional discussions regarding their plans for 
2011.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    There are no reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance 
requirements in the final rule.
    No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this action.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, 
November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, 
and December 15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the PCGFMP 
fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, 
Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, 
upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, 
California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern 
Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal

[[Page 28903]]

summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and 
steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, 
upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central 
Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern 
California). These biological opinions have concluded that 
implementation of the PCGFMP was not expected to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the 
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 
2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the 
groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999 Biological 
Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the 
Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the 
11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering 
reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish 
Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an 
analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.
    NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 
2006, which addressed salmon take in both the Pacific whiting midwater 
trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental 
Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 
2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered 
during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 
over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the 
reinitiation trigger of 11,000.
    Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450. The 
Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the whiting fishery have generally 
improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation. Although 
these species remain at risk, as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS 
concluded that the higher observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a 
reconsideration of its prior ``no jeopardy'' conclusion with respect to 
the fishery. For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded 
that incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall 
limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 
Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion 
was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data 
to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination 
that implementation of the PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
    Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) were 
recently listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) 
were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological 
opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting 
fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch 
of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
    The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon 
was listed as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006). 
The southern DPS of Pacific eulachon was listed as threatened on March 
18, 2010, under the ESA (75 FR 13012). NMFS has reinitiated 
consultation on the fishery, including impacts on green sturgeon, 
eulachon, marine mammals, and turtles. After reviewing the available 
information, NMFS has concluded that, consistent with sections 7(a)(2) 
and 7(d) of the ESA, the proposed action would not jeopardize any 
listed species, would not adversely modify any designated critical 
habitat, and would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable 
commitment of resources that would have the effects of foreclosing the 
formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative 
measures.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

    Dated: May 16, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 USC 773 et seq., and 16 
U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  660.50 paragraph (f)(4) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.50  Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Pacific whiting. The tribal allocation for 2011 is 66,908 mt.
* * * * *

0
3. In part 660, subpart C,
0
a. Revise Table 1a,
0
b. Revise Table 1b to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 28904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MY11.007

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    a/ ACLs and HGs are specified as total catch values. Fishery 
harvest guidelines (HGs) means the harvest guideline or quota after 
subtracting from the ACL or ACT any allocation for the Pacific Coast 
treaty Indian Tribes, projected research catch, deductions for 
fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, as necessary, and 
set-asides for EFPs.
    b/ Lingcod north (Oregon and Washington). A new lingcod stock 
assessment was prepared in 2009. The lingcod north biomass was 
estimated to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
OFL of 2,438 mt was calculated using an FMSYproxy of F45%. The ABC 
of 2,330 mt was based on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma] 
= 0.36/P* = 0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the stock is 
above B40% coastwide, the ACL is set equal to the ABC.

[[Page 28905]]

ACL is further reduced for the Tribal fishery (250 mt), incidental 
open access fishery (16 mt) and research catch (5 mt), resulting in 
a fishery HG of 2,059 mt.
    c/ Lingcod south (California). A new lingcod stock assessment 
was prepared in 2009. The lingcod south biomass was estimated to be 
at 74 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 2,523 mt 
was calculated using an FMSYproxy of F45%. The ABC of 2,102 mt was 
based on a 17 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma] = 0.72/P* = 
0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the stock is above B40% 
coastwide, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. An incidental open 
access set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from the ACL, resulting in a 
fishery HG of 2,095 mt.
    d/ Pacific Cod. The 3,200 mt OFL is based on the maximum level 
of historic landings. The ABC of 2,222 mt is a 31 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma] = 1.44/P* = 0.40) as it's a category 3 
species. The 1,600 mt ACL is the OFL reduced by 50 percent as a 
precautionary adjustment. A set-aside of 400 mt is deducted from the 
ACL for the Tribal fishery resulting in a fishery HG of 1,200 mt.
    e/Pacific whiting. The most recent stock assessment was prepared 
in January 2011. The stock assessment estimated the Pacific whiting 
biomass to be at 126 percent (50th percentile estimate of depletion, 
using two equally plausible models that were averaged together) of 
its unfished biomass in 2011. The U.S.-Canada coastwide OFL is 
973,700 mt. The U.S. share of the OFL is 719,370 mt (73.88 percent 
of the coastwide OFL). The U.S.-Canada coastwide ACL is 393,751 mt, 
with a corresponding U.S. ACL (73.88 percent of the coastwide ACL) 
of 290,903 mt. The ACL is reduced by 66,908 mt for the tribal 
allocation, and a set-aside of 3,000 mt is deducted for the 
incidental open access fishery and research catch, resulting in a 
fishery HG of 220,995 mt.
    f/Sablefish north. A coastwide sablefish stock assessment was 
prepared in 2007. The coastwide sablefish biomass was estimated to 
be at 38.3 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The coastwide 
OFL of 8,808 mt was based on the 2007 stock assessment with a 
FMSYproxy of F45%. The ABC of 8,418 mt is a 4 percent reduction from 
the OFL ([sigma] = 0.36/P* = 0.45) as it's a category 1 species. The 
40-10 harvest policy was applied to the ABC to derive the coastwide 
ACL and then the ACL was apportioned north and south of 36[deg] N. 
lat, using the average of annual swept area biomass (2003-2008) from 
the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, between the northern and southern areas 
with 68 percent going to the area north of 36[deg] N. lat. and 32 
percent going to the area south of 36[deg] N. lat. The northern 
portion of the ACL is 5,515 mt and is reduced by 552 mt for the 
Tribal allocation (10 percent of the ACL north of 36[deg] N. lat.) 
The 552 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5 percent to account 
for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish allocations are shown in 
Table 1c.
    g/Sablefish South. That portion of the coastwide ACL apportioned 
to the area south of 36[deg] N. lat. is 2,595 mt (32 percent). An 
additional 50 percent reduction was made for uncertainty resulting 
in an ACL of 1,298 mt. A set-aside of 34 mt is deducted from the ACL 
for EFP catch (26 mt), the incidental open access fishery (6 mt) and 
research catch (2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,264 mt.
    h/Cabezon (Oregon). A new cabezon stock assessment was prepared 
in 2009. The cabezon biomass in Oregon was estimated to be at 51 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 52 mt was 
calculated using an FMSYproxy of F45%. The ABC of 50 mt was based on 
a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma] = 0.36/P* = 0.45) as 
it's a category 1 species. Because the stock is above B40% 
coastwide, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. No set-asides were 
removed so the fishery HG is also equal to the ACL at 50 mt. Cabezon 
in waters off Oregon were removed from the ``other fish'' complex, 
while cabezon of Washington will continue to be managed within the 
``other fish'' complex.
    i/Cabezon (California). A new cabezon stock assessment was 
prepared in 2009. The cabezon south biomass was estimated to be at 
48 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 187 mt was 
calculated using an FMSYproxy of F45%. The ABC of 179 mt was based 
on a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma] = 0.36/P* = 0.45) as 
it's a category 1 species. Because the stock is above B40% 
coastwide, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. No set-asides were 
removed so the fishery HG is also equal to the ACL at 179 mt.
    j/Dover sole. A 2005 Dover sole assessment estimated the stock 
to be at 63 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 
44,400 mt is based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment with 
an FMSYproxy of F30%. The ABC of 42,436 mt is a 4 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma] = 0.36/P* = 0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. Because the stock is above B25% coastwide, the ACL could be 
set equal to the ABC. However, the ACL of 25,000 mt is set at a 
level below the ABC and higher than the maximum historical landed 
catch. A set-aside of 1,590 mt is deducted from the ACL for the 
Tribal fishery (1,497 mt), the incidental open access fishery (55 
mt) and research catch (38 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 23,410 
mt.
    k/English sole. A stock assessment update was prepared in 2007 
based on the full assessment in 2005. The stock was estimated to be 
at 116 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. The OFL of 20,675 mt 
is based on the results of the 2007 assessment update with an 
FMSYproxy of F30%. The ABC of 19,761 mt is a 4 percent reduction 
from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. 
Because the stock is above B25%, the ACL was set equal to the ABC. A 
set-aside of 100 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery 
(91 mt), the incidental open access fishery (4 mt) and research 
catch (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 19,661 mt.
    l/Petrale sole. A petrale sole stock assessment was prepared for 
2009. In 2009 the petrale sole stock was estimated to be at 12 
percent of its unfished biomass coastwide, resulting in the stock 
being declared as overfished. The OFL of 1,021 mt is based on the 
2009 assessment with a F30% FMSYproxy. The ABC of 976 mt is a 4 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. The ACL is set equal to the ABC and corresponds 
to an SPR harvest rate of 31 percent. A set-aside of 65.4 mt is 
deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (45.4 mt), the 
incidental open access fishery (1 mt), EFP catch (2 mt) and research 
catch (17 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 911 mt.
    m/Arrowtooth flounder. The stock was last assessed in 2007 and 
was estimated to be at 79 percent of its unfished biomass in 2007. 
The OFL of 18,211 mt is based on the 2007 assessment with a F30% 
FMSYproxy. The ABC of 15,174 mt is a 17 percent reduction from the 
OFL ([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a category 2 species. Because the 
stock is above B25%, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 
2,078 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt), 
the incidental open access fishery (30 mt), and research catch (7 
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 13,096 mt.
    n/Starry Flounder. The stock was assessed for the first time in 
2005 and was estimated to be above 40 percent of its unfished 
biomass in 2005. For 2011, the coastwide OFL of 1,802 mt is based on 
the 2005 assessment with a FMSYproxy of F30%. The ABC of 1,502 mt is 
a 17 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.72/P*=0.40) as it's a 
category 2 species. Because the stock is above B25%, the ACL could 
have been set equal to the ABC. As a precautionary measure, the ACL 
of 1,352 mt is a 25 percent reduction from the OFL, which is a 10 
percent reduction from the ABC. A set-aside of 7 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (2 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,345 mt.
    o/``Other flatfish'' are the unassessed flatfish species that do 
not have individual OFLs/ABC/ACLs and include butter sole, curlfin 
sole, flathead sole, Pacific sand dab, rex sole, rock sole, and sand 
sole. The other flatfish OFL of 10,146 mt is based on the summed 
contribution of the OFLs determined for the component stocks. The 
ABC of 7,044 mt is a 31 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=1.44/P*=0.40) as all species in this complex are category 3 
species. The ACL of 4,884 mt is equivalent to the 2010 OY, because 
there have been no significant changes in the status or management 
of stocks within the complex. A set-aside of 198 mt is deducted from 
the ACL for the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental open access 
fishery (125 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery 
HG of 4,686 mt.
    p/POP. A POP stock assessment update was prepared in 2009, based 
on the 2003 full assessment, and the stock was estimated to be at 29 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 1,026 mt for the 
Vancouver and Columbia areas is based on the 2009 stock assessment 
update with an F50% FMSYproxy. The ABC of 981 mt is a 4 percent 
reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 
species. The ACL of 180 mt is based on a rebuilding plan with a 
target year to rebuild of 2020 and an SPR harvest rate of 86.4 
percent. An ACT of 157 mt is being established to address management 
uncertainty and increase the likelihood that total catch remains 
within the ACL. A set-aside of 12.8 mt is deducted from the ACT for 
the Tribal fishery (10.9 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt) and research catch 
(1.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 144.2 mt.
    q/Shortbelly rockfish. A non-quantitative assessment was 
conducted in 2007. The

[[Page 28906]]

spawning stock biomass of shortbelly rockfish was estimated at 67 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 6,950 mt was 
recommended for the stock in 2011 with an ABC of 5,789 mt 
([sigma]=0.72 with a P* of 0.40). The 50 mt ACL is slightly higher 
than recent landings, but much lower than previous OYs in 
recognition of the stock's importance as a forage species in the 
California Current ecosystem. A set-aside of 1 mt for research catch 
results in a fishery HG of 49 mt.
    r/Widow rockfish. The stock was assessed in 2009 and was 
estimated to be at 39 percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The 
OFL of 5,097 mt is based on the 2009 stock assessment with an F50% 
FMSYproxy. The ABC of 4,872 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. A constant 
catch strategy of 600 mt, which corresponds to an SPR harvest rate 
of 91.7 percent, will be used to rebuild the widow rockfish stock 
consistent with the rebuilding plan and a TTARGETof 2010. A set-
aside of 61 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (45 
mt), the incidental open access fishery (3.3 mt), EFP catch (11 mt) 
and research catch (1.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 539.1 mt.
    s/Canary rockfish. A canary rockfish stock assessment update, 
based on the full assessment in 2007, was completed in 2009 and the 
stock was estimated to be at 23.7 percent of its unfished biomass 
coastwide in 2009. The coastwide OFL of 614 mt is based on the new 
assessment with a FMSYproxy of F50%. The ABC of 586 mt is a 4 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. The ACL of 102 mt is based on a rebuilding plan 
with a target year to rebuild of 2027 and a SPR harvest rate of 88.7 
percent. A set-aside of 20 mt is deducted from the ACL for the 
Tribal fishery (9.5 mt), the incidental open access fishery (2 mt), 
EFP catch (1.3 mt) and research catch (7.2 mt) resulting in a 
fishery HG of 82 mt. Recreational HGs are being specified as 
follows: Washington recreational, 2.0; Oregon recreational 7.0 mt; 
and California recreational 14.5 mt.
    t/Chilipepper rockfish. The coastwide chilipepper stock was 
assessed in 2007 and estimated to be at 71 percent of its unfished 
biomass coastwide in 2006. Given that chilipepper rockfish are 
predominantly a southern species, the stock is managed with stock-
specific harvest specifications south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 
within minor shelf rockfish north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. South of 
40[deg]10' N. lat., the OFL of 2,073 mt is based on the 2007 
assessment with an FMSYproxy of F50%. The ABC of 1,981 mt is a 4 
percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. Because the biomass is estimated to be above 40 
percent of the unfished biomass, the ACL was set equal to the ABC. 
The ACL is reduced by the incidental open access fishery (5 mt), and 
research catch (9 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,966 mt.
    u/Bocaccio. A bocaccio stock assessment was prepared in 2009 
from Cape Mendocino to Cape Blanco (43[deg] N. lat.) Given that 
bocaccio rockfish are predominantly a southern species, the stock is 
managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. and within minor shelf rockfish north of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. The bocaccio stock was estimated to be at 28 
percent of its unfished biomass in 2009. The OFL of 737 mt is based 
on the 2009 stock assessment with an FMSYproxy of F50%. The ABC of 
704 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) 
as it's a category 1 species. The 263 mt ACL is based on a 
rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2022 and a SPR 
harvest rate of 77.7 percent. A set-aside of 13.4 mt is deducted 
from the ACL for the incidental open access fishery (0.7 mt), EFP 
catch (11 mt) and research catch (1.7 mt), resulting in a fishery HG 
of 249.6 mt.
    v/Splitnose rockfish. A new coastwide assessment was prepared in 
2009 that estimated the stock to be at 66 percent of its unfished 
biomass in 2009. Splitnose in the north is managed under the minor 
slope rockfish complex and south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. with species-
specific harvest specifications. South of 40[deg]10' N. lat. the OFL 
of 1,529 mt is based on the 2009 assessment with an FMSYproxy of 
F50%. The ABC of 1,461 mt is a 4 percent reduction from the OFL 
([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a category 1 species. Because the 
unfished biomass is estimated to be above 40 percent of the unfished 
biomass, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. A set-aside of 7 mt is 
deducted from the ACL for research catch, resulting in a fishery HG 
of 1,454 mt.
    w/Yellowtail rockfish. A yellowtail rockfish stock assessment 
was last prepared in 2005 for the Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka 
areas. Yellowtail rockfish was estimated to be at 55 percent of its 
unfished biomass in 2005. The OFL of 4,566 mt is based on the 2005 
stock assessment with the FMSYproxy of F50%. The ABC of 4,364 mt is 
a 4 percent reduction from the OFL ([sigma]=0.36/P*=0.45) as it's a 
category 1 species. The ACL was set equal to the ABC, because the 
stock is above B40%. A set-aside of 507 mt is deducted from the ACL 
for the Tribal fishery (490 mt), the incidental open access fishery 
(3 mt), EFP catch (10 mt) and research catch (4 mt), resulting in a 
fishery HG of 3,857 mt.
    x/Shortspine thornyhead. A coastwide stock assessment was 
conducted in 2005 and the stock was estimated to be at 63 percent of 
its unfished biomass in 2005. A coastwide OFL of 2,384 mt is based 
on the 2005 stock assessment with a F50% FMSYproxy. The coastwide 
ABC of 2,279 mt is a 4 percent reduction from